Bloodless Coup

First, the NIE was written in what, April? The "need" for the present bill arose over the summer, really.

Second, what I've seen of the NIE suggests that it was written by political opponents of the Administration.

Third, "leftist, nationalist, or separatist" seems a good quick summary of the possible non-religious non-US groups that might want to attack US interests. The writer was almost certainly thinking of anti-globalization protesters and the like when he or she invoked the word "leftist".

While there's certainly much to worry about this morning, I don't see this particular reference as any more troublesome than anything else.

I say Greenwald, as is so often the case, has his head up his ass.

Ummm - nationalists who are opposed to globalization and the spread of US interests abroad can very easily come in "rightist" forms. And, like McVeigh, they can take deadly action that will not only harm US interests, but also kill lots of Americans. So I'm with Binky and Greenwald here - this should be eyebrow raising.

And the NIE is written by the intelligence agencies (most of which of course are under the control of the DOD), who then (if we use the pre-war Iraq NIE as a guide) have to deal with lots of interference from the White House and the Office of the Vice President to tone down anything that might make the president look bad. So I find the notion that it's merely a partisan hit job to be pretty silly. It's merely reporting the general facts on the ground.

If anything's showing bias it's the fact that the administration has blocked the release of this NIE and even the construction of the Iraq NIE. I mean it's downright embarrassing, to say nothing of dangerous to national security, that we haven't had a new one of those since before the war - 4 years ago! But the administration doesn't want potential bad news reported (bad for them news) - even when they can classify it and stick it in a safe.

i second armand, re political hit job -- is the suggestion here that sixteen intelligence agencies, basically all of them operating in the chief executive's shadow, tasked exclusively the screaming lefties in their midst to put together the NIE? i mean, come on. is there anything in what we've seen of the NIE that doesn't comport with what we've been hearing from thoughtful people on the left and right for a couple of years now?

no lefties done a fraction of the damage to the country's psyche done by mcveigh, the unabomber, and the anthrax scare (which i'd bet my house was not perpetrated by some leftwing hippy with a peace sign on a placard, just as i'd bet a lot that it wasn't perpetrated by anyone of middle-eastern descent). i think the far right fringe (and i'm not talking about the craven faux-republican hacks running the country, to be clear) could do far more to undermine this nation's basic philosophical framework than any foreign terrorist. it's the difference between cancer and a knife wound.

nationalists who are opposed to globalization and the spread of US interests abroad can very easily come in "rightist" forms.

Then they'd be included in the term "nationalist", right? What's your argument again?

Which "leftist" groups are likely to resort to violence? (Or at least, which "leftist" groups - that aren't part of the larger "anti-globlization" groups - are likely to resort to violence?).

I, too, thought the phrase "leftist" was odd. It doesn't seem to fit the rest of the list.

Well you wrote ...

Third, "leftist, nationalist, or separatist" seems a good quick summary of the possible non-religious non-US groups that might want to attack US interests. The writer was almost certainly thinking of anti-globalization protesters and the like when he or she invoked the word "leftist".

... and it strikes me that the exact same kinds of groups could be "rightist" as opposed to leftist. I'm thinking of extremist types who'd broadly follow the likes of a Pat Buchanan or a Le Pen and would stop at nothing to protect the supposedly sacred national culture.

I am always about inclusive language. Of movements that are nationalist, it is possible to have right or left. Of movements that are separatist, it is possible to have right or left. Terrorists may be of the right or left. Why then, is it necessary to specify some other vague "leftist" movements, if "left" isn't the operational aspect of the citation?