Comments for The DHS intel assessment, reaction to, fallout therefrom [Updated]

The DHS intel assessment, reaction to, fallout therefrom [Updated]

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:01:56 -0600

It's poorly written, badly done, and hardly qualifies as analysis, in that it provides no useful detail or scope, perspective, much less likely intent and capability - which is what *intelligence* is supposed to be, vice information, vice data. It paints with a brush so broad that it could be characterized as a map of Red America, with the annotation, "Here be dragons."I'm not quite as exercised about it as others are. I'm more offended by the lack of professionalism (and what that portends for DHS decision-making and downstream consumers of their "intel analysis") in the paper and the cluelessness of yet another Cabinet official, in this case Ms....

Comment from Samantha West on 2009-04-18

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:16:25 -0600

I see something a bit insidious in the DHS release. Oh yes, just posing the possibility that a veteran may be courted by extremist groups in and of itself seems harmless enough, but it is not. Well placed innuendo is used by ad agencies every day to provoke the response they want.

Ms Napolitano intended to shine a light on veterans, proponents of right to life, and those concerned about the failure to enforce immigration laws. She knows that those who side with her view of how things should be will naturally place more suspicion on her list of possible trouble makers now that the powerful Homeland Security has tagged them.

Naturally since her report was not scathing in any way, she can always claim she made no "accusation" but was just voicing concern. It's a bit like voicing concern that a rock could break a window so we must be suspicious of all rocks.

No. Napolitan's INTENT was to cast doubt on her list of "possible" troublemakers. Plain and simple.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-18

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:20:06 -0600

That it is, olga, that it is.

Comment from olga on 2009-04-17

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:32:42 -0600

BillT,
that's really f##ked up..

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-17

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:06:24 -0600

May be more serious than we think. And sooner.

Comment from JimC on 2009-04-17

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:32:28 -0600

Bill, Hackers are the only threat on the left. No mention of anything like MS-13 or terrorists. We are in serious trouble.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-17

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 17:00:39 -0600

What's been the reaction on the Lib Side to the flip side of the coin -- the report on Left Wing radicalism that DHS says was released in January?

Comment from JimC on 2009-04-17

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:37:17 -0600

I heard from a talking head on the radio yesterday that the unclassified compromised (?) FOUO document is actually the summary of a much larger classified document. If this is true, then classified report is what has me concerned.

Comment from XBradTC on 2009-04-17

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:42:42 -0600

Sadly, as a Life Member of the VFW, I too may have to reconsider my support for what has usually been a worthy organization. Apparently the Commander in Chief of the VFW is afraid of losing access to the councils of government. But how can the VFW strive toward its stated goals by abandoning its bedrock prinicples?