Slashdot Mirror
Classified US Intel Budget Revealed Via Powerpoint
Atario writes "In a holdover from the Cold War when the number really did matter to national security, the size of the US national intelligence budget remains one of the government's most closely guarded secrets. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the highest intelligence agency in the country that oversees all federal intelligence agencies, appears to have inadvertently released the keys to that number in an unclassified PowerPoint presentation now posted on the website of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). By reverse engineering the numbers in an underlying data element embedded in the presentation, it seems that the total budget of the 16 US intelligence agencies in fiscal year 2005 was $60 billion, almost 25% higher than previously believed."
Yes sir! Their policy is their mission statement:
Committed to Excellence in Defense of The Nation
Notice its "The Nation" and not "Our Nation."
I've got news for you, buddy. I didn't agree with the vast majority of Rumsfeld's policies, didn't vote for Bush, am not a Bush "worshipper", and could hardly be called a "Republican", considering my voting record.
See, some people don't think everything is one "side" or the other, like you do, and don't constantly vilify every single thing that Bush or anyone else who is Republican/conservative simply because they are. I bet you're a nice party-line Democrat/liberal (maybe Green mixed in, too?) voter, though, right? A real "open-minded" thinker?
On Plame: perhaps there shouldn't have been a massive, glaring conflict of interest by her own workgroup essentially sending her *husband* on the fact-finding mission? Especially when she and her husband have espoused obvious political positions in conflict with the administration's? (Hint: that isn't an intelligence officer's function or purpose.) This was playing politics on both sides, and I'm sorry, but no one has a monopoly on playing politics.
Your colorful language ("Rumsfeldian", "denial junkies", "you are too sick to try to cure with facts", "shoddy lies" expose you for what you are: yet another black-and-whiter who thinks anything that the GOP or anyone with any Republican/conservative affiliation does is naturally evil and all dedicated to perpetuating the blind sheep police state you think we're living in (or will be living in), and that only you and your ilk are "enlightened" and know the "facts" and the "truth". Spare me.
Oh yeah, you're a "Libertarian", right?
Just because you disagreed with Rumsfeld evidently doesn't make you immune to his rhetorical ploys. Then you get all spooked by "colorful language" - just because it paints you accurately as a liar.
Thank you for sticking to the Republican lies about Plame sending Wilson to Niger, when that's been disproven across the board. And since Wilson brought back the truth that dispelled Cheney and Bush's lies about Iraqi Niger uranium, what difference does it make who sent him, even if though it was completely without conflict?
You are so sick that all you've got is Rush Limbo's newsletter, and even more rumsfeldian hyperbolic denial of strawman extremes. You're the one thinking binary to deny the one you say I am. The one insisting only one person can be right categorically, to accuse me of that without grounds. The fact is that Bush and his gang lied us into war, keep us there losing badly with stunts like this latest intel exposure, and tens of millions of Americans like you are complicit in spinning his lies for him.
You're a worthless troll. Goodbye.
--
make install -not war
Oh yeah, you're a "Libertarian", right?
Nope. Sorry.
I voted about 70-75% for Democratic candidates in the last several local and national elections. Unlike you, I consider individual ideas and policies as appropriate for local, state, and national issues, and don't simply regurgitate the ridiculous party line accusatory bullshit that is all you seem capable of.
Also, I don't like Rush Limbaugh, and don't listen to him (or any other talk radio). The fact that you see no problem with Plame's husband doing the African factfinding speaks utter volumes.
Goodbye indeed.
I didn't say that was right, either. I said it was playing politics. And the two points aren't mutually exclusive.
And, to answer your question, it has EVERYTHING to do with Plame's outing. A lot of people think it was just a vindictive act to "get back" at Wilson. That was actually incidental (again, NOT saying it was right). The reason she was "outed" was in response to Wilson's editorial, saying, hey, this guy AND his wife have kind of a conflict of interest here. Like, the whole reason Wilson even has this pulpit for criticizing the administration is because he was sent "by his wife"[1] to Africa, and his wife and Wilson have clear political opinions on the administration's general positions on military action against Iraq.
While there may be internal procedures to deal with things like this, 1.) they obviously didn't work, since Wilson was sent, and 2.) Wilson was given an avenue to speak against administration policies because of his wife's position. "Outing" her (and again, I don't agree with it) was playing politics just as much as she, but especially Wilson, was. Oh, but what she did was "less" bad? I disagree. Using a position that isn't supposed to be political for political posturing from a position of secrecy is worse than a politician playing politics. Neither should have been done, and both were wrong, and arguing which is "worse" is academic.
[1] He wasn't really sent "by his wife"; but her team within CIA absolutely was involved in making the decision, and should have known better. And she should have almost insisted he not be sent because of this. This is why we have the notion of conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety: judges recuse themselves from cases even if they don't have an actual conflict, but just an appearance of one. I think that Wilson being sent and then using what was an official, non-political governmental factfinding capacity to turn around and chastise the administration on the editorial pages of the New York Times (hint: that's not the role of someone in that position) was just as bad as floating the whole reason he was doing this factfinding in the first place.
"What does "the Left" have to do with this stupid, costly screwup? The entire government was run by a Republican monopoly until this January."
Wow, you know nothing on politics. You have the logic of a child.