whew.

Your pap about "actionable intelligence" is so red a herring that I could attach it to the end of a train in place of a FRED.

From the link:

The briefing also told the president that the "CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in UAE in May saying a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives."

And the document also indicated that intelligence officials informed Bush they were aware of a long history of widespread Al Qaeda activity on U.S. soil that could help the terrorist network carry out assaults. "Al Qaeda members-- including some who are U.S. citizens--have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks," it said.

Now, whether or not this is "actionable" is so beyond the point. The point is that we have here two concrete instances of intelligence in the report that points to al-Qaeda activity on our shores.

Have we all got that?

Now from the same link, Congaline opines (or, perhaps more accurately, prevaricates):

"It is just not the case that the Aug. 6 memorandum did anything but put together what the CIA decided that they wanted to put together about historical knowledge about what was going on, and a few things about what the FBI might be doing," she said under questioning from Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, a Democrat. "And so the light was shining abroad." [emphasis added]

Now, ignoring the shrubbish, "[...] put together what the CIA decided that they wanted to put together about historical knowledge about what was going on[...]", which is simply gas exapnding to fill a time limit (or perhaps more accurately, Condi trying to to formulate the "correct" response; remember, she's not a very good liar), the important part is the highlight: "[...] the light was shining abroad." No, it wasn't. It was shining right here, and it is so clear that even our resident non-native English speaker (that would be you, Sir Cyclic) can understand it.

Post #150,936 by bepatient 4/12/04 8:34:29 PM Reply	whew. I was dreading having to actually s p e l l it. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,033 by jb4 4/13/04 2:03:11 PM Reply	But your spelling is notoriously faulty Your pap about "actionable intelligence" is so red a herring that I could attach it to the end of a train in place of a FRED. From the link: The briefing also told the president that the "CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in UAE in May saying a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives." And the document also indicated that intelligence officials informed Bush they were aware of a long history of widespread Al Qaeda activity on U.S. soil that could help the terrorist network carry out assaults. "Al Qaeda members-- including some who are U.S. citizens--have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks," it said. Now, whether or not this is "actionable" is so beyond the point. The point is that we have here two concrete instances of intelligence in the report that points to al-Qaeda activity on our shores. Have we all got that? Now from the same link, Congaline opines (or, perhaps more accurately, prevaricates): "It is just not the case that the Aug. 6 memorandum did anything but put together what the CIA decided that they wanted to put together about historical knowledge about what was going on, and a few things about what the FBI might be doing," she said under questioning from Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, a Democrat. "And so the light was shining abroad." [emphasis added] Now, ignoring the shrubbish, "[...] put together what the CIA decided that they wanted to put together about historical knowledge about what was going on[...]", which is simply gas exapnding to fill a time limit (or perhaps more accurately, Condi trying to to formulate the "correct" response; remember, she's not a very good liar), the important part is the highlight: "[...] the light was shining abroad." No, it wasn't. It was shining right here, and it is so clear that even our resident non-native English speaker (that would be you, Sir Cyclic) can understand it. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #151,384 by CRConrad 4/16/04 9:35:36 AM Reply	Yup, got that; it's obvious. (WTF YM, "even" I can get it?)
Post #151,390 by jb4 4/16/04 9:57:51 AM 4/16/04 9:58:23 AM Reply	Its a metaphor....or is that a simile...or a euphemism... Oh, yeah...I know...onomatopoeia! Yeah,...that's it! ;-0 As far as WTFIM, you are the only non-native English speaker that I could think of here (well...there's Peter, but I didn't want to go there....) jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT Edited by jb4 April 16, 2004, 09:58:23 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #151,469 by pwhysall 4/16/04 4:59:08 PM Reply	I'm the fookin' native speaker. You lot are just speaking a sub-language :-) Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Blog]
Post #151,717 by CRConrad 4/19/04 2:15:28 AM Reply	Sorry, mr Inferior Whisky-Like Beverage 4, but Peter's right

Welcome to IWETHEY!