It would be irresponsible not to speculate. If Bush's past behavior on warrantless surveillance is any guide, he's trying to hide domestic operations by keeping most of the NIE secret. By now, we know the playbook. On warrantless surveillance, first we were told that the program targetted only furriners by court order, but in fact the program targetted everyone including Aunt Molly, without warrants, and terra was just an excuse. I just don't think Glenn Greenwald is cynical enough:

UPDATE: It really is odd and disturbing, as well as potentially quite dangerous, that the declassified NIE on the "Trends on Global Terrorism" focuses exclusively on Islamic terrorists -- except for the last section which conspicuously identifies "leftist" groups which use the Internet as a serious terrorist threat (h/t Sysprog). Odder still, it makes no mention at all of right-wing, anti-government movements (such as, say, the one that spawned Timothy McVeigh, an actual terrorist).

Um, what's "odd" about any of this?

Republicans have stated, over and over again, that Democrats and liberals are traitors, and should be put in concentration camps, or killed. Why are we so slow to take them at their word?

Through warrantless surveillance, Bush has the data to find you.

Bush has the "crowd control" technology to control you.

Bush has the prison camps to put you in.

All we have had to protect us is the Constitution, which Bush and the Republicans are busy destroying.

NOTE I'm sure that the number of "Bush's willing executioners" is tiny, and that "the better angels of our nature" do not support Bush's authoritarian schemes. However, Bush, by using fear as an election tactic, may stampede the country in His authoritarian quest for permanent power. That's why it's important to start blowing the whistle now.

UPDATE Glenn gets more cynical at Salon:

There have been scattered reports over the last several years that the Bush administration's anti-terrorism programs have targeted domestic political groups solely because such groups espouse views contrary to the administration's. That this claim about "leftist" terrorist groups made it into the NIE summary is particularly significant in light of the torture and detention bill that is likely soon to be enacted into law. That bill defines "enemy combatant" very broadly (and the definition may be even broader by the time it is enacted) and could easily encompass domestic groups perceived by the administration to be supporting a "terrorist agenda."

Similarly, the administration has claimed previously that it eavesdrops on the conversations of Americans only where there is reasonable grounds (as judged by the administration) to believe that one of the parties is affiliated with a terrorist group. Does that include "leftist" groups that use the Internet to organize? This NIE finding gives rise to this critical question: Are "leftist" groups one of the principal targets on the anti-terrorism agenda of the Bush administration, and if so, aren't the implications rather disturbing?

Um, yes, rather, I would say so.

Especially when you realize that to these guys, a "leftist" is anyone who doesn't give complete fealty to The Leader.