Then how does that explain the notoriously leaky Cheney wing of the Bush administation?Originally Posted by MechEng
Both sides pull this crap, no need to act like it's limited to a particular ideology.
Then how does that explain the notoriously leaky Cheney wing of the Bush administation?
Both sides pull this crap, no need to act like it's limited to a particular ideology.
It pretty much never is, regardless of who's in office. Hasn't since, what? Almost immediately after the cold war ended? In this particular case, I'm having a hard time believing that if the leaks were truly significantly damaging that a much bigger deal wouldn't be made. Politics as usual, on both sides of the street. Administration downplaying any leaks, another organization playing them up. What are the verifiable facts on the ground? Probably somewhere in the middle. Information is political strategy.Politics is everything. By gentleman's agreement the national security stuff is supposed to be kept out of politics
As far as Obama getting 'backed into a corner by the anti-terrorists on his staff', I doubt that description reflect the realities of what goes on inside the oval office. What we had was a potentially politically volatile and disastrous scenario: a unauthorized commando raid on the soil of an ostensible "ally", (though I'd be reluctant to call Pakistan that at the best of times, but I digress). It was a potential fiasco if it went wrong, with potentially serious implications. I'll hazard a conjecture that it was a situation where they had ridiculously solid, actionable intel and the operation was viewed as an almost sure thing and a political win. Whatever the motives, at least the man listened to the right people. There were a lot of ways that even the successful operation could have gone wrong, that didn't pan out. The media circus after the event was still more restrained than it could have been - it's not like any white house was going to clam up after a major 'goal' like OBL going down is achieved. I'm not pardoning the mistakes made by the administration, merely pointing out that it simply wasn't the "unmitigated intelligence disaster" claimed in the video.
I mean, c'mon now, the retired general in the video isn't just an interested party, he's the founder of a conservative political organization. One of the ex-SEALs ran for congress as a Republican. Is there some truth in what's expressed in the video? No doubt. Is it almost certainly being overblown and dramatized to generate an (obviously effective) emotional appeal? I'd put a lot of money on it.
It's not like they bothered covering leaks that occurred during past administrations, or made it an American problem. They made it an Obama problem, and that's just disingenuous.
It's all overblown and emotional when you are the one who gets to worry about your family and their safety as the CINC discloses Secret and Top Secret information to beat his chest about being a badass for something someone else did.
And then there are the admissions of troops on the ground in certain places because some journalist heard rumors. Confirm it, and blast it all over the news (very helpful for guys on the ground). Then turning around and declaring major successes without any troops involved.
Thank you for your loyalty.
You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
Sobering but thank you for posting. Stay safe.
#RESIST
The one moment in that video that made me catch my breath was this one.
The narration over this image attempts to explain that some time soon after UBL's death, BHO invited this group of Hollywood heavies to the WH for a detailed briefing on the operation. I am not so naive to believe that the narration and the photo are of the same event at the time inferred, but, I must admit that such a suggestion was effective.
I have to believe it's not a correct representation. Just an effective bit of media intended to solicit a particular response.
If true, would this act be attributable to hubris or criminal stupidity?
As Sean M very rightly pointed out, there's just NO good reason to be talking about some of this stuff. At best it's grandstanding for political gain, at worst it gets good men killed. Aside from that I always thought we should have STFU for a week or two after the UBL raid, maintained a "who, us? " front, and watched what the rest of the cockroaches did when UBL went off the map.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
Politics is a virus of the human condition, so I understand that each side will play their part in effing the other side over. However, as you two just pointed out, there are lives/countrymen at risk when you try to be a grandstanding d-bag and real live intel that could also keep the lives of our countrymen safe and/or more effective by shutting the eff up and the DOJ, like the SEC, has spent a lot of time in recent history proving themselves to be ineffective agencies.
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
Then I'd encourage you to read more history about the goings on inside presidential administrations.
From the rumors that have emerged, the "right" people put him into a corner by saying it's either give the Go code or have it become known that you let OBL get away. Choppers are ready for liftoff, Mr. President...Whatever the motives, at least the man listened to the right people.
See Sean's comment above. During the Bush administration our forces killed lots of very bad men...and we didn't see Obama administration levels of leaks about the ops that did it.I mean, c'mon now, the retired general in the video isn't just an interested party, he's the founder of a conservative political organization. One of the ex-SEALs ran for congress as a Republican. Is there some truth in what's expressed in the video? No doubt. Is it almost certainly being overblown and dramatized to generate an (obviously effective) emotional appeal? I'd put a lot of money on it.
No administration has been leak proof, that's true...but equally true is that Obama's administration has taken the "leak" to new heights.It's not like they bothered covering leaks that occurred during past administrations, or made it an American problem. They made it an Obama problem, and that's just disingenuous.
Robert Gates reportedly told the White House in no uncertain terms to "shut the **** up." That's not exactly a common phenomenon.
The Obama administration isn't the first to play politics with the prosecution of a war effort...but they've taken it to breathtaking new heights of reckless irresponsibility. That, I think, deserves comment from some of the people from the communities who have been placed at greater jeopardy by the actions of the President and his staff. If Obama and company want to stand on the faces o the guys who we ask to go to god-forsaken places to do battle with very bad men, I don't look with suspicion upon a bit of pushback from pissed off members of that community who bore the risk and who probably have lots of friends who still bear it.
Last edited by TCinVA; 08-17-2012 at 03:21 PM.
Shit, it hasn't even been proven that the leaks originated from within the administration, though it is hugely likely since they ostensibly make the administration look good. I'm not blind to the existing problems. It's just that in my view, it's important to treat the matter with gravity and apply steady pressure to start an investigation regarding the source of the leaks. There's almost a permissive attitude in DC regarding leaks that needs to be curtailed. That would be infinitely more valuable than making a video that comes across as a cheap political stunt.Robert Gates reportedly told the White House in no uncertain terms to "shut the **** up." That's not exactly a common phenomenon.
The Obama administration isn't the first to play politics with the prosecution of a war effort...but they've taken it to breathtaking new heights of reckless irresponsibility. That, I think, deserves comment from some of the people from the communities who have been placed at greater jeopardy by the actions of the President and his staff. If Obama and company want to stand on the faces o the guys who we ask to go to god-forsaken places to do battle with very bad men, I don't look with suspicion upon a bit of pushback from pissed off members of that community who bore the risk and who probably have lots of friends who still bear it.
I can't imagine that we'll have anything but a divergence of opinion on this point. I just think Washington's intelligence issues are a serious matter that deserves serious treatment. The way this was presented turned me off and made me suspicious of the validity of the information provided.
This was an interesting article on the subject of leaks from Wired's danger room. The various blogs from that site reflect the 4th pillar's attitude toward the whole thing in an enlightening way, and even if you think Spencer is on the wrong side of things, his articles are worth the read: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012...to-stop-leaks/
You noticed this, too, I see.
Reply With Quote
