Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP scandal-mongering making Obama more popular, GOP most unpopular in CNN polling history (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm blown away by this post, for all the... (4+ / 0-)

    ...wrong reasons. To lump the AP spying issue in with the rest of what's occurred is just wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin. I do know that if Markos doesn't modify this piece to account for this (I don't care how much the White House pats him on the head), he's going to get negative feedback from his peers like he's never experienced before...and for a very, very long time, too.

    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

    by bobswern on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:10:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Although it hasn't been said (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      denig, divineorder, Wee Mama, Anima, Tommy Aces

      ...I'm pretty certain there is a saboteur in this Administration. Eric Holder seemed to suggest that. I think this is the closest they have gotten to him or her. This particular AP incident is one of a series that relates directly to a repeating leak of the most sensitive terrorist activities.

      If you think about it, this has been ongoing. It's a threat to this administration via deliberate sabotage, and a serious danger to the American people.



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:21:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Wha chu you talkin' bout Willis" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doroma, bobswern

        "It strikes me as gruesome and comical that in our culture we have an expectation that a man can always solve his problems" - Kurt Vonnegut

        by jazzence on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:23:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just a thread I've been following for awhile (5+ / 0-)

          Probably doesn't mean anything.

          Did you see Holders comment? He looked scared. Also, there have been very unfortunate security leaks from the beginning that the Republicans have repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for. I think they are still trying to nail that down.

          I don't recall anything like this happening at any news bureau since President Obama has been in office.

          Something's up.



          Denial is a drug.

          by Pluto on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:40:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting Theory (4+ / 0-)

            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music

            by Beetwasher on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:41:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  link? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            doroma, Lost and Found

            I'd like to read it myself, see what you're talking about.

            "It strikes me as gruesome and comical that in our culture we have an expectation that a man can always solve his problems" - Kurt Vonnegut

            by jazzence on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:47:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm the investigator. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              stellaluna, Tommy Aces

              It's original work.



              Denial is a drug.

              by Pluto on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:03:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A saboteur? YMBFKM... (4+ / 0-)

                ...The AP story is about what happens when the press takes a piss on the DoD's propaganda machine, and seriously pisses-off the British in the process of doing same. Nothing more. Nothing less. The CIA APPROVED the AP story, before it ran. PERIOD. FULL STOP. What that tells us is this is a pissing war, plain and simple.

                Here's Isikoff over at NBC...

                The May 2012 AP article disclosed what it said was a CIA operation that foiled a plot to  plant a bomb on a  plane from Yemen on the first anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death.

                The covert operation involved an informant working for British intelligence, who passed along information about a plot to detonate a refined version of a so-called “underwear bomb” aboard a U.S.-bound aircraft, intelligence officials told NBC News.  The leak, and the CIA’s subsequent claim that it was behind the operation, infuriated the British, who said it put their operative at risk, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

                Prior to the publication of the story, there were extensive negotiations among AP, White House and CIA officials, said the officials. The AP initially agreed to hold the story until May 8, 2012, thereby giving intelligence officials time to minimize any risk to the informant and his family, they said.

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:21:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Does that mean that the CIA and WH were (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pluto

                  already in the process of divulging the information and the AP just beat them to it or does that mean that the AP got the information from the leak and then the CIA and WH negotiated with the AP about giving them time to try to minimize the risk?

                  "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                  by stellaluna on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:33:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What happened was the AP issued the story... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SamanthaCarter

                    ...a few hours ahead of the CIA/DoD/WH...but long after the Saudi intelligence agent had left Yemen along with the bomb...many days (if not a week or two earlier). By the time AP came out with the story, the FBI had already had quite a bit of time to work on the bomb, itself.

                    Afterwards, the Brits hit the roof. (And, we're not talking about the hour or two between when the AP and the DoD/WH ran with the story, either.) So, the WH blamed AP, even though they were planning upon announcing the story, more or less, at the same time, too.

                    There's a LOT more to this than that, however. Much larger backstory, in fact...but, I'll be writing more about this in my next post.

                    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                    by bobswern on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:40:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I guess my thought is that if the DoD/WH (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bobswern, SamanthaCarter, aliasalias

                      negotiated and then decided to release their own version because the AP had the story due to the leak and was going to publish it, then the leak is still potentially a harmful thing.  But if this is a story that the DoD/WH would have released anyway, including the information the AP printed, then I would think that the "need" for the subpoenas wasn't as great as described.

                      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                      by stellaluna on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:43:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  The problem isn't WHEN it was published. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    stellaluna, Tommy Aces

                    I believe the terms of the negotiations were met.

                    It appears that the concern lies with whether or not the AP was tipped off by someone at the highest levels of the Federal Government -- because there is apparently a specific pattern of deliberate high level leaks that are a danger to national security.

                    The administration has been criticized for these leaks since the beginning.



                    Denial is a drug.

                    by Pluto on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:43:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  My thought (as somewhat seen above) is that (0+ / 0-)

                      the issue isn't so much WHEN it was published by the DoD/WH but why.  If the DoD/WH decided to release information because there was a high level leak, and they then negotiated the terms of the release of the information, then the concern about the leak would still be justified.  Just because the WH ultimately released information doesn't mean they would have in the absence of the leak.  Thus the negotiations about the AP releasing the story make sense and still implicate a problem with the leak.  But if this is just a case of the AP beating the WH to the publication of a story then the issue of the leak may not be as strong.  Though I would think a leak of information about active agents should always concern the DoD.

                      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                      by stellaluna on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:48:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  In a press conference with Holder (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        stellaluna, Tommy Aces

                        ...he seemed focused entirely on the leak. I got the impression that he was grateful that AP ran it by the government before publishing.

                        I could have read him wrong, of course.



                        Denial is a drug.

                        by Pluto on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:52:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I saw your theory about this and think it's (0+ / 0-)

                          interesting.  I am one of those who believe the Government has an interest in keeping agents safe and in a position to do their job.  The issue of leaks is an interesting one.  Wasn't they conservative/very left theory once that the WH was deliberately using leaks?  Is your theory that it wasn't deliberate but that they haven't been able to confirm who the person leaking is?  Or is your theory that the leaks are unrelated to those that had people up in arms a year or two ago?

                          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                          by stellaluna on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:01:22 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Just to be clear on one detail: (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  stellaluna, stevenaxelrod

                  The investigators took a list of phone numbers -- they have no conversations.

                  They are not interested in conversations.

                  They are looking for a particular phone number.

                  That's my understanding of the extent of this thing.



                  Denial is a drug.

                  by Pluto on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:35:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's somewhat of a very superficial overview... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...you've got there, Pluto!

                    "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                    by bobswern on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:44:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I think it does make a difference as to the (0+ / 0-)

                    privacy concern.  The records of the phone numbers that you call are already in the possession of a third party and whatever privacy interest you have in them is already implicated by third party access.  However, the contents of your conversations are not in the possession of a third party and your expectation of privacy would be greater I would assume.

                    "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                    by stellaluna on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:07:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Yet you weren't clear. It's not just phone #s, it (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joanneleon

                    is phone calls.  Who the reporters were calling.  Who the reporters were receiving calls from.  How long they lasted.   And not just the reporters.  Their families as well.

                    If you're going to "simplify" it down to one precise fact, one would hope you would at least get that fact correct.

                    Dont Mourn, Organize !#konisurrender

                    by cks175 on Mon May 20, 2013 at 05:46:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's right. (0+ / 0-)

                      They are numbers that placed incoming calls to AP and remained on the line, presumably speaking to someone.

                      They are also outgoing numbers dialed on certain lines at AP, which lasted long enough to have a conversation.

                      This covered a period of several weeks.

                      AP is not the target of the investigation.

                      The target is someone who has access to newly classified terrorist intelligence in the Federal government.

                      Naturally, we must assume that phone records from the 90 or so folks in the government with this type of clearance have been acquired. And, of course, it expanded if there was a match.

                      I assume there was extensive cross checking between the two lists.



                      Denial is a drug.

                      by Pluto on Mon May 20, 2013 at 06:04:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Has the investigator (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                aliasalias

                read through the transcript of John Brennan's confirmation hearing?


                "Justice is a commodity"

                by joanneleon on Mon May 20, 2013 at 07:31:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Hmmmm? (7+ / 0-)
      I do know that if Markos doesn't modify this piece to account for this (I don't care how much the White House pats him on the head), he's going to get negative feedback from his peers like he's never experienced before...and for a very, very long time, too.
      I highly doubt it.

      At any rate, even if these "peers" did as you hope, I doubt that Markos would change even a single word of this diary.

      This diary is about cause and effect.  When every thing is a "scandal," (as the Republicans keep endlessly claiming about everything), then nothing is.  Ergo, the general public doesn't believe them, tunes them out, and their poll numbers drop.

      Nothing worth noting at the moment.

      by Bonsai66 on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:42:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the problem always is that politics and (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bonsai66, Lost and Found, Pluto, cybersaur

        policy, while interrelated aren't the same. The politics of these scandals, it appears, end up having little effect. The fact that this diary talks about those politics doesn't mean kos agrees with the policy. But it does give us some indication as to the likelihood that the political system will address the bad policy. That indication being that politicians won't. Because the people who vote aren't stirred up about the issue. Reporting on those facts doesn't condone or support the policy. But it does give us information about what the political process may do or not do in relation to these issues. The bigger failure IMO would be to pretend that policy issues can be addressed without regard for their political nature. It virtually assures that nothing would ever be done.

        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

        by stellaluna on Mon May 20, 2013 at 03:58:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ha. He has written off the cuff often (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bobswern

        and then there's the quick edit . That's cool.

         But I see bobswern's point on  this.

        Writing about the deeper issues is much harder, but the shallow rah rah sh*t is something but kos and Jed are tops at. Heh.

        Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

        by divineorder on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:07:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Congress that cried "Wolf!" (5+ / 0-)

        That's really the crux of it. There is probably an intelligent, nuanced conversation to be had about shield laws, reporter's privilege, and the appropriate balance between whistleblower protection and the need for secrecy in some sensitive areas of government.

        But, we can't have that conversation when it's mixed up in a slew of 90s-era partisan mudslinging. Call everything a scandal, then nothing is, as you say.

        ad astra per alia porci

        by harrije on Mon May 20, 2013 at 04:28:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site