Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's leak freakout (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well, no we do know (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell, Trix

    We do know what info was leaked to the AP.

    Put it another way: if info on the Bin laden raid had leaked ahead of time, would you consider that serious enough to warrant an investigation?

    •  I am so confused. So -- is the administration (0+ / 0-)

      for investigating things that might be wrong or against it?
      It's so hard to keep track.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:06:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I dont know what you are talking about (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban, Janet 707

        specifically.

        I think it's ironic that the admin is aggressively investigating a national security leak that came from within the admin, and they are being criticized for that.

        •  Well, no. They are being criticized for (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          3goldens, JVolvo

          grabbing call records for 21 AP phone lines.  They are chanting national security, but rifling the AP, not the leaker.

          The AP, by the way,  acted responsibly, holding their story while the interested agencies assessed the risk and protected their people.

          One nice thing about subpoenas -- somebody's got to make the case that the desired action is appropriate to the task.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:29:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fine, the AP did the 'right' thing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jj32, jazzence

            But that doesn't absolve the person who gave them the story in the first place. AP didn't break the law, but the leaker did. The subpoena wasn't about prosecuting AP but rather finding the person who called the AP and gave them the story. Subpoeaing information from third parties is not police state tactics but rather a common law enforcement tool. Sealing the subpoena is also not unheard of.

            47 is the new 51!

            by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:37:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You don't know that, actually. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              3goldens

              You are presuming that the information came directly from somebody who had reason to know that it was classified and that they were breaking the law.

              That's probably (not certainlY) the case.  It's unlikely, but not impossible, that the AP's source was actually an intermediary who relayed information along without intent to disclosed classified material.  In such a case, the source would not be breaking the law.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:41:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  But we don't know (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quagmiremonkey, dinotrac, JVolvo

      the press conference planned for the next day was certainly going to disclose some of that information, but we don't know how much.  The part useful to our enemies had already been disclosed by the current CIA chief.

      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

      by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:23:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  because AP had the story (0+ / 0-)

        and was going to report it. There is no evidence that, barring the leak leading to the story that the CIA would have said anything. In fact every bit of evidence says the opposite, the primary one being that an agent in place is not someone you pull out right when he's the most useful.

        47 is the new 51!

        by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:29:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, bullshit (5+ / 0-)

          This theory just keeps getting more and more convoluted.  Now the operation was cut short - miraculously just in time to intercept the bomb - but actually on a time scale set by the AP's reporting?  

          That's a humdinger of a CT.

          What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

          by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:39:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  go back and read the timeline (0+ / 0-)

            it's pretty well laid out. The bomb was stopped well before AP got the story. The agent was still in place and unsuspected at the time of the leak.

            The point of the leak was that the Admin was saying there had been no danger while there actually was a real plot that was defused.

            After the AP contacted the CIA the agent was hustled out.

            47 is the new 51!

            by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 04:44:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um, no. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo
              The agent was still in place and unsuspected at the time of the leak.
              Wrong.
              NPR's Dina Temple-Raston reports that the reason the CIA was upset was that the AP's account had  blown the cover of the double agent who was posing as the underwear bomber who they were hoping to reinsert in the field.
              Which is itself a load of crap, especially in the context of the information that the administration had already disclosed.

              What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

              by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:05:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  obviously you have a desire (0+ / 0-)

                to twist because you're moving away from your original thesis that AP story was about the bomb to pick away at a minor detail. The essence of this story is leaking of secret information that shows the Admin telling the public there was no plot active when it new well it was. A purely political leak of secret information.

                Have a nice day.

                47 is the new 51!

                by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:04:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  That part is actually right, except for the (0+ / 0-)

            miraculously part.  The AP did not keep national security people out of the loop and held the story at least 5 days when informed there were national security concerns.

            The agencies pulled their people in that time frame.

            I haven't heard about any threat by the AP to reveal sensitive info regardless of consequence.   Instead, I'm sure the agencies protected their people on the theory that they couuldn't know who else had the information.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:19:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  which people? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo

              the undercover guy had already left the country, that's how we got the bomb.  There might have been support personnel with their asses exposed, but that's (a) speculation and (b) not of lasting consequence given that they had ample time to do so.

              What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

              by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:10:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sorry, I thought I was done (0+ / 0-)

                but gee, just because he didn't die you seem to think no harm done. No lasting consequence? How do you know that? What else might he have learned if he hadn't been blown? This is not an academic question since he'd already shown his ability.

                47 is the new 51!

                by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:22:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  ???? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo

                  He volunteered as a suicide bomber.  The idea that he might go back and offer to blow himself up again is a stretch.  Add to that the contemporaneous disclosure that the CIA had possession of the device, which as far as I know is not being investigated.  Add to that the contemporaneous disclosure that the CIA had control of the operation from the beginning, which John Brennan has not been disciplined for.  

                  What are the chances that al-Qaida would have still been oblivious of the infiltrator, with all of that information but without the AP leak?

                  What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                  by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:31:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Brennan (0+ / 0-)

                    should be disciplined for having control over the operation? That is his job. Infiltration of al-Qaeda. And you want him disciplined. On what basis?

                    Clutching at straws, are we? Suicide bombers don't grow on trees. I'm sure that there have been many that tried more than once. Or, it may be, that every covert action run by people other than the CIA is always an unqualified success.

                    47 is the new 51!

                    by nickrud on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:35:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  On the basis (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JVolvo
                      Brennan (0+ / 0-)
                      should be disciplined for having control over the operation?
                      No, he should arguably be disciplined for disclosing that we had control of the operation.  
                      Clutching at straws, are we? Suicide bombers don't grow on trees. I'm sure that there have been many that tried more than once. Or, it may be, that every covert action run by people other than the CIA is always an unqualified success.
                      Whuh?

                      He never got on the plane.
                      He fled the country.
                      The CIA disclosed that they had control of the plot.
                      The CIA got control of the device even though the bomber never made the flight.

                      <--That's what al Qaida knew without the AP leak.  If you really think that they would have trusted the guy again, I'm not the one grasping at straws.

                      What are you doing to fight the dangerous and counterproductive error of treating dirtbag terrorist criminals as though they were comic book supervillains? I can't believe we still have to argue this shit, let alone on Daily Kos.

                      by happymisanthropy on Wed May 22, 2013 at 06:49:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  My understanding is they are trying (0+ / 0-)

        to find out who leaked to the AP originally.

    •  This wasn't a leak (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JVolvo

      ahead of time. This all came down after the fact. No present danger the evil 'perps' and their incendiary device were thwarted. The terrorist's (and CIA) dastardly plot had been stopped. Enough with bs.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site