[update: for those Mahablog / Greenwald readers who happen to click through (and not simply rely on the inference that I have called for the prosecution of all reporters, or called them nefarious, traitoress cockroaches), see both my second and penultimate paragraphs.]
From FOXNews:
A CIA officer has been relieved of his duty after being caught leaking classified information to the media.
CIA officials will not reveal the officer’s name, assignment, or the information that was leaked. The firing is a highly unusual move, although there has been an ongoing investigation into leaks in the CIA.
One official called this a “damaging leak” that deals with operational information and said the fired officer “knowingly and willfully” leaked the information to the media and “was caught.”
The CIA officer was not in the public affairs office, nor was he someone authorized to talk to the media. The investigation was launched in January by the CIA’s security center. It was directed to look at employees who had been exposed to certain intelligence programs. In the course of the investigation, the fired officer admitted discussing classified information including information about classified operations.
The investigation is ongoing.
A Justice Department spokesman said “no comment” on the firing. The spokesman also would not say whether the agency was looking into any criminal action against the officer.
Uh, perhaps I’m being naive here, but why wouldn’t they be looking into criminal action? If this CIA officer leaked information that was potentially damaging to national security—and the subtext here is that this firing has at least something to do with the NSA leak1—then criminal actions are required, I should think.
AJ Strata adds that he would like to see charges brought against the reporters who publicized the leaked information—something I would go along with only were I convinced that the media member(s) in question knew that what s/he or was printing had potential national security implications, that the leaker had not gone through proper whistleblower channels, and that the leak itself did not expressly reveal wrongdoing on the part of the Administration.
And as legal scholars have been split on the “inherent authority question” animating much of the NSA “domestic spying” debate—and we don’t know, other than in theory, that FISA was violated, or whether or not it is even constitutional with regard to constraining NSA surveillance—certain folks at the New York Times might be sitting a bit less comfortably today.
To be clear: I think it is dangerous to stifle a free press; but at the same time, press freedom needs to be tied to responsibility. And printing leaked state security secrets for partisan reasons is not journalism, nor is it particularly brave: instead, it is ideological manipulation using the fourth estate as a way to influence public opinion.
And it undermines the democratic process by ill-serving readers under the guise of neutrality and objectivity.
****
update: Ace has more on the leaker Mary McCarthy’s ties to Democratic causes—something noted here earlier by BBH (who pointed out she testified against Bush at the 911 Commission hearings) and Marty, who noted she’d contributed 2K to the Kerry campaign. See also some great stuff from Flopping Aces and AJ Strata (see updates). Some familiar names popping up here, from Richard Clarke to Sandy Burger to Joe Wilson… Additionally, McCarthy may have been involved in multiple leaks.
WHERE HAVE YOU GO LEWIS LIBBY? OUR NATION TURNS ITS LONELY EYES TO YOU…
More from the Drudge (on Burger’s appointment of McCarthy) and the WaPo.
1 In the comments, Bob Owens points out that the Houston Chronicle version of this story notes the firing has to do with the “secret prisons” story. How much this changes the calculus about the reporter’s culpability depends upon the legality of such prisons. More here.
According to the Houston Chronicle version of this story, this was related to the “secret prisons” story.
Is is quite possible he even told a cover story to cover up the story he gave to Dana Preist for his story.
This is “the end justifies any means” mentality, as long as the “end” is to revile the right (and even large portions of the center) in the name of a cause that the left deems correct, if not sacrosanct. And I say sacrosanct, because debate of the subject is often not even allowed.
Such as ALGOREBOT’S new book, where the “truth of all things ‘green’” is merely inconvienient, instead of subject to honest debate. Because the green side of things often merely just condemns those who dissent from it. All the while complaining that it is their dissent that is beinq quashed. Oh, the irony!!
Such a pity.
TW: The left is doing this because it seemed to be the correct thing to do.
Prosecutions of spies is notoriously difficult, because of the public-trial problem. It would require revealing information that the Agency doesn’t want revealed.
Confrontation clause problems too. They get to cross-examine witnesses. High burdens of proof require showing a lot of stuff too.
But was the leak damaging to National Security or just to the careerists in the CIA?
NSA info was releasing signal intelligence…what exactly is the defense? The judge would not allow fishing expedition by defense.
Any minute now the KosKids will show up and start screaming about Plame.
Jeff writes:
This is total garbage.
First, what are “national security implications”? And who gets to judge? Certainly, there’s some things that undoubtedly implicate national security: troop movements, battle plans, spy identities, etc. But there’s a ton of other stuff (black sites, warrantless eavesdropping, etc.) that is in a pretty hardcore gray area between national security and illegality. You have to admit that the NSA program is arguably illegal. Doesn’t the public have a right to know that the Administration is engaging in arguably illegal behavior?
In Jeff’s world, journalists should get off the hook only if their report “expressly” reveals wrongdoing. What the hell does this mean? Does that mean that the reporter must know, to the Nth degree of certainty, that the reported-on behavior violates a law? Would s/he have to consult a lawyer about this?
Furthermore, with the current Article II-on-steroids theory of Executive power that seems popular around these parts nowadays—I mean, even the legality of torture is apparently up for debate—it’s hard to imagine any scenario in which the Administration could “expressly” break the law. Since, according to Jeff’s [preposterous] position, every law that constrains the President from protecting the country in whatever way he sees fit is unconsitutional—there’s no way a reporter could know that “express” legal violations have occurred.
Bottom line is that the Administration and its few remaining adherents—that’s you guys— continually find themselves faced with horrifying press reports detailing Administration malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance, and they have no legitimate defense on the merits. Thus, they’re reduced to threatening reporters whose stories make them look bad with jail. I guess to you guys the First Amendment is only valid insofar as the free press doesn’t damage Bush’s political standing. Apparently, once that happens, the First Amendment yields to the Espionage Act.
That may be Jeff’s version of America, but it sure isn’t mine.
Regarding prosecution of reporters, section 2(b) of the Espionage Act states:
What clause hasn’t been satisfied? We’re in a time of war. The information was secret. It was related to the public defense. It was useful to the enemy. It was published.
Now it might be the publisher, and not the reporter, who’s culpable.
Further, any eventual determination as to whether a given presidential action was constitutional seems to me to be immaterial.
The fact is that newspapers seem to feel it’s their duty to hamstring military operations in a time of war. It should not be safe for them to hold that attitude.
Jeff was right about the euro-cia prisons.
look
Have we heard anything about the Risen/NYT leakertraitors?
The one that starts “Congress shall make no law”
MF —
You think it is a [preposterous] position that in the middle of a war, the press should be absolutely positive it has vetted its information properly and is not putting national security at risk when it publishes information from sources it must know have an agenda?
You further think it [preposterous] that I would find the printing of highly classified information that is arguably illegal problematic during a time of war? Because to think it is arguably illegal is to ALSO CONCEDE that it is arguably legal, and given that the story sat for a year, the President took unprecendeted steps to ask it not to be revealed, and that the leaker did not go through whistleblower channels, I advocate for erring on the side of those charged with protecting us from attack.
You, however, somehow feel that public has the “right” to know of every accusation made by every single ideologue with a bone to pick against the current war strategy—even if such is being done simply to hamstring our ability to fight the war.
I find THAT preposterous.
But then, it does prove you are a lawyer, who has a desire to turn everything into a legal investigation and transfer it over to the courts for final determination.
Seems somebody doesn’t much care for the idea of separation of powers and instead wants the US run by the judiciary.
At any rate, I’m more concerned that the US press err on the side of our safety than on the side of dubiously-argued terrorists’ rights with the hope that they’ll win a Pulitzer for speaking Truth to Power.
“Uh, perhaps I’m being naive here, but why wouldn’t they be looking into criminal action?”
– Most likely they are preparing additional criminal actions/disclosures of other individuals. According to FOX its just the beginning.
– For everyone trying to talk ethics to Dembulb politics, its a waste of time. the asshats seem to have missed that part about “espionage is not a viable political dirty trick, It can get people some serious jail time” in civics class.
– But hey. whats a few peoples lives when the Liberals are out of power. Its for “the cause” don’t cha know. Morons, one and all. I’m going to enjoy watching each of the moonbat moles walk the plank, and the chrashing down of the Democrat “AnythingGate” scams at the same time.
– Next prosecutions: The NYTrash and its “moles”.
– Watch all the Congressional Dems distance themselves from this like a gaggle of cockroaches zipping from the kitchen when the light gets snapped on.
Watch the AIPAC case for hints on this. The arguments for a lobbyist passing on info are going to be similar to that of a journalist.
Watch for a certain bigmouth Senator to take a fall. There is no executive order allowing for senatorial declassification. No matter, the media won’t attack him. They think they’re supermen, but that big “D” after a name is journalistic kryptonite.
It’s hard to tell which CIA leaks we are talking about here (there seem to be so many), but the NY Times’ leak of the CIA operated airline companies seem to be the most damaging. It not only exposed the company, which hurt our ability to transport personel and prisoners, but it also put the pilots and crew at risk and well as the cover identities of any agents that flew with them.
How about this?
The EU came out today and said they can find no evidence of “secret prisons.”
Could the entire secret prisons story been an elaborate sting operation?
If so, it was straight out of a Clancy novel.
Hmmmm…. Interesting… FOX just announced that the name of that CIA official that was fired for realeasing secret Gov, documents to the press concering the “secret CIA prisons for terrorists” is a gal named Mary McCarthy (spl?). You might rememeber she was one of the CIA officials that testified in front of the 9/11 commision, vigourously attacking the Bush admin.
– Apparently she went from political smear tactics directly to espionage against her own country. Does any need any more proof of the things Liberals/Democrats are capable of, in their desperate atempts to regain power?
Hey just a moment now, BBH. We have to wait for M.F. to tell us if this is legitimate or not. He seems to have appointed himself (or the editorial board of the NYT) to be the one that decides what is publishable or not. You should just be glad he is here to set you straight you lousy wingnut…
ITYM, “vigourously exonerating herself”.
How much this changes the calculus about the reporter’s culpability depends upon the legality of such prisons.
Um, maybe I’m going to reveal myself as an evil neocon here, but why would that change the reporters culpability, per se? The CIA is often asked to do things, expected to do things that are against the law. (Espionage is generally considered a crime in places we might target for espionage; some of those places are ones we have otherwise pretty good relations with, including things like extradition treaties.)
Would it really make a difference to the damage done by a reporter if they, say, revealed an intelligence operation directed against, oh, say, Israel, that was strictly illegal?
I can see the argument for it riding on the reporters perception of its legality, but to have culpability ride on the eventual finding of legality/illegality? Odd. But even then, the perception of the legality is an odd factor to begin with.
The one that starts “Congress shall make no lawâ€Â</blockquote>
Aha. I always kind of thought you were kidding us about being a law student. Now I’m sure.
– Strange way to “exonerate” yourself via espionage, but maybe I’m missing something in the Liberal message here.
Anyone care to interpret?
Usually, anyone whose first language is not English is more coherent.
Its odd to have the culpability ride on legality period. I can see it ride on the reporters perception of the legality —say they think its illegal or legal, but are not up on their article II powers. But its very odd to have it ride on the eventual determination of legality, say, if its a complicated issue like the NSA spying.
actout – your dissembling babble talk is less than impressive. If you have to have someone explain to you why espionage is wrong by any reasonable standard, including the very survival of of our country, you need a keeper, lots of meds, and extensive professional help.
Seems to me an old-fashioned spy execution would do wonders in plugging the rampent national security leaks we seem to be experiancing.
Just out of curiousity, anyone know how many spys FDR(D) had shot during WWII?
– Hahahaha. Beautiful. Answer: Thats one of the most closely guarded Democratic secrets lee.
Oh, those prisons are there, they’re just still secret. And torturing innocent Muslim terrorists.
Fucking BushHitler.
“We’re in a time of war.”
Oh, please. Even the Attorney General says we are not at war.
“The CIA is often asked to do things, expected to do things that are against the law.”
Can you cite even a single instance of this happening without those responsible going to jail? Remeber, Nixon’s Director of the CIA was jailed for violations of the law, and Nixon had to resign or be impeached.
Dave, you are several days late to the party. We already had that go ‘round. Now someone will bring out the rest of that quote you have shortened. Then Biden’s “F you, we are at war” quote, etc.
Nice try, however.
Dave —
We have been through this a hundred times now, most recently here.
See Hamdan; see Doe v Bush. See Biden. Hell, see the Federalist Papers.
Dave, so if – hypothetically speaking – the CIA guys that may or may not have been at Bagram the same time I was, just happened to go out and secure an Afghan person against their will and bring them back to said base…. kidnapping! Where is their warrant?! Aieee!
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
We’re talking about voilations of US law.
As for a declaration of war, I’ll take the word of the Justice Dept and Atty General over a Senator who likes to hear his voice a lot. A declaration of war is a declaration of war. I wonder if any of those here who like to say we are “at war” can even say WHO we are supposedly at war with, and under what circumstances said “war” ends? Does Bush “landing a plane’ on an aircraft carrier and saying that the “war” was over count? I guess not.
Dave Johnson,
You are taking Gonzales’ statement completely out of context. If you read the entire transcript, you will find that you are really an idiot.
Well, gee, Davey, I kinda figure all of those 60 ton Abrams and 700 man battalions a walking the streets like full-metal Vegas hookers with worse attitudes kinda clues you into the whole war scenario.
How are the fluffy bunnies this time of year in la-la-land, anyways?
TW: Peace, I swear it. As in “We sure as hell are not at peace, are we?”
Actus my friend – and you are my friend – someone on another thread far, far away averred that you were a law school student. Please believe me when I say that if you plan to convince a jury of anything, you will first have to be understood by said jury. Your comments are perhaps meant to be pithy – sort of like Glenn Reynolds – but they are not pithy. They are not epigrammatic. They are mostly obscure. They fail to communicate anything except that you seem to think well of yourself.
Take it from someone who has been out in the world for a few more decades than you, the ability to communicate clearly and persuasively is a very valuable asset. It is one that you may want to cultivate. But I recommend that you start fresh.
Dave Johnson,
Please find that “quote”. Cite a source. Because you can’t. If I could be bothered, I’d look for the exact words “war will be fought on many fronts…” I don’t think Bush said it would be over soon.
Once again, when the facts don’t fit, libs make up some fact that do. Typical BS.
Regarding violation of US law, what law? What court has upheld this law? Because we all KNOW that the democrats in Congress will just give the Bush administration a pass on anything it wants to do. If any branch of the government asserts a right to the powers delegated to another, do you think the Supreme Court just rolls over and allows this? If so, think “line item veto” and get back to us.
– Actually Dave, as long as theres a religion that exists, declaring everyone on earth whos not a member is an infidel to be murdered on sight, my guess is it could take thousands of years. Technology will probably speed it up for you though, so you’re best bet is to try not to be in which ever American cities go up in atomic dust. The end will come when one side or the other can no longer fight. Come to think of it, maybe you’re better off just staying in denial.
Yo, V-man, if we were really at war (I mean like really, really), DJ’d be there supporting the mission, supporting the troops, and the supporting the administration.
And there ain’t no war until Hillary! becomes the supreme be-yatch and says it’s on.
I just don’t understand why the legality of the program being exposed—specially for something complicated and beyond the grasp of a legal layperson like a reporter—would matter to their culpability. It MIGHT matter if the reporter has some subjective view of the legality, but not in the objective sense.
I’m going to be like most lawyers, and never be in front of a jury.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.htm
Senior State Department officials believed that they had received a similar verdict independently, though they and Clarke’s staff were probably relying on the same report. Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director responsible for intelligence programs, initially cautioned Berger that the “bottom line” was that “we will need much better intelligence on this facility before we seriously consider any options.” She added that the link between Bin Ladin and al Shifa was “rather uncertain at this point.” Berger has told us that he thought about what might happen if the decision went against hitting al Shifa, and nerve gas was used in a New York subway two weeks later.44
Mary also donated 2K to John Kerry.
I read the left slants here, and actually have quite a few liberal friends. I am constantly amazed at the short cuts in logic (and facts) that informs their arguments.
Is ‘liberal” synonymous with “wet brain”?
Just curious…
Ladies and Gennelmen, this is where I stopped reading actus…
Would someone politely ask the retarded telephone pole: “If you kill someone, even if the person is really, really bad, have you committed…” and whatever, never mind, I do not care.
Someone pin a circular to his ass; House party at Vercs!!!
Bring out the serving wenches and grog!!!
jdm, maybe we should call bullets “hypervelocity kisses” and JDAMs “high-energy explosive hugs” so that it would fit Davey’s gooey gumdrop world of spiritual creaminess.
Just saying, is all.
– Lost dog, with zero party plan or alternate real world workable ideas, “AnythingGates”, war denial, and unethical lying scams, are all they’ve got left. Its a no-win proposition, and the anti-war crap is because they are afraid they’ll be “out” until this war is over. Problem with the dirty tricks approach is while it may confuse the voting public, and push Republican popularity down, the cure is worse than the bite, and as one of my Liberal friends told me “what good is it going to do. In the end no matter how unpopular the Reps are, nobody in their right mind is going to vote for a party that acts like crazed, unpricipled maniacs, with a candidate that can’t even talk truthfully about his war record, or another one whos hubby can’t keep his fly zipped.”
Sorry about that, Vercingetorix. I just got caught up reading about Zarkman, Team Satan, and the DailyKos fanboys.
So, a journalist wins a Pulitzer based on illegally obtained official secrets about some prison camps that the anti-terror chief of the EU says aren’t there?
stoo, the Pulitzer has a long and distinguished history.
Apparently Priest’s Pulitzer was in the Fiction category, but nobody bothered to tell us.
– The question is, would it be possible that just one Liberal would have the stones to give it back. Doubtful.
They looked for the secret camps. And they couldn’t find them!
Thanks, jdm. I knew about Duranty, but didn’t know about Cooke.
Can you cite even a single instance of this happening without those responsible going to jail? Remeber, Nixon’s Director of the CIA was jailed for violations of the law, and Nixon had to resign or be impeached.
Dave, try to keep up. I actually mention one in the context of my original comment. Espionage is generally against the law, and the CIA does espionage for a living.
Why is it that every time I land here lately actus is spoiling the party? Jeff, don’t you know that c is the third letter in the alphabet, and t is the 20th letter, and 20-3 is 17, and that’s probably an n but I can’t count backwards right now like they do on Cops, which means this guy’s real name is anus?
Whatever happened to vesuvius in an age of thermopalye, or whatever it was he called himself?
I remember in the good old days, the days Before Anus, ol’ vesuvius would post something, and there’d all of a sudden be 200 posts by somebodies in an age of something or other, and it was the funniest fuckin’ thing I’d ever read. But nooooooooo. Now we gotta listen to some guy with a fancy name for an asshole. Well, I’m not coming here again until you ban that dirt chute. Or Monday, whichever comes first.
Have a great weekend. Suppposed to be 80 tomorrow! I’ll be at Deer Creek. Bring your sticks. But we ain’t gonna be drinkin’ any Corona Light mini beers!
Actus, you shit for brains, that’s because they were secret!
They caught her because she flunked a poly.
Betcha it was her clearance update.
hmmm…CIA? every two years.
Porter Goss, you rock. He sacked her on the spot.
Do you know how hard that is to do to a WOMAN?
looming sexual harrassment suit.
Its because they’re not there.
Every government agency should be required to fire 5% of their workers every year, just on principle.
All CIA workers should be given a one week amnesty to confess any secrets they may have leaked and get by with losing their jobs – after that, any leaker does hard time.
All recipients of leaks will be assumed to have k nown they were secrets and be tried for recieving and disclosing.
From the 911 Commission Report.
Also worth reading (via Allah) is Flopping Aces, who is finding bits and pieces that, when put together, are quite intriguing.
I’d just like to point out that the only person here who DID answer my question who we are at war with says we are at war with the Muslim religion and that it might take thousands of years.
Is that the understanding here? I have noticed that when you ask who we are at war with and WHY we are at war, you get a different answer from every person you ask. Do you really think that creates a sustainable public environment for the support required to win a war? And along those lines, do you think a war can be won with tax cuts and no draft? ANY war?
I thought I’d venture and post this here to see if I can be corrected for any mistakes I may be making. (I generally ignore the comments of those I consider to be moonbats, so if I don’t respond, that may be why.)
By the very nature of their work, the work of the CIA and the NSA (and a whole lot of TLA-agencies) is by definition illegal. If they were legal, special agencies would not be needed. Members of the intelligence community must be willing to break any and all laws. The exception, of course, are the laws of the United States. Then again, these agencies do not have the authority to include the United States in their scope. The FBI and DHS, et cetera, take over on that, and they operate on very different rules. But to suggest that the CIA might be doing something improper and must, therefore, be exposed is ludicrous to the extreme.
These leaks from the CIA are doing more to endanger national security and our efforts to work with other nations in the war on terror. I find it utterly ridiculous how leftists constantly harp on our lack of allies and at the same time actively engage to alienate what allies we have.
She should be prosecuted and jailed. Her actions are unacceptable, untenable, and unjustifable. Frankly, I would like to see her tried and executed for treason (we are at war, after all) but I understand many may find that to be on the extreme side.
“These leaks from the CIA are doing more to endanger national security and our efforts to work with other nations in the war on terror.”
Maybe so – IF you can find an example of a leak that really did endanger national security rather than a “whistleblower” leak about violations of US law. (And I’m not talking about the leak of a covert agent who was working to keep Iran from obtaining nukes. THAT leak was NOT from the CIA – and Rove still has a security clearance!)
Torture and rendition ARE against US law. Tapping domestic communications IS against US law. Launching aggressive war against a country that was not a threat to us IS against US law.
David J —
Nobody is answering you because your questions are absurd.
Here: Congress approves resolution authorizing force. This covers al qaeda an its affiliates. From Sept 15, 2001. CNN:
Here: Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
(note: this is a battle in the larger GWOT)
Trust me when I say this: you are wayyyy out of your depth here. You might try some other site to troll – or at the very least, try reading through the archives here to gauge our understanding of who we are at war with.
David —
Again, read the post, follow the links. All will become clear.
And for new posters, leftist or rightist, to gauge the caliber of regular posters here.
I am truly amazed at how informative this blog is.
More on the AIPAC case here. They make an argument that speaks to the culpability / illegality issues
I followed the links Jeff provided in his updates. It will be interesting to see who reliable all this information turns out to be. My gut reaction is that it has a fever swamp sort of feel to it, but there are connections between the leaker and Sandy Berger and even a minor sort of link to Joe Wilson. Time will tell, it might be benefical to pay close attention to the reactions from the DNC (and the press) as this plays out. In an odd way Michael Hiltzik may bave gotten lucky.
I agree, Jeff’s site is incredibly informative.
for the record It is people like actus that I really like to read, I want to hear his point of view and others like him,this way I can convince myself that I am not just reading opinions that I agree with without question. I wish there was a place like this on the left I could go to, but I dont think it exists.
Is there one actus?
Oops, that should be how reliable not who reliable.
I don’t read that many blogs. Never read the comments at atrios. There are way too many. I’ve often ejoyed the discussion at washingtonmonthly.com though.
Holy shit Jeff – I mean holy shit. – WaterGate redux, but this time the Dems on the giving end? A Palace coup scandal on the eve of the fall election cycle. Is Christmas going to come early for the Repubs this year? Yowza
– If Fitzgerald is aware of any of this he must be peeing his shorts. Damn Sam…. heh
Um, national secrets are, by there nature, presumed to involve national security. The onus, and legal exposure, is on the leaker.
Whistleblower is a well defined term that involves communicating possible wrongdoing to the appropriate authority. Leaking to the newsmedia is not a safe harbor and does not a whistleblower make.
For the benefit of Actus, here is the Supreme Court decision (Snepp vs. US, 1980) which held that secrecy agreements signed by CIA employees are enforcable for life (even after separation from the agency) and do not violate the First Amendment.
The Court took note of the facts that:
1) CIA employees do not sign secrecy agreements under duress, but rather voluntarily.
2) Protection of secret intelligence information from unauthorized disclosure is a necessary and proper government concern in safeguarding national security.
3) Allowing employees who have assumed a position of trust (i.e. they are given access to classified information in order to do their jobs) to determine for themselves when to disclose classified information has the potential to cause “irreparable harm” to national security.
4) Stansfield Turner, director of the CIA at the time, testified that cooperation with foreign agencies, which is vital to national security, is impossible if the US cannot assure the secrecy of classified information among its own officials.
Ace’s follow-up was so good that I had to share:
Ace goes a little too far in comparing the MSM to whores (not all practitioners of the world’s oldest profession are completely devoid of integrity, and they deserve our sympathy; the MSM, on the other hand…), but otherwise I think he nailed it.
There is another aspect to “dirty war” being waged by the Democrats and the MSM against the Bush Administration (using leaks of national security information and coordinated criticism from a selected handful of retired generals).
If these are new rules of the game, any future administration, Rethuglican or lily-pure Democrat, would be foolish, I think, not to purge career professionals at the CIA and military officers that it deems politically unreliable, since people who hold those positions of trust are in a position to do great harm by selective leaking of secrets or sniping at military decisions.
That sort of purge might be good in the sense of avoiding release of secrets helpful to our enemies and preventing dissension from demoralizing the military, but bad because it deprives the government of experienced people who fill important jobs.
It is good to have people with different viewpoints involved in decision-making, but no organization can function when those with a minority viewpoint resort to covertly undermining the work of the organization after decisions are made.
Just like the extreme politicization of judicial nominations has not been good for the integrity of those who run our courts, once it becomes too much of a liability to have Democrats in the CIA, State Department and Pentagon during a Republican administration, (or Republicans during a Democratic administration), the end result will be bad for the country as a whole.
Is it just me or did I hear a loud collectivistic “Aww shit” from the Kos Kiddie Konrads sandbox a few minutes ago. Heh
Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, just stop already. Just stop.
I regret to inform the PW community of hard rightwing nutters that I must never post here again, unless someone can tell me how to get black-label, white can Beer out of the computer screen. Damn you, KM @ 10:43 PM!!!
But my last shot off as Hal starts to smoke goes to lucky winner Davey: Did the US ever go to war against the Indian tribes on its western frontier? Did we need to move massive battleships on covered wagon wheels to smash the Blackfoot, the Creek and the Seminole? Google the ‘Banana Wars’.
If you’re looking for a new Germany as an enemy, just stop. The US has fought 200 times since its founding, from New Orleans to Tinian, Belleau Wood, and Beijing, and Baghdad and the Suchan Valley. Germany, Britain, and Spain, imperial Europeans all, were the exception to the rule of quick warfare and small units.
How legitimate a threat is the CIA leaking to the press? I mean it’s never been used as a plot-line on 24.
More, please. Faster.
The only thing worse than an agent with willfully loose lips is a domestic enemy.
I sort of lost interest in Dave when the word “Draft” came out. We, the volunteer, professional soldiers, tend to shudder violently at the thought of a conscript. Don’t need ‘em, don’t want ‘em. Thanks for thinking of us, however.
I do, however, believe we need to institute the draft for journalists and college professors. The volunteers we get there don’t fill the bill.
Coolio.
I wasn’t her clearance update.
Goss instituted random polygraphs three months ago when he told Congress he was going to stop the leakage. It part of an ongoing investigation into leaks.
Betcha some people are wetting their pants right now.
*satan voice*
sorry, It wasn’t…
Well anyway, it’s nice to see all you guys working so hard to keep the country united in a “time of war.” Uniters not dividers ech and every one.
Rockefeller and Durbin asked to poly!!!
SWEET!!
Don’t be discouraged, Dave, you’re almost there. All you have to do is remove the quotes from around time of war and you’ll finally be with us.
Four and a half years late, but hey, we waited for you.
It’s kind of sad to watch a moonbat’s hopes and dreams collapse.
Since when, Charlie? It’s actually rather entertaining.
Wasn’t there a movie where they hanged 6 guys at once?
Dave Johnson
Would you like some brie and crackers to accompany that whine?
You attempt to threadjack with very-tired and already-dealt-with Left Cult talking points and when we don’t play along you act like the spoiled rich kid from an Our Gang comedy who doesn’t understand how all these “lowlifes” keep getting the best of you.
Grow.Up. and take that tree out of your ass.
Dear Davey,
We have noted with some satisfaction that you wish for unity amongst the citizenry. We agree. Therefore the ReichWing has great pleasure to announce our first Liberal Gulag and Canuckistani Deportation Clinic. With all of our moonbats living up to their promises of Maple Leaf summer, winter, fall and spring homes or incarcerated, we shall achieve perfect union.
Love,
The Management of VRWC
PS. You can fuck off anytime now.
– Ahhh. You got the memo Darleen sweets. Welcome to “ItsOurTurnToGloatGate”…..
BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHA…. paybacks a biatch….
Well, let’s ask actus: on your website didn’t you once have six guys…oh, you said HANG them…totally different from what I thought…sorry, everybody, sorry…
TW: Class. Heh, kinda ironic.