Source of NIE leak may have been found

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
How does "Democratic staffer most likely suspect" belong in the Topic Summary? It a pure guess that this guy did it. So far, there is not a shred of evidence that he was even involved.

Maybe it should have read: Repub revokes Dem staffer's security clearance on a hunch.

Jack the article makes it pretty clear that they suspect a Democratic staffer did the leaking. The thread title is not misleading

I am curious why you would chose this thread to questions to the heading thought, especially with the rash of misleading thread titles we have seen from left minded posters.

"Bush finally admits Iraq similar to Vietnam" except Bush did not such thing, all he said is that a statement comparing the run up in violence to the Tet offensive "could be right" far cry from admitting Vietnam and Iraq are similar

" Is 500,000 dead worth Seven Trillion ($7.2 * 10^12) " not even sure what this post is suppose to suggest, but the 500,000 dead figure is way off the mark, and nearly everyone understands that.

"What the Bush cabal really thinks about Evangelicals" love the use of the war "cabal" in this one.

"Republican senator claims Bush has a "secret plan" to win the war in Iraq." Nice, except the Republican never used the word secret. The "secret plan" line was nothing more than Democratic spin. Notices you posted on that thread, but didn't say anything about the title.

Just about any thread title from Dave, my favorite "the drive for $5 a gallon gas prices"

Your selective outrage is pretty sad in comparison to the outright lies and total misuse of the truth by many members of the board. At least my heading came right out of the article its self. "Where did that selective leak of the National Intelligence Estimate come from? Well, it's beginning to look like it came from a Democratic staffer on the House Intelligence Committee."

Haha, you just made jackschmittusa look like a tool.

Anyways, I love how you guys are deciding if something should be classified or not, and if in your opinion it shouldn't be classified then its ok to tell the world. When you get a clearance you agree to not divulge anything that is classified, it doesn't matter what you think about it. Stop being complete partisan tools.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Looks like they may have found the person who selectively leaked parts of the NIE for partisian gain.

From Michael Barone of US News and World Report...

Nice attempt at yet another political hatchet job. Your link is to a credible journal, but it's a single source partisan opinion blog. The political bias is obvious in the rest of his blog, for example, in the paragraph following the one you quoted:

umm he links to a story from the the LA Times about the suspension of the Democratic Staffer, I guess that is now a partisan opinion blog in your view? LA TIMES

Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the committee, has protested strongly against the staffer's suspension. Harman for several years has been a responsible member on the committee. But during the course of this calendar year, she has been making more shrill partisan statements and fewer thoughtful critiques. The most likely reason: pressure from the Democratic left.

More significantly, he includes absolutely zero substantiation of any facts, just a bunch of accusations.

Harvey, nearly every post on this forum is full of zero facts and nothing but accusations, just look at you and your calls for Bush to face a trial for treason and the never ending "illegal war" claims.

If this is the person who leaked it then they should lose their job and security clearance FOREVER and should face criminal charges.

Getting back to reality for a brief moment, IF the suspended staffer is proven to be the one who leaked the information, considering the nature of the info, maybe he should receive a medal and a hero's feast. The information that was made public just confirmed what almost everyone knew, that the Bushwhackos' bogus war wasn't going the way they portrayed it, and it was spawning more terrorists. The only ones who still don't get that are the Bushwhackos, themselves, who are still in complete denial.

Thomas Jefferson said:

An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight.

Part of being enlightened citizens, requires knowing when our leaders are lying. We've had example after example and evidence upon evidence that the Bush adminiistration has lied about this war from day one. If you deny that, you are as much a liar as they are... but that's nothing we didn't know from your previous posts. :roll:

Your "examples of lies" as you say "include absolutely zero substantiation of any facts, just a bunch of accusations."

And to you lefties, there will come a day when there is a Democrat President again...

And sooner is better! I want to see the entire administration tried for their TREASON. :|

Your just a bitter partisan hack who is detached from reality. Not even the most left members of congress come close to making the kind of claims you make about treason, an illegal war nor the Bush administration lying since day one.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And to you lefties, there will come a day when there is a Democrat President again, remember your actions now, since how you act in matters like this will certainly effect what happens when you are in office again.

Likewise, John, likewise.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, I don't think this falls under the whistle blowing category.

The part of the NIE that was leaked was the most damming anti-Bush part. This isn't some attempt by a staffer to let the country know about the problems we face in Iraq. It was an attempt to damage the Republicans right before an election.

How else do you explain how they leaked the part about Iraq being a rallying cry for terrorists, but left out the part that if we were to actually leave Iraq that things would get WORSE?

As I said before if the Democrats thought this brief was so damning that the American people needed to know what was inside it they could have pushed for it be released in other more traditional ways.


About the blackmail bit... I never knew Clinton was being blackmailed by the Chinese, I guess that explains why we loosened the export laws regard rocket technology to China during his administration.

EDIT: I do believe there are cases where whistle blowing is a good thing, and the duty of every citizen. Good examples of this are the Enron whistle blowers, the former Reid staffer that brought his land deal to light and the many cases of negligent and even illegal behavior surrounding 9-11 and Katrina. However, I do not see the case in this thread being a case of whistle blowing. This was a "selective leak" and no one has made a serious claim that is was whistle blowing.

BTW: maybe the right should make the argument that leaking the fact that Plame worked for the CIA and may have had a part in getting her husband that job to investigate the yellowcake claims was just a whistle blower trying to alert the American people to a blatant example of nepotism. hmmm

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If this is the person who leaked it then they should lose their job and security clearance FOREVER and should face criminal charges. It is not acceptable to release classified information.

QFT.

The leaks are unacceptable, no matter who is doing it, and those responsible should be taken to task.

Of course we've got to keep the presumption of innocence for the staffer, but let me say I wouldn't exactly be surprised by a Democrat leaking information to attempt to influence an election.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
And to you lefties, there will come a day when there is a Democrat President again, remember your actions now, since how you act in matters like this will certainly effect what happens when you are in office again.

Likewise, John, likewise.

Hey, I am partisan for sure, but I am very principled.

I am not a fan boy out there defending everything Bush and the Republican do or say.

I stated that Foley resigning was a good thing.
I stated that Bush has spent WAY to much money and the budget is growing far faster than it should.
I have stated MANY times that Iraq is a mess and that we need a new strategy that allows us to win, or reposition ourselves in a way they gets our troops out of the crossfire, but stills allows them to work as an anti-terrorism force.
I, like the vast majority of conservatives, opposed his amnesty immigration plan from day one.

Back to the topic of the thread, we can?t have congressional staffers running around leaking classified reports for political gain. That is a horrible precedent for us to set.

Let me make it clear, the accusations are that a staffer was the person behind the leak, not an elected member of the government, but a staffer. Since when does being a congressional staffer give one the right to decide what should and should not be released to the public?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Harvey, nearly every post on this forum is full of zero facts and nothing but accusations, just look at you and your calls for Bush to face a trial for treason and the never ending "illegal war" claims.
.
.
Your "examples of lies" as you say "include absolutely zero substantiation of any facts, just a bunch of accusations."

No, you're just a reading challenged partisan hack who doesn't take the time to read the articles at the links we provide. Then, with blinders set on maximum darkness, you claim you didn't see them. Basically, you're so full of sh8, my ass is jealous.

Your just a bitter partisan hack who is detached from reality. Not even the most left members of congress come close to making the kind of claims you make about treason, an illegal war nor the Bush administration lying since day one.

I'm not bitter. I'm just pissed about the way the Bushwhackos have shredded the U.S. Constitution and how lame ass liars like you continue to spread your garbage, whistling past the graveyard of our Constitutional rights.

It'll be OK if the nation manages to survive this onslaught, and I'll be laughing my ass off when the cretins of this adminstration and their Congressional lackies are held responsible for their carnage. Then, as when Mussolini or Nikolai Chauchesku were finally deposed, I'll enjoy seeing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of them strung up in the public square like a cheap piñata.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but just to point out another of your lies, Congressman Dennis Kucinich says:

Many of you joined me three years ago as I ran for President to challenge the deliberate lies about WMDs, Iraq and 911, Iraq and Al Qaeda, and the Niger "yellowcake" claims which put us onto the path of an unnecessary, illegal, costly war in Iraq.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney says:

This is an immoral and illegal war and we need to bring our troops home now.

I don't care if you agree with them, the fact is, it took me two minutes to find quotes by two members of Congress explicitly calling the Iraq war ILLEGAL. :laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I'm not bitter.

:laugh:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
I'm not bitter.

:laugh:

I'll be checking on November 8 to see if you're still laughing. :laugh:

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Let me make it clear, the accusations are that a staffer was the person behind the leak, not an elected member of the government, but a staffer. Since when does being a congressional staffer give one the right to decide what should and should not be released to the public?

It doesn't. See EXECUTIVE ORDER 13292

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
"And to you lefties," - this is the problem with all of your posts. You need help.

And what is the problem? Please help me since you are so all knowing and powerful.

Using classifying terms such as "lefties" shows that you have no interest in real debate or real progress. It is all a game where everyone is on clear sides to you and if they disagree with you, they are the enemy.

It is pointless to even have a discussion with you because of this. I guess in a society where things are constantly being dumbed down, people need to see everything clear and in black or white, some people need such pointless simplification. It shows your character.

"Your just a bitter partisan hack who is detached from reality."

How could you call someone a partisan hack when you are as blantantly partisan as can possibly be?
1. You call anyone who doesn't agree with you or your party's agenda terms such as "lefties" or "liberals" despite their real party affiliation.
2. Every post of yours is an attempt to attack the opposing party of your own, which happens to have no control in any branch of government, and therefore, whose actions pretty much mean nothing.


If you notice, I have never accused anyone of being any of the following terms: "righties" "conservatives", or "neocons." I wouldn't stoop to calling anyone who disagrees with me an assumed label to try to make it look like they are obviously biased. I take every argument/situation on its own merit and am a confirmed independent. I am against corruption, etc, on both sides. You are never critical of your party... look at your sig for crying out loud.. and you have the gall to call someone else a partisan hack? Seriously, you need professional help.

 

[jackschmittusa]

ProfJohn

As far as this thread goes, the only people I've heard of suggesting this guy is the leaker are a couple of Repubs. Again, no evidence, just a guess. I hate when someone's job and reputation are ruined by a mere accusation. It happened big time in the McCarthy era, and I saw it happen to a local teacher who was totally exonorated, but was screwed anyway. I freely admit my thinking on this issue is colored by past experiences and knowlege. From all that I have read, he has been singled out simply because he had opportunity. I am sure many others did as well. If nothing else, I think it will be interesting to see how this works out.

Of the threads you mentioned, I only bothered to read and participate in two of them.

On the use of the word "cabal", i looked it up to make sure I understood the connotation as well as I thought I did. It reads:

1. a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.

4. to form a cabal; intrigue; conspire; plot

The definition is as I thought, and I think it is quite fitting. More than enough people who have been close to the situation have already described the meetings and actions used to manipulate the religious right for political gain. It is by now, akin to an open secret.

And as far as the "secret plan" issue goes, can you honestly say that "we have a plan but won't tell you what it is" does not equate exactly with the meaning of "secret"? A fourth-grader would tell you that the concept of "I know something, and you don't" is what a secret is.

I had already read the Bush/Viet Nam interview before it appeared here, and thought it to have no substance So I ignored the thread (including the title) as I thought any discussion of it would be without substance as well.

The 500k dead thing didn't look like it made any sense, didn't pique my curiosity, and I didn't bother with it either.

The gas thread? Well, I doubt any of us here has the necessary knowlege and insight to analyze what is happening or predict the future course. Our government has some limited influence of things from many perspectives, but I can't see how we could expect to objectively quantify how great any of those factors are. While there are some obvious indications of things happening, like OPEC production levels, price fluctuation of gasoline is often made up of so many variables, in so many combinations, that it is like figuring out a fluid dynamics problem. So, I didn't bother with that one either.

So, no, I do not consider it selective outrage if I only comment on a thread that I have an interest in. I am not the "Thread Title Police". And whether you approve of my opinion or not, the title sumary did strike a cord with me and I commented on it.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think anybody who is leaking classified information republican, democratic, or other should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

There are GOOD whistle blowers that leak classified information to help the nation.
How can you just make a blanket statement and say "jail them all"?

I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, but please don't make such a blanket statement.

 

[ProfJohn]

Jack, did you or anyone else call the Clinton administration a "cabal" ?

It is a term that has a natural negative connotation, that is why it was used, to cast Bush in a negative light, otherwise it had no real useful meaning in the context of that discussion.

As for the rest, I'll accept your statements as being true. You have every right to be upset if you feel my thread title stroke a cord with you.

However, what I said about the other thread titles is completely true. In the last few days we have had a streak of exaggerated, alarmist and down right dishonest thread titles by the more liberal members of this board.

 

[ProfJohn]

Shadow, I use the term "lefties" to refer to the members of this board who disagree with those of us on the right. I do not use it as an insult, and in the context of this thread I see nothing wrong with how I used it.

As far as calling Harvey a partisan hack, well anyone who goes around saying "I'm just pissed about the way the Bushwhackos have shredded the U.S. Constitution" and "the graveyard of our Constitutional rights" and "I'll enjoy seeing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of them strung up in the public square like a cheap piñata."
and then quotes Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney as examples of Democrats who call the war illegal deserves that title. (Those two being two of the crazies people in congress. Although Kucinich is a stand up guy who will go on TV shows such as O?Rielly and defend what he believes.)

If you notice I have never used that title in reference to the MANY liberals on here who actually engage in thoughtful discussions. Craig, and DonVeto are two good examples, people who I have nothing in common with, but who I have never called any type of name or attacked them on a personal level.

Perhaps you are unaware that Harvey has a tendency to launch the most vicious personal attacks on this board. Including telling me to "STFU" and to "go stand in the corner like the petulant, pissant lying child you are" after statements like that he deserves no respect in my view.

Perhaps if you read some of my replies you would see that I treat the people who show me with respect just as much respect, witness my exchange with Jack and Craig on this very thread.

 

[jackschmittusa]

ProfJohn

I did not use the term cabal myself, but in the case of this Administration, I do think it fitting.

I remember Administrations back to Ike. In fact, my earliest political shock was to find out the Ike lied at first about The Gary Powers flight. (I did fell better later when he owned up to the truth, and my old man pointed out how he had screwed up, admitted he screwed up after consideration, and took the consequences like a man.)

So anyway, I thought why only go back to Clinton the see if the term fit somewhere. I would say that a cabal existed at least within the Reagan Administration (Iran/Contra); and also in Nixon's (Watergate and the coverup). No other Admistrations came to mind where I thought the word might fit.

There has always been some effort to spin or guide events in a favorable fasion by every Administration. I would consider it no less than human nature to do so. But this one is far beyond any I have ever seen. Never have I seen one so tightly cloaked in secrecy. Never have I seen one work so incessantly to manipulate people and events to their advantage.

I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. I pride myself on judging issues on their merits, not whether they are planks in a party platform. And I know my opinions put me left of center as I believe that less government is often better government, and the general principle of live and let live so long as you do not infringe on the rights of others.

So, concurring with the use of the word cabal in reference to this Administration is not intended to "bash" Bush, but to agree that it is an apt description.

I am sure that from your viewpoint, I must seem to be a Bush hater/basher, etc. from my posts, but I can find nothing praiseworthy from him, and much to condemn. Right or wrong, I call 'em like I see 'em.

 

[Craig234]

EDIT: I do believe there are cases where whistle blowing is a good thing, and the duty of every citizen. Good examples of this are the Enron whistle blowers, the former Reid staffer that brought his land deal to light and the many cases of negligent and even illegal behavior surrounding 9-11 and Katrina. However, I do not see the case in this thread being a case of whistle blowing. This was a "selective leak" and no one has made a serious claim that is was whistle blowing.

BTW: maybe the right should make the argument that leaking the fact that Plame worked for the CIA and may have had a part in getting her husband that job to investigate the yellowcake claims was just a whistle blower trying to alert the American people to a blatant example of nepotism. hmmm

So, what do you think should be done to the people who are the 'good' whistleblowers when they break the law on classified information - while your fellow right wingers, none of whom answered my question, say they should always go to jail?

As I said, I do not want to discuss any instances but rather the general issue, but you appear to be confused: all your apporved examples involve the private sector, and none classified information, which is the topic.

And while I did not want to dicsuss examples, since you brought it up anyway, the Plame exposure is not an example you can use. If it *were* nepotism, you could - but it was not. Joe Wilson was extraordinarily well-qualified and he did the mission he was asked to only to serve the nation.

The frickin cult members who attack him simply because he's on the other side of their partisan cult are disgusting. The limited role his wife played was the right thing for her to do - she happened to be married to the best man for the task and to work in the agency who selected the man for the task. It was all proper.

I've met the man, and heard his story. You may not be aware of all of his background that made him excellent for this. He was the guy who had put the governments into power and they owed him a lot, and they would help him get the answers.

I'm sick of the lies about him and am going to start calling liars liars if they persist after being told the facts, if they don't do the responsible thing and research before attacking him.

Now, back to the general issue of right-wingers' position on whistleblowing.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
However, what I said about the other thread titles is completely true. In the last few days we have had a streak of exaggerated, alarmist and down right dishonest thread titles by the more liberal members of this board.

ROFL, it isn't just the last few days. This has been going on for 6 years!

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
So, what do you think should be done to the people who are the 'good' whistleblowers when they break the law on classified information - while your fellow right wingers, none of whom answered my question, say they should always go to jail?

Please explain how leaking national security secrets in the middle of a war can be construed as "good" whistleblowing?

Only a liberal would stretch it that far.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Banned Member with a new ISP
However, what I said about the other thread titles is completely true. In the last few days we have had a streak of exaggerated, alarmist and down right dishonest thread titles by the more liberal members of this board.

ROFL, it isn't just the last few days. This has been going on for 6 years!

Uhh, this forum's only been in existence for a little over 5 years.

 

[flyboy84]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think anybody who is leaking classified information republican, democratic, or other should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I also think any news agency who knowingly published classified information should also be hauled into court. There is a reason why we classify information. Having people running around giving this information away is bad for the govt and the United States as a whole.

I'm not sure that whoever leaked this deserves to go to jail, but they surely deserve to lose their seat in congress.

Working for a U.S. Defense contractor, I have had to sign many a form stating that I fully understand that knowingly revealing classified information can result in prosecution with harsh penalties up to and including execution, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Uhh, this forum's only been in existence for a little over 5 years.

And libs were whining long before this forum.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Shadow, I use the term "lefties" to refer to the members of this board who disagree with those of us on the right. I do not use it as an insult, and in the context of this thread I see nothing wrong with how I used it.

As far as calling Harvey a partisan hack, well anyone who goes around saying "I'm just pissed about the way the Bushwhackos have shredded the U.S. Constitution" and "the graveyard of our Constitutional rights" and "I'll enjoy seeing Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of them strung up in the public square like a cheap piñata."
and then quotes Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney as examples of Democrats who call the war illegal deserves that title. (Those two being two of the crazies people in congress. Although Kucinich is a stand up guy who will go on TV shows such as O?Rielly and defend what he believes.)

If you notice I have never used that title in reference to the MANY liberals on here who actually engage in thoughtful discussions. Craig, and DonVeto are two good examples, people who I have nothing in common with, but who I have never called any type of name or attacked them on a personal level.

Perhaps you are unaware that Harvey has a tendency to launch the most vicious personal attacks on this board. Including telling me to "STFU" and to "go stand in the corner like the petulant, pissant lying child you are" after statements like that he deserves no respect in my view.

Perhaps if you read some of my replies you would see that I treat the people who show me with respect just as much respect, witness my exchange with Jack and Craig on this very thread.

"Shadow, I use the term "lefties" to refer to the members of this board who disagree with those of us on the right. "

That is exactly what I said.

"It is all a game where everyone is on clear sides to you and if they disagree with you, they are the enemy. "
"I wouldn't stoop to calling anyone who disagrees with me an assumed label to try to make it look like they are obviously biased. I take every argument/situation on its own merit"

There is no clear "left" that disagree with you on the "right." Most people hopefully determine each conclusion based on each individual situation'
s merit. To keep using the term "leftie" shows you have no interest in the situation.. you only have interest in declaring anyone who disagrees with you as part of the "other side."

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Uhh, this forum's only been in existence for a little over 5 years.

And libs were whining long before this forum.

"Conservatives" before that.

 

[umbrella39]

He was been pissing and moaning about the dems since he got out of diapers 6 years ago, I think is what he is getting at.