Source of NIE leak may have been found

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Balt
The only thing Bush could salvage from the report was the theory that leaving Iraq would leave a haven for terrorism. That still doesn't justify going there in the first place.

Er, no. It also concluded that a victory in Iraq will be a major blow to the insurgency elsewhere. That section was conveniently left out by the partisan hack that leaked it.

The NIE was a disaster for Bush's administration, and he knows it. He was going to continue claiming he has made Americans safer all the way to November 7th and beyond, and the leak of the report denied him that option.

He can make that claim with or without the NIE, so I call straw man.

And this is all irrelevant. Or are you insinuating that attempting to influence an election is a valid excuse for leaking classified national security secrets?

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Balt
The only thing Bush could salvage from the report was the theory that leaving Iraq would leave a haven for terrorism. That still doesn't justify going there in the first place.

Er, no. It also concluded that a victory in Iraq will be a major blow to the insurgency elsewhere. That section was conveniently left out by the partisan hack that leaked it.

The NIE was a disaster for Bush's administration, and he knows it. He was going to continue claiming he has made Americans safer all the way to November 7th and beyond, and the leak of the report denied him that option.

He can make that claim with or without the NIE, so I call straw man.

And this is all irrelevant. Or are you insinuating that attempting to influence an election is a valid excuse for leaking classified national security secrets?

It is no more or less valid than intentionally lying to the American public for the same reason (influencing an election).

And yeah like you said Bush can claim anyway that he has made Americans safer, but now there is a document pointing out that it's complete bull so it doesn't help his case much. The remarks in the NIE about victory in Iraq being a blow to the insurgency are a nice tale of what *might* happen *if* victory in Iraq is possible, but they are supposition and hence the 'real meat' of the document is what has already been observed and documented in a little thing we like to call "reality".

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I'm a bit conflicted... which is worse? leaking information for political gain or refusing to make information public for political gain?

If you believe in the power of truth, the answer is easy.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Balt
The only thing Bush could salvage from the report was the theory that leaving Iraq would leave a haven for terrorism. That still doesn't justify going there in the first place.

Er, no. It also concluded that a victory in Iraq will be a major blow to the insurgency elsewhere. That section was conveniently left out by the partisan hack that leaked it.

Ummm... Right. And considering that former secretary of State James A. Baker has stated publically that the current strategy is not and cannot work and top generals, past and present, are reporting that the war is anywhere from dismal to unwinnable, what do you think are the odds of that? For example...

General concedes failure in Baghdad
Bush acknowledges comparison to '68 Tet offensive in Vietnam

Anna Badkhen, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, October 20, 2006

In a confluence of grim official assessments of the war in Iraq, President Bush acknowledged that sectarian bloodletting in Baghdad could be compared to the Viet Cong's 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, and one of the top U.S. generals said the American military's two-month drive to crush the spiraling violence in the Iraqi capital had failed.
.
.
But on Thursday, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, announced that the American-led crackdown on violence in Baghdad had failed and said U.S. commanders were consulting with the Iraqi government on a new approach.

"It's clear that the conditions under which we started are probably not the same today, and so it does require some modifications of the plan," Caldwell said.

"The violence is indeed disheartening," he noted.

"Gen. Caldwell's admission is yet another indication that the enemy is winning," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a centrist think tank in Arlington, Va. "Commanders in the field are beginning to suggest a lack of success."

Caldwell's assessment came as the military announced the deaths of three U.S. troops in Iraq, raising the number of American military deaths in October to 74. Car bombs, mortar fire and small-arms fire across Iraq killed at least 66 people -- including the police commander of the volatile Sunni Anbar province, who was shot to death in his own house -- and wounded 175.

Growing frustration with the continuing drumbeat of bad news from Iraq has driven political debate in the final weeks of the congressional election campaign. As Americans have become increasingly opposed to the war, some of the staunchest Republican supporters of Bush's foreign policy, such as the influential Virginia Sen. John Warner, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska have joined the Democrats in calling for a new Iraq strategy.

"This is not about Democrat versus Republican anymore," said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on Iraq and the senior vice president for national security at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy think tank. "It's serious, senior people across the political spectrum saying this strategy has failed."

Richard Haass, a former Bush administration foreign policy official, said Thursday that the situation is reaching a "tipping point" both in Iraq and in U.S. politics. "More of essentially the same is going to be a policy that very few people are going to be able to support," said Haass, now president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that the administration's current Iraq strategy "has virtually no chance of succeeding."

It is unclear whether this means that Bush -- who so far has steadfastly resolved to "stay the course" in Iraq, is getting ready for a different approach on the conduct of the war.

"You always have to be skeptical of statements made by politicians on the eve of an election," Thompson warned. "Bush's comments may be purely tactical, and they may not offer any insights into his long-term plans."

Conservative politicians and analysts say the overall Iraq policy is unlikely to change.

"President Bush is committed to a strategic end, probably until the end of his administration," said James Phillips, an expert on Iraq at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Vice President Dick Cheney, an architect of the administration's Iraq policies, said the United States was "not looking for an exit strategy."

"We're looking for victory," Cheney said in an interview posted on Time magazine's Web site Thursday.

But some analysts expect the Iraq policy to take a new direction after the election.

"The White House is bitterly opposed to acknowledging failure, but it is running out of options, just like the army is," said Thompson. He said it is likely that the Pentagon will "begin reducing its presence in Iraq after the (midterm) election" on Nov. 7.

Cirincione agreed.

"There's no doubt in my mind that after the election there will be a fundamental shift in American strategy, almost certainly leading to redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq," he said. "It's very difficult to find any senior figure who supports the president's 'stay the course' strategy."

Former Secretary of State James Baker, co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, a high-powered government advisory body that is developing policy options for Bush, made headlines this month by saying that "stay the course" is no longer a viable strategy and that some kind of change will be required. It is unclear whether Bush will follow the suggestions brought forth in the study group's report, which is due after the November election.

"It's very hard to tell, because we keep being presented with those 'stay the course' kinds of statements," White said.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Tom
"The thread title is not misleading "


it isn't misleading as long as we pay attention to the source, you, and the bias you bring to every topic.

It is misleading as a summary of the article. The article does not say there is a "most likely" suspect, in fact looking at the info in the article objectively, the staffer is no more likely the source of the leak, than is the Republican congressman himself.

If having access to classified info is all it takes to become the "most leading" suspect, then everyone who had access is guilty.

Tom are you reading the same thread I am?
" The article does not say there is a "most likely" suspect" No the article says "it's beginning to look like it came from a Democratic staffer on the House Intelligence Committee." I inserted "most likely" to be kind incase it turned out not to be this person. The article is 100% clear that Barone suspects a Democrat staffer leaked the report.

As for your " then everyone who had access is guilty" maybe you should read the LA Times article linked to by Barone

Hoekstra said he does not believe that any committee Republicans had access to the intelligence assessment before it was leaked, citing a computer malfunction that prevented committee members and staff from realizing it had been transmitted to them.

"We are pretty confident that the number of people on the committee who had access to this report is very, very limited," he said.

And if you read Barone's piece you would have seen the possible chain of events "the staffer requested a copy of the April NIE three days before part of its contents appeared in the New York Times." Could be coincidence, but it looks awfully guilty.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Balt

Let me ask one final time. What is a valid excuse for leaking classified national security secrets in the middle of a war? Not one of the libs here has presented a valid argument for that.

How about this: Bush was intentionally misleading the public. In his 9/11 speech and elsewhere he claimed he had made Americans "safer but not yet safe". He was clearly trying to make people believe that his war on terror was decreasing terrorist threats to Americans. If the NIE doesn't directly contradict that claim, it surely puts it into doubt. He made claims based on his 'beliefs' rather than actual information. Thing is, I and many others don't care what he believes, especially if he only states it for political ends. I would rather hear facts.

Whether pointing out his dishonesty is a 'valid excuse' for the leak depends on your opinion. When a politician makes unsunbstantiated claims to boost their numbers in the polls, they are increasing the likelihood that some lone wolf is going to take it upon themselves to bring down the house of cards.

Balt, I assume that Bush saying we are safer is in respect to the fact that al-Qaeda is on the run, most of their leadership destroyed, Osama hasn't been seen in over 2 years. And there has not been another terror attack on US interests (outside of the war zones) in over 5 years. (compared to the average of one attack every 2 years prior to 9-11) Four major terror attacks in the eight years prior to 9-11(WTC 93, Khobar Towers, embassies, US Cole), and not ONE since, from that you can make the case we are safer.
Also, the NIE does not say we are less safe than pre 9-11.
So please explain how his saying "safer but not yet safe" is contradicted in the NIE, read the document and post the specific part that shows Bush is misleading us.

Judging from this statement by you "If the NIE doesn't directly contradict that claim, it surely puts it into doubt" I wonder if you even read the NIE, the summary released by Bush, not the selective leaks printed in the Times.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Balt

Let me ask one final time. What is a valid excuse for leaking classified national security secrets in the middle of a war? Not one of the libs here has presented a valid argument for that.

How about this: Bush was intentionally misleading the public. In his 9/11 speech and elsewhere he claimed he had made Americans "safer but not yet safe". He was clearly trying to make people believe that his war on terror was decreasing terrorist threats to Americans. If the NIE doesn't directly contradict that claim, it surely puts it into doubt. He made claims based on his 'beliefs' rather than actual information. Thing is, I and many others don't care what he believes, especially if he only states it for political ends. I would rather hear facts.

Whether pointing out his dishonesty is a 'valid excuse' for the leak depends on your opinion. When a politician makes unsunbstantiated claims to boost their numbers in the polls, they are increasing the likelihood that some lone wolf is going to take it upon themselves to bring down the house of cards.

Balt, I assume that Bush saying we are safer is in respect to the fact that al-Qaeda is on the run, most of their leadership destroyed, Osama hasn't been seen in over 2 years. And there has not been another terror attack on US interests (outside of the war zones) in over 5 years. (compared to the average of one attack every 2 years prior to 9-11) Four major terror attacks in the eight years prior to 9-11(WTC 93, Khobar Towers, embassies, US Cole), and not ONE since, from that you can make the case we are safer.
Also, the NIE does not say we are less safe than pre 9-11.
So please explain how his saying "safer but not yet safe" is contradicted in the NIE, read the document and post the specific part that shows Bush is misleading us.

Judging from this statement by you "If the NIE doesn't directly contradict that claim, it surely puts it into doubt" I wonder if you even read the NIE, the summary released by Bush, not the selective leaks printed in the Times.

Did you read anything other than the Bush summary? Al Qaeda is not the only terrorists that exist, you know. Also 9-11 is not the subject of the NIE, so really you've got nothing there.

The Republicans are going to keep control of both the Senate and House on election day.

You are delusional.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, based on what this guy leaked I doubt he will go to jail. If you read my posts on this thread I never made that suggestion either.

What should happen is that he should lose his job, have his security clearance taken away forever and he should face criminal charges for leaking classified information, which may not results in jail time (Look at Burger who admitted to taking classified info and destroying it, he is doing no jail time.)

On your hypothetical question:
Now, let's say President X gives a speech and says "The country soandso is harboring terrorists and is a threat to its neighbors"
Then some staffer finds a classified report that was given to the President before the speech was given that says "We have no evidence at all to suggest country soandso is involved in any terror activates, and we recommend this line be taken out of your speech."
If at that point the staffer feels the need to "leak" the report to the press in order to illustrate that the President is lying to the people then I would support what he did. As long as the staffer is honest in what he leaks, and does not cherry pick the report and only releases the parts harmful to the President.

What we have in this case is a selective leak meant for political reasons only, not some grand attempt to illustrate the lies of a President. Unless someone can find a statement by Bush that goes completely against what is in the NIE. And I don't think anyone can, because if that statement was out there the Democrats and the press would have been all over that story.

Happy now Craig?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Balt

The Republicans are going to keep control of both the Senate and House on election day.

You are delusional.

Nah, optimistic.

Honestly, the house is most likely to go Democratic, but the Senate will not.

Besides, going around with a ?we will lose? attitude leads one to accept losing. Look at any great sports team and their passionate belief that they will win. People thought Joe Namath was delusional when he said "The Jets will win on Sunday, I guarantee it."

BTW: You made a statement "How about this: Bush was intentionally misleading the public. In his 9/11 speech and elsewhere he claimed he had made Americans "safer but not yet safe" and when I challenged you to back this up with proof you totally ignored my challenge. And instead of answering whether or not you read the released part of the NIE you try to deflect the question with "Did you read anything other than the Bush summary? "

And yes I have read the "Key Findings" of the report, which is the only part available to the public. Prior to today have you?
And where is the proof to back up your statement?

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Balt

The Republicans are going to keep control of both the Senate and House on election day.

You are delusional.

Nah, optimistic.

Honestly, the house is most likely to go Democratic, but the Senate will not.

Besides, going around with a ?we will lose? attitude leads one to accept losing. Look at any great sports team and their passionate belief that they will win. People thought Joe Namath was delusional when he said "The Jets will win on Sunday, I guarantee it."

BTW: You made a statement "How about this: Bush was intentionally misleading the public. In his 9/11 speech and elsewhere he claimed he had made Americans "safer but not yet safe" and when I challenged you to back this up with proof you totally ignored my challenge. And instead of answering whether or not you read the released part of the NIE you try to deflect the question with "Did you read anything other than the Bush summary? "

And yes I have read the "Key Findings" of the report, which is the only part available to the public. Prior to today have you?
And where is the proof to back up your statement?

The estimate said that the global jihadist movement, including al Qaeda, is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts. "If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide," the estimate says.

The key passage in the estimate is that the Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists. The estimate says U.S. efforts in Iraq have bred deep distrust in the Muslim world and that jihadists are using the conflict to recruit new members. "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight," the estimate says.

The estimate lists four factors fueling the spread of jihad: entrenched grievances, corruption, injustice and a sense of powerlessness; Iraq; the slow pace of reform in the Muslim world; and "pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims."

However, we judge that al-Qa?ida will continue to pose the greatest threat to the Homeland and US interests abroad by a single terrorist organization. We also assess that the global jihadist movement?which includes al-Qa?ida, affiliated and independent terrorist groups, and emerging networks and cells?is spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.

Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body
of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists,
although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in both number and
geographic dispersion.
? If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become
more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and
operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the
struggle elsewhere.

Al-Qa?ida, now merged with Abu Mus?ab al-Zarqawi?s network, is exploiting the
situation in Iraq to attract new recruits and donors and to maintain its leadership role.

What do you extrapolate from that? I'm interested to see how you can spin it into a positive. Keep in mind Bush was saying we are *already* safer, not "we will be safer if we win in Iraq".

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Balt

Let me ask one final time. What is a valid excuse for leaking classified national security secrets in the middle of a war? Not one of the libs here has presented a valid argument for that.

How about this: Bush was intentionally misleading the public. In his 9/11 speech and elsewhere he claimed he had made Americans "safer but not yet safe". He was clearly trying to make people believe that his war on terror was decreasing terrorist threats to Americans. If the NIE doesn't directly contradict that claim, it surely puts it into doubt. He made claims based on his 'beliefs' rather than actual information. Thing is, I and many others don't care what he believes, especially if he only states it for political ends. I would rather hear facts.

Whether pointing out his dishonesty is a 'valid excuse' for the leak depends on your opinion. When a politician makes unsunbstantiated claims to boost their numbers in the polls, they are increasing the likelihood that some lone wolf is going to take it upon themselves to bring down the house of cards.

Balt, I assume that Bush saying we are safer is in respect to the fact that al-Qaeda is on the run, most of their leadership destroyed, Osama hasn't been seen in over 2 years. And there has not been another terror attack on US interests (outside of the war zones) in over 5 years. (compared to the average of one attack every 2 years prior to 9-11) Four major terror attacks in the eight years prior to 9-11(WTC 93, Khobar Towers, embassies, US Cole), and not ONE since, from that you can make the case we are safer.
Also, the NIE does not say we are less safe than pre 9-11.
So please explain how his saying "safer but not yet safe" is contradicted in the NIE, read the document and post the specific part that shows Bush is misleading us.

Judging from this statement by you "If the NIE doesn't directly contradict that claim, it surely puts it into doubt" I wonder if you even read the NIE, the summary released by Bush, not the selective leaks printed in the Times.

What'choo talkin' bout? I saw OBL at a matinee showing "Man of The Year" last weekend. We chatted about how tough it is being tall in this world, and the quality of the popcorn at the theatre. Nice enough fellow.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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."

That's my opinion, and expressing it is something the Bushwhackos haven't yet stripped from the Constitution. I'll keep expressing it until they do. Then, I'll consider my options to keep doing so.

and then quotes Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney as examples of Democrats who call the war illegal...

That was in response to your statement:

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.

Did I miss something, or did I catch you in yet another lie? :laugh:

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.

Again, that's my opinion of you, and it's still legal. From everything you post, the only thing I can believe is that you are a petulant, pissant lying child. I have absolutely no respect for your opinion, whatsoever. Deal with it.

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.

Perhaps they would see that the one thing you never respect is the truth.

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

Go ahead. Try to make that case. It'll give only confirm your already shattered credibility. :laugh: