I had read that and I am not surprised.

Go figure why with Romney's stance on pro-choice and equal pay for equal work.

Shocking I tell you, shocking.

No, my response was to such an accusation from someone else. But you seemed to take exception to my response.

May we assume that this means no direct response to the silly "Obama takes all the credit" claim?

But our servicemen and women can trust that he got their bodies out of harm's way in Iraq, after they spent way too long there at the orders of someone else.

You're not "required" to drink the koolaid of either party. There's obviously enough other koolaid being served to and consumed by those who won't drink the party koolaid.

Then there are clearly other varieties of zombie.

Yep, and there's a place for those people. It's called the fence.

Yikes. OK. Fine. You don't HAVE to, so don't, then.

Ask the Republicans in Congress.  They're the ones who killed the plans to close Gitmo.

Yep! IIRC they were scared to have them dudes in Colorado (where they had a empty SUPER-MAX just waiting for some inmates). GOP - We want jobs! Yeah, right!

Is there a non-conservative you would ever not complain about if they held the Office of the President?

3 names listed in the article:

Fred Rustmann--was/claimed to be Valerie Plame's supervision was a fixture on Fox and Hannity frequently

Scott Taylor---perennial VA GOP candidate

Chad Kolton---Works for GOP lobbying firm HDMK, former director of public affairs of FEMA under Bush.


wow, what a distinguished group of non-partisan men.

/sarcasm

WFP, I can only answer one spurious charge at a time....be patient, I'll get to your claims.  I started out by responding to the OP who was claiming that Obama never gives credit or says "thank you" to the US military or the IC.  And that can't be answered with 1 or 2 examples.

Okay, the GOP is really big on arguing that the Obama administration is nothing but a bunch of leakers who have jeopardized national security.

1.  Let's get the movie thing out of the way.  The GOP is paranoid that the new Bigelow film on the killing of UBL is going to make Obama look great so they're claiming that by having SEALs work with the movie it endangers national security.  Except, the movie "Act of Valor" in which real SEALs were in the movie will predate this one by 2 years.  Absolutely NO involvement by the WH.  But tons of enthusiastic involvement by the US Navy who view it as a funding and recruiting booster (just as they did with "Top Gun" and the USCG did with "The Guardian").

2.  Details of the Geronimo Operation.  One of the earliest, most accurate and detailed accounts of the operation was by Nicholas Schmidle for the New Yorker.  He indicates that he had no strategic access but did have extensive operational access (ie: at the military end).  He listened to the comm transcripts from the team members.  That isn't something the WH would have access to, they were watching video in the WH situation room.  Schmidle has since indicated that his access came through JSOC (which is military).    John Weisman has also written extensively about this operation, is extremely well-connected in the military (he co-authored the Marchenko Seal Team-6 books) and the IC.  He indicated that all of his sources were SEALs and special ops community people.

3.  In fact, the Obama administration, when you step away from the partisan attacks which are trying to argue that Obama was only carrying out Bush's plan and also has hurt the country with the Obama operation, actually has a rep for really cracking down on security leaks:

" F.B.I. agents on a hunt for leakers have interviewed current and former high-level government officials from multiple agencies in recent weeks, casting a distinct chill over press coverage of national security issues as agencies decline routine interview requests and refuse to provide background briefings.  The criminal investigation, which has reached into the White House, the Pentagon, the National Security Agency and the C.I.A., appears to be the most sweeping inquiry into intelligence disclosures in years."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/na … wanted=all

In fact, some claim that the Obama administration has been obsessive in going after leakers.
"The same Obama administration that is under fire from critics for allegedly leaking classified information has used a 1917 law to target suspected leakers in twice as many cases as all previous presidential administrations combined...."They've been very tough on these issues," said Jeffrey Toobin, senior legal analyst for CNN. "I think Democratic administrations feel especially obligated to prove that they can be as tough as Republicans on law enforcement. That was true during Clinton, and it's true now, perhaps even excessively."
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-06-07/poli … M:POLITICS

So while there are claims that the Obama administration is big on national security leaks, the facts sure seem to indicate otherwise don't they.

4.  Finally, the OPSEC people are partisan hacks.  Did you know that they share an office in Virginia with two right-wing lobbying and consulting groups?  They claim Obama is guilty of leaks but don't provide a single example linked to the Obama administration.  As a former member of the press, I've gotta tell you that if you honestly believe that Congress isn't a leaky sieve or that only one party leaks that I've gotta rain on your parade.  I've seen Republican and Democratic congressional members race to see who could get the info out "faster" in order to curry favor with the press.  Seriously, I was once working with a journalist on a story and we were waiting by phones to see who would call us first offering to share a document.   We'd even set up pools and bet on which rep would call first.  In this case, my role was to photograph the document.  White Houses often leak to help further a policy.  But Congress leaks nonstop and for all sorts of reasons. But don't take my word for it:
"it (OPSEC) shares an office with two Republican political consulting firms in Alexandria, Virginia....the video blames Obama for leaks without providing any evidence the leaks are his fault."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/politics/ … ?hpt=hp_t2

Oh, and they refuse to share where they get their funding.  That's a sure sign that they don't want people to know their funding source b/c it would kill their claim that they're nonpartisan.

4.  Most leaks come from Congress.  Here's what David Ignatius (who's got serious connections in the IC) has to say about leaks:  "Most damaging leaks don’t come from U.S. intelligence agencies. They come from overseas, or they come from the executive branch, or they come, ahem, from Congress."  And here's the point he makes about all of the hullabaloo about leaks recently and Congress' proposed action on them:  "The first question to ask about the draconian anti-leaking legislation passed by the Senate intelligence committee last week is whether it applies uniformly to all branches of government that may disclose classified information unlawfully.  And the answer is: Of course not. Members of Congress and their staffs are entirely exempted from the new rules that may require for others more polygraphs, more paperwork and the possible loss of pension benefits."
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/0 … -congress/

Now if the problem is the WH, why wouldn't Congress have any problem putting leak restrictions on Congress and their staff?  Riddle me that?

Last of all, besides the bipartisan nature of leaks historically, the last administration to seriously use leaks for political policy purposes in ways that did truly damage intelligence assets was the Bush administration.  The Valerie Plame affair is the prime example.
Ed

What's the old saying, "Victory has a thousand fathers, defeat is an orphan."

Case in point, the Desert One debacle. Another case in point, Munich '72.

Bill Clinton aka Hillary.

I made a mistake in the 2008 Democratic primary...I voted for Obama.  I should have voted for Hillary.

If I had the choice today, I would vote for Hillary over Obama or Romney.

Then you haven't been paying attention.  In the speech that Pres. Obama gave to announce that bin Laden was dead he said he gave the order based on the evidence provided by the military and intelligence agencies. Beyond that here's other pieces of that speech:

"A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.

Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.

We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country. And they are part of a generation that has borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day."

Just an FYI but I know it won't matter to you, to let the facts get in the way of an opinion.

It's fun watching you defend this white house and it's leak factory...

You used to seem somewhat bipartisan, not anymore.

I enjoy Ed's postings and the experience and knowledge behind them. Sometimes I wonder if they will get informed rebuttal. Usually doesn't happen.

You're making ad hominems but not refuting any of the evidence.

Let's see...the OP claimed that Obama never credited the IC and military for getting UBL.  We've got at least 18 different examples where the President met with the units involved (DevGru and SOAR) or publicly acknowledged and thanked our military...for this specific mission and beyond.  We've also got a point-by-point refutation of the silly claim that FOX put out on this issue.

We've got the claim that administration has repeatedly leaked tons of national security information.  And yet plenty of examples of how the administration has been more aggressive going after leaks and prosecuting leaders than any other administration previously.  And the OPSECers don't provide specific examples or offer ones (mentioning SEALs in the operation, revealing we use drones in AfPak) that were/are public knowledge.

Ed

Bogus is a White House full of leaks that dangers our servicemen and assets that help us in other countries.

An independent council should be appointed. AG Holder can not be trusted to investigate...

bogus was a commander in chief who put our servicemen and assets in harms way under false pretense in other countries.

Off topic. Please start a new thread.

Thanks!

overruled.  response was directed to the assertion of bogus to give greater clarification of the term.

1.  The US got positive identification of UBL onsite and also a DNA test.  In fact, Obama wanted to hold off announcing about the mission for a few more days for the DNA test results to be finalized according to the Bergen article I cited but the Pakistanis insisted on the news coming out earlier b/c they needed to justify to the Pakistani populace why a US mission into Pakistan was marginally more tolerable in this instance.

2.  Al Qaeda admitted he (UBL) was killed.

3.  UBL's wives admitted he was killed.

4.  Separate from you accusing Obama and Panetta of lying, you're also accusing Adm. McRaven and all of the DevGru operators of lying and participating in a coverup.

5.  You do know that UBL's body was washed before he was dumped at sea?  Your claim that it was a body in a bag/shroud is wrong.  Multiple DevGru operators at the compound saw the unshrouded body.  The corpse was measured to get the exact height down.  DNA samples were taken for testing.  Pictures of UBL's body were taken.

6.  If it wasn't UBL, who was it?  Think quickly now....b/c it's confirmed (by DNA and public admission) that it was UBL's wives and children in the compound and we've got NGA imagery showing a left-handed male muslim on the top floor over 6 feet tall. Who is over 6 feet tall, left handed, and sleeping with UBL's wives and living with his kids?  If you're so convinced it wasn't UBL, than give an alternative.  And that alternative would need to be someone in possession of a series of harddrives, flashdrives, videos and CD's of highest level Al Qaeda material.

Ed

honestly, we need to just start 1 mega  obama hater thread for you guys so you don't shit up the rest of the threads.

If you're going to make that type of charge either cite some specific evidence to back it up or STFU.  And learn the difference between council and counsel.

Hypocrite.

I guess it's only ok when you do it.

IMO it's a valid point. WOMD -- now that was bogus.

I'd say that:

1. Stuxnet was a heck of a lot more palatable for slowing down the Iranian nuclear program than sending in planes and/or troops.

2. How much of that bin Laden budget was spent from '01 to '09, when Bush didn't get him? And I'm still happy that he's flounder chow, regardless of who the President was.

3. Ed up there notes, unrebutted, that that Administration has been aggressive in nailing down security leaks.

So counter to the cartoon, yeah, those things reflect well on Obama.