White House Outs CIA Officer in Afghanistan...Nothing to See Here

[jgiffin]

(CNN) -- The White House accidentally revealed the name of the CIA's top intelligence official in Afghanistan to some 6,000 journalists. The person was included on a list of people attending a military briefing for President Barack Obama during his surprise visit to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan on Sunday. It's common for such lists to be given to the media, but names of intelligence officials are rarely provided. In this case, the individual's name was listed next to the title, "Chief of Station."


There's been complete silence from the administration on this issue. Of course there has been. Their well-worn playbook reads thusly:

(1) ignore crisis;
(2) when forced to speak, feign indignation;
(3) state you are starting an investigation;
(4) appoint partisan hack to run said investigation;
(5) respond to all further questions with "it would be improper to comment on an ongoing investigation";
(6) wait for hack to clear administration of any wrongdoing;
(7) Repeat as necessary until pretty white girl goes missing or shooter goes on rampage.

I seem to remember another CIA outing a few years ago...cough...Valerie Plame...cough. I wonder what happened with that one. Math is objective; let's address it that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair + republican administration = media furor + impeachment talks + criminal actions + resignation

but...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/26/politics/cia-white-house/ + democratic administration = victim has to retire + no further repurcussions

[Masked Dude]

It'll just be swept under the rug and ignored like so many other things.

[DigitalBuddha]

They believe in nosing, man!

[jgiffin]

Apologies for bumping my own thread but I saw the Obama administration negotiated the release of a soldier who essentially went AWOL and was captured by Al Queda four years ago in exchange for 5 mid-to-high-level Al Queda operatives who were being held in Guantanamo Bay. The administration flouted Federal law by conducting these negotiations unilaterally (specifically, without notifying Congress and its appropriate committees). The proffered excuse was, "Hey these negotiations are, like, really sensitive and stuff. We couldn't, you know, risk a leak or something."

So, let's synthesize this- The same week the administration blatantly outs its top CIA operative in Afghanistan, it changes the narrative by negotiating the release of a US POW...but does so in violation of Federal law and uses the excuse that CONGRESS can't keep its fucking mouth shut?

Paging Mr. Orwell, your table for 300 million is ready.

[Yeti]

1) How does this compare to the outing of Valerie Plame, which was deliberate? This appears to be an accident.

2) I'm not military, so I can't speak with a lot of authority here, but I thought we didn't leave service men who were killed or captured behind? Period? Or is there a caveat for those that might have not followed military code before they were captured? Or for those whose loved ones - acting, I'm sure, under a heightened state of panic and grief - may have acted irrationally while they were captured?

[Yeti]

The administration flouted Federal law by conducting these negotiations unilaterally (specifically, without notifying Congress and its appropriate committees). The proffered excuse was, "Hey these negotiations are, like, really sensitive and stuff. We couldn't, you know, risk a leak or something."

That's especially hilarious considering how the entire NSA spying apparatus was built under Bush by Dick Cheney, David Addington and Michael Hayden applying that exact legal argument.

Also, are you old enough to remember Iran-Contra? Since every conservative under the age of 30 seems to think Reagan was an unsullied saint, I'm guessing they don't teach it in a lot of history classes.

[DigitalBuddha]

Apologies for bumping my own thread but I saw the Obama administration negotiated the release of a soldier who essentially went AWOL and was captured by Al Queda four years ago in exchange for 5 mid-to-high-level Al Queda operatives who were being held in Guantanamo Bay. The administration flouted Federal law by conducting these negotiations unilaterally (specifically, without notifying Congress and its appropriate committees). The proffered excuse was, "Hey these negotiations are, like, really sensitive and stuff. We couldn't, you know, risk a leak or something."

So, let's synthesize this- The same week the administration blatantly outs its top CIA operative in Afghanistan, it changes the narrative by negotiating the release of a US POW...but does so in violation of Federal law and uses the excuse that CONGRESS can't keep its fucking mouth shut?

Paging Mr. Orwell, your table for 300 million is ready.

Fuckin' eh!

[jgiffin]

1) How does this compare to the outing of Valerie Plame, which was deliberate? This appears to be an accident.

2) I'm not military, so I can't speak with a lot of authority here, but I thought we didn't leave service men who were killed or captured behind? Period? Or is there a caveat for those that might have not followed military code before they were captured? Or for those whose loved ones - acting, I'm sure, under a heightened state of panic and grief - may have acted irrationally while they were captured?

...

That's especially hilarious considering how the entire NSA spying apparatus was built under Bush by Dick Cheney, David Addington and Michael Hayden applying that exact legal argument.

Also, are you old enough to remember Iran-Contra? Since every conservative under the age of 30 seems to think Reagan was an unsullied saint, I'm guessing they don't teach it in a lot of history classes.

1. You're right. This is much worse. Plame was a desk jockey. This guy was the Afghanistan STATION CHIEF. Dick Armitage, without administration approval, told one reporter about Plame. This administration directly released the name to 6,000 reporters. You call it accidental. It seems closer to gross incompetence. Moreover, it's convenient how this accident will help move the military and CIA out of Afghanistan on Obama's time line. (I'm in favor of leaving ASAP, btw, but the connection seems suspicious).

2. We've left soldiers behind before. We've also negotiated with bad guys to get soldiers back. What we've generally done, however, is follow existing law when doing so. They didn't here - precisely because Congress shot down the deal about 6 months ago. Again, Obama wants out on his terms - this facilitates it. Also, great deal, huh? The WWII equivalent would be Himmler, Goering, Stangl, Eichmann, and Mengele for Private First Class John B. Smith.

3. No, I'm not defending Reagan, Bush, or any other administration that participated in creating the national security abomination - I want it dismantled yesterday. Yes, I'm old enough to recall Iran-Contra. However, we were not at war with Iran or the Contras during that time period. We were (unfortunately) supporting Iraq against Iran (as a proxy war with the USSR) and the Contras against the Sandinistas. Now, the hostage component is somewhat comparable but overall the contexts are much different.

[jgiffin]

Sorry, tried to edit a typo and must have hit "quote" instead.

Please enjoy the music while your party is being reached.

Brownchickenbrowncow, bowbowbow...