IAP Political Forum

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801817.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801817.html)

Just business as usual in the worst Administration in our nation's history.

It leaks like a sieve when it wants to: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10leak.html?ex=1297227600&en=fa5a437d48d75f0d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10leak.html?ex=1297227600&en=fa5a437d48d75f0d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)

Including for cheap political payback: http://thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal (http://thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal)

Even if it compromises intelligence assets and capabilities: http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/2006/02/did-bush-administration-authorize-leak.html (http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/2006/02/did-bush-administration-authorize-leak.html)

This Administration should never have been trusted with our security. Jesus.

Update:

 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902055.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902055.html)

Actually, I had heard this on CNN yesterday and totally forgot to look into it. It's a very interesting thing, to say the least and could be VERY damning in the future.

What I haven't been able to find is any rebuttal from the administration. Are they just hoping it goes away?

Got that? It's just a "process problem." Everyone just move along now.

I thought the fact that there was a process in which this was leaked is itself the problem.

Oooooooh... good point.

But what benefit would the administration have for leaking this intentionally? Destroying private companies that do better than the government?

Sounds possible... but not very reasonable.

If they didn't like private companies they simply wouldn't employ them.

Basically, what I'm wondering is exactly who would benefit from a leak like this?

The media outlet it was leaked to and then any outlet that picks up the story. The post article is vague about who it was leaked to.

I was under the impression it would have been politically motivated.

The "media angle" didn't occur to me...

Oh please... when has the Bush administration ever leaked sensitive information that was not for political reasons?  ::)

STUPID!
(http://66.98.134.222/forums/images/smilies/violent-smiley-026.gif)

It's so horribly stupid that one must praise how breathing is unconscious, else everyone involved in that stupidity would forget to breathe and would die... not a great loss anyway.

I just can figure that if Midway battle was to occur now, MSM would be publishing "We Got To Set Up Japs At Midway Island!" the week before...

The more it goes, the more the USA look like a brontosaur whose brain died a day ago and still hasn't noticed... :-\

Anyone else ever notice that jpn can never use a source that isnt a screaming crazy liberal?

You mean the Washington Post?? Those crazy screamers who enlightened the world about Nixon and uncovered the watergate coverup when no one else would. I think they have served us well.

Yeah, we all know that in your opinion reality is only real when it's told by the right source. ::)

Or is THIS the leak? (cue creepy music)

CIA, FBI, NSA to name a few. I can only imagine how pissed those agencies are about PRIVATE intel agencies much less ones that are more capable than they are.

I would love to find out how this was actually leaked. I will bet it was becuase of incompetence in the government intel agencies.

They are STILL run like little fiefdoms with the directors of each agency acting as the "Lord" and none of them want to communicate with eachother for fear they will get scoped and lose funding.

Ever notice how the weak minded, in being unable to face an issue, will ignore the issue completely and find something lame to comment upon, such as citing the bias of the source, regardless of whether a source they do trust posts the exact same story.

Curious.

Makes you think folks like Dogface are unable to do much beyond bleat like the sheep in Animal Farm:

Right wing go-o-o-o-o-od, left wing ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-ad.

Coming from someone who uses rightwing kook sources exclusively. That's pretty funny. Brings a whole new meaning to the word hypocrite.

I found this interesting as well. A private intelligence agency? What is that? Anyone know of an example? How long have they been around? I really don't remember ever hearing that phrase before.

Private intelligence... used to be called "conservative think tank". But since no body takes them seriously any more they changed their name to sound more credible and to get on the public dole.   :laugh:

The SITE Institute (http://www.siteinstitute.org/) is a group that monitors terrorist activity on the web. I guess the term private intelligence company would apply here, I had never thought of them in that way. I always thought of it more like the groups that send someone to a chat room to pose as a minor as bait for online pedophiles, or keep tabs on questionable websites. Just the impression I got when I saw their site.

IMO, it's a good thing that private groups are taking an active role in monitoring terror propaganda on the web. SITE's website has a lot of information on terror groups and terror activity on the web.

Who benefits from the war on terror?

As soon as we invaded Afghanistan I predicted, at a different forum, that we would never catch Bin Ladin. I was hoping I was wrong, but so far I have been right.

Now, why did I think we would not catch Bin Ladin?

Was it because he is so smart he can make the CIA and the US government look foolish?

No.

Is it because he is so rich he can pay people to hide him?

No.

It is simply because he is too useful to the powers that be as a boogieman to scare the American people into trading liberty for the ILLUSION of security.

The war on terror is a scam.

It is imposibble to have a war on terror in a country where there were over a million arrests for illegal border crossings last year alone.

Of course you can only understand this if you are capable of logical thought, which rules out around 90% of the American people.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

OBL does not exist, because you have no proof. Isn't this proven?

...Natalie Holloway...Madaline McCann....don't exist...prove it..

MOAB:

"The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique--and unpleasant.... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.… If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.
"The effect of an FAE explosion within confined spaces is immense," said a CIA study of the weapons. "Those near the ignition point are obliterated. "


You tell ME where Osama is...


I thought this was an interestin alalysis of the "leak"....lost communication is exactly that...

"I'm no expert in this area, but I can't immagine it will be easy to bring this network back online. I'm thinking here of the complexity of establishing secure military communications, only with a lot of wrinkles involved that military networks don't have to deal with. How do you distribute new COMSEC? How do you communicate the new websites to the people who need to use them? Either people need to surf the web and find them somehow (in which case our bots can do the same thing a lot faster)and some people will never find the sites they need to find and therefore be isolated from the network), or you have to communicate this information via other means to your members. If the information is being communicated then one of a couple of things must occur : either it is carried by sneakernet which is very secure but very slow and inherently limited (which seems to be the only way I can immagine it would be done-AQ's inner circle physically tell those they trust, who tell those they trust, who tell those they trust, and so on... very slow) or it has to be either transmitted to individuals (which we will possibly intercept and if so probably identify who it is being sent to thus fingering AQ accomplices) or broadcast freely which we will in definitely intercept. Figure into this that you know you were compromised before, so when you arrange to come back online you will have to be careful lest you let the enemy (us) back in. Being careful means you might cut people out of the loop. Cutting people out of the loop reduces your effectiveness. As someone else said, I'm sure that watching this network rebuild itself will be informative as well. I can't help but also wonder, how does an AQ website find users and let them know it is genuinely an AQ website? Does this give our intelligence the opportunity to create fake websites in order to spread disinformation? Also the fact that all of AQ shuts down has to have a morale impact across the terrorist accomplice network. What if fake AQ sites start accusing genuine AQ sites of being fake sites? "

(http://www.ebush.com/bush/cartoons/bush_leaks.jpg)