![]() |
What was Feinstein thinking?
latimes reports
Quote:
If this isn't treasonous then it has to be a mighty close simile. Democrats wonder why most of America doesn't trust them with national security issues and this is a prime example. Does she not realize the negative impact this will have? Before it's all over it could even cost US or United Nations service people their lives. What if our military is forced to move the drones to a base farther away meaning less flight time over the target area leaving our units or UN units without adequate air cover? At minimum she should be stripped of her clearance and dismissed from the Senate Intelligence Committee. |
Quote:
I don't know what to think. I think that if "most of America" doesn't trust the Democrats on national security, but somehow trusts the Republicans it can only be because they are completely insane. Talk about treason... what else do you call the wholesale squandering of America's military resources that was overseen by the previous administration and blessed by Republican voters in 2004? Yep. Those folks (most of America?) sure know a thing or two about national security. For the record, I don't really trust Feinstein about much of anything, but that distrust doesn't really have anything to do with the distrust I have about the Democratic Party. And that distrust has nothing to do with national security issues. I just hope the people who are going to get all up in arms about this aren't the same people who were making excuses for the outing of Valerie Plame (not that I'm delusional enough to think that this hope will be born out in reality). |
she either fucked up and leaked extremely sensitive classified information and is now trying to cover her ass or she is showing her extreme stupidity in making assumptions based on news articles when she should actually be in the know considering her position.
either way, she looks pretty damned stupid |
Whether she was thinking or not, she doesn't have a proper support staff training her on how to communicate about national security issues.
|
She probably wasn't thinking when she said it. This type of thing is a lot more common than you are leading on to. It is definitely not treasonous.
Also it could be worse... she could have twittered it like Pete Hoekstra last week. I don't see you accusing him of treason.... ps. Nice faux outrage! you must watch a lot of faux news. |
against my better judgment, i watched a bit of faux news the other night---they seem to have opted for a strange little region of the planet snippy as a way to not quite deal with the fact that their business model as explicitly reactionary political infotainment outlet might be in trouble.
i think the op is a classical tempest in a teapot, fashioned with great foaming at the mouth about a fairly banal instance involving not-terribly-secret-really infotainment that allows conservatives a therapeutic moment of casting themselves as Real Americans and those who oppose them as therefore Traitors. nostalgia it must be for the good old days. |
Quote:
|
Thanks, Rekna and Other RB. A much more reasoned response than the "Oh for fuck's sake!" that I would have posted.
|
Next thing you know she'll be outing CIA agents because she doesn't like the Op-ed's the agents husband writes.
|
..
|
She didn't say who was flying them. Would they be upset if the Pakistani military was flying them?
And come on, like the people who don't like the West in that country didn't already know that they are being watched. Does it matter where they fly from? |
I can just imagine a random terrorist in Pakistan going "you know, when my government took 5 billion dollars in aid to hunt me down, I was ok with it. When they allowed the US to fly over us to bomb Afghanistan, I said 'meh,' and when predators started operating within our airspace, I just took it in stride. But now that a US senator has confirmed a news story about them using our bases, I am really mad."
So much to legitimately get worked about, that I don't understand faux outrage. Is it a matter of convenience? |
Quote:
First of all, i don't think the CIA should be firing missiles from planes at anyone. That is a military job, not something for an intelligence agency. Secondly, Pakistan needs to make up its mind. Are you going to help end a major terrorist threat based in your own country or are you going to harbor it? Clan this tribe that.. it doesn't matter. Help or stand aside. Standing in the way = not a good idea. I can understand outrage over deaths of civilians, but complaining doesn't help. If the Pakistanis want a better job done they're going to need to step up to the plate and help with intelligence and people on the ground which can help to keep such terrible things from happening. |
Quote:
Funny someone would bring up the Plume case. It was wrong for her to be outed and the Democrats was right to raise a big stink. That case effectively killed the career of Ms. Plume. If we have to move our drones because the Pakistani government don't want to take the heat from an already unhappy populace some of our troops could actually die as a direct result. But then it's "faux news" so why should it matter ..... |
Hang on.
You're missing the issue. Whether or not the Senator is an idiot for appearing to confirm something that was (allegedly) already in the public domain, if the locals are peeved that Predators are being flown out of Pakistani bases, that is not because of what the senator said; it's the previous Commander in Chief who authorised this, I would imagine. If I leave a pile of human shit in your drive-way and my political opponent calls you up to say "your drive-way is full of Daniel's shit", would you be cross with them for telling you, or me for doing it? Really? Thought so. If you worry that the locals don't like what you're doing - don't blame the messenger, blame the policy of doing it, and change that policy. |
Much like the Plume affair little matters that it was already in the public domain. There was a certain amount of denial available that allowed Ms. Plume to continue her career in a diminished role. The denial in this case allowed our military the use of a strategic airbase close to the action giving our drones more air time over the target area and providing our troops extended opportunity for air support. Blame whomever you choose for the pile of shit in the driveway but a little fore thought from high ranking officials should be in order while the shit gets cleaned up.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is not faux new, it is faux outrage. |
No where in the article you referenced does it emphatically state that the drones was being launched and controlled at an airbase in Pakistan. It does reiterate the fact that the drones was being USED in Pakistan but not that they are being LAUNCHED and CONTROLLED from Pakistan airbases and that my friend is a HUGE difference, particularly where the safety of our troops and the Pakistani government is concerned . So no it isn't merely faux outrage as much as you all want to make it out to be and more along the lines of faux news. At no time has any of our officials publicly admitted to anything of this sort until Feinstein ran her mouth.
|
It might be comparable to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) divulging classified intercepted messages to Fox News when he was on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Investigators Concluded Shelby Leaked Message (washingtonpost.com) But it has been widely known that the US and Pakistan have agreed to cooperative on anti-terrorism activities on the border...so, IMO, the revelation will have little impact. Where the drones originate from is not what poses an increased threat to US troops....where they hit is what matters and what provokes a response that may pose a greater threat to the safety of those troops....particularly when civilians are killed. |
Maybe she was trying to throw a bone to self-righteous, internet based, armchair military/US intelligence experts...
|
I forgot about the time Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) revealed classified intel:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The fact that predator strikes have killed people within Pakistan had been publicly reported there and here. So yes, the idea that people who were not moved to strike against the US by the above will be moved to strike against the US because of Feinstein's words is faux outrage. |
like I said this is par for the course. Politicians with access to that kind of information are bound to let something slip eventually. As long as it was done unintentionally I don't have a problem with it. What I do have a problem with is when classified information is intentionally leaked in order to cause harm to someone (Plame). With the only exception being when the leaked information is exposing a criminal act (Secret Rendition & Torture Camps, American Eaves Dropping, etc).
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If Feinstein had waited much longer, they might have had to let go of their misguided notions of Democratic military ineptness. She's actually done them a favor. |
Quote:
What do you think the difference is between "USED" and "LAUNCHED and CONTROLLED"? The first question that comes to mind is whether "use" is defined by "launching and controlling" drones. What other use is there? The distinction is obviously important to you, but you haven't described how you consider the two concepts to be different from one another. Furthermore, what difference does it make to anyone drones are used where they originate from? This wouldn't be such a glaring problem if you didn't follow it up with a non-sequitur. That means, the second part of your argument doesn't follow from the first part. The first part of the sentence I quoted doesn't explain why it's true that the difference between "USE" and "LAUNCHED" are any more of a concern when anyone's safety is at stake. It seems to function as literary hyperbole in order to focus attention on your underlying point: you're fucking mad that the comment increases risk to soldiers' safety. Now, it's perfectly understandable that you'd be pissed off about that. But if you want others to be pissed off about it, then explain more adequately why this statement actually risks soldiers' lives more than if she hadn't said it. Is it because you don't believe anyone knew the particulars? Is it because you didn't know the particulars? |
Quote:
Philip J. LaVelle, a spokesman for Feinstein, said her comment was based solely on previous news reports that Predators were operated from bases near Islamabad. Quote:
Quote:
Lending the bases and running the power, water, sewerage, etc for them and all the infrastructure involvement that this implies makes this little more than an outsourced project of the Pakistani Government. |
I guess one could argue that, but only once one doesn't bother to read the article linked that the person is supposedly commenting about.
The first sentence is, Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project