What was Feinstein thinking? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

scout · 02-13-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Reporting from Washington -- A senior U.S. lawmaker said Thursday that unmanned CIA Predator aircraft operating in Pakistan are flown from an air base in that country, a revelation likely to embarrass the Pakistani government and complicate its counter-terrorism collaboration with the United States.

The disclosure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, marked the first time a U.S. official had publicly commented on where the Predator aircraft patrolling Pakistan take off and land.

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise over Pakistani opposition to the campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Islamic extremist targets along Pakistan's northwestern border.

"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said.

The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counter-terrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad, the capital, and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country.

The CIA declined to comment, but former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, confirmed that Feinstein's account was accurate.

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.

"We strongly object to Sen. Feinstein's remarks being characterized as anything other than a reference" to an article that appeared last March in the Washington Post, LaVelle said. Feinstein did not refer to newspaper accounts during the hearing.

Many counter-terrorism experts have assumed that the aircraft take off from U.S. military installations in Afghanistan and are remotely piloted from locations in the United States. Experts said the disclosure could create political problems for the government in Islamabad, which is considered relatively weak.

The attacks are extremely unpopular in Pakistan, in part because of the high number of civilian casualties inflicted in dozens of strikes.

The use of Predators armed with Hellfire antitank missiles has emerged as perhaps the most important tool of the U.S. in its effort to attack Al Qaeda in its sanctuaries along the Pakistani-Afghan border. A New Year's Day strike killed two senior Al Qaeda operatives who were suspected of involvement in the bombing of Islamabad's Marriott Hotel.

They were among at least eight senior Al Qaeda figures reportedly killed in Predator strikes over the last seven months as part of a stepped-up missile campaign.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said Feinstein's comments put Pakistan's government on the spot.

"If accurate, what this says is that Pakistani involvement, or at least acquiescence, has been much more extensive than has previously been known," he said. "It puts the Pakistani government in a far more difficult position [in terms of] its credibility with its own people. Unfortunately it also has the potential to threaten Pakistani-American relations."

As chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Feinstein is privy to classified details of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. The CIA does not publicly acknowledge a campaign against Pakistan-based extremists using remotely piloted planes, making Feinstein's comment all the more unusual.

Feinstein's disclosure came during testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee by U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair on the nation's security threats. Blair did not respond directly to Feinstein's remark, except to say that Pakistan was "sorting out" its cooperation with the United States.

Pakistani officials have long denied that they have even granted the U.S. permission to fly the Predator planes over Pakistani territory, let alone to operate the aircraft from within the country.

The civilian leadership that took over from an unpopular former general, Pervez Musharraf, last year, has gone to significant lengths to distance itself from the Predator strikes.

The Pakistani government regularly lodges diplomatic protests against the strikes as a violation of its sovereignty, and officials said the subject was raised with Richard C. Holbrooke, a newly appointed U.S. envoy to the region, who completed his first visit to the country Thursday.

But a former CIA official familiar with the Predator operations said Pakistan's government secretly approves of the flights because of the growing militant threat.

Feinstein prefaced her comment about the Predator basing Thursday by noting that Holbrooke "ran into considerable concern about the use of the Predator strikes in the FATA areas," a reference to what Pakistan calls its Federally Administered Tribal Area along the border with Afghanistan.

Many Pakistanis believe that the civilian leadership, despite public anger, has continued Musharraf's policy of giving the United States tacit permission to carry out the strikes.

The CIA has been working to step up its presence in Pakistan in recent years. It has deployed as many as 200 people to the country, one of its largest overseas operations besides Iraq, current and former agency officials have estimated. That contingent works alongside other U.S. operatives who specialize in electronic communications and spy satellites.

In his prepared testimony Thursday, Blair said that Al Qaeda had "lost significant parts of its command structure since 2008."

greg.miller@latimes.com

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.

filtherton · 02-13-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

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.

I thought this thread was going to be about that anti net neutrality amendment she tried to smuggle into the bailout bill(I think it was the bailout bill).

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).

dksuddeth · 02-13-2009, 12:44 PM

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

genuinegirly · 02-13-2009, 02:02 PM

Whether she was thinking or not, she doesn't have a proper support staff training her on how to communicate about national security issues.

Rekna · 02-13-2009, 02:31 PM

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.

roachboy · 02-13-2009, 02:55 PM

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.

Lilith785 · 02-13-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

ps. Nice faux outrage! you must watch a lot of faux news.

LMAO.

ratbastid · 02-13-2009, 03:34 PM

Thanks, Rekna and Other RB. A much more reasoned response than the "Oh for fuck's sake!" that I would have posted.

Tully Mars · 02-13-2009, 04:27 PM

Next thing you know she'll be outing CIA agents because she doesn't like the Op-ed's the agents husband writes.

timalkin · 02-13-2009, 07:24 PM

ASU2003 · 02-13-2009, 08:18 PM

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?

dippin · 02-13-2009, 08:34 PM

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?

ObieX · 02-14-2009, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

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?

I'd have to agree with this.

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.

scout · 02-14-2009, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

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?

I really don't think this is about " a random terrorist"but if it makes you feel better to believe it is then so be it. Nothing I'm going to type in here on this forum is going to suddenly turn on the lights or open the bigger picture for you.

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 .....

Daniel_ · 02-14-2009, 03:50 AM

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.

scout · 02-14-2009, 04:06 AM

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.

dksuddeth · 02-14-2009, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

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,

hold up here. where in the public domain was that information confirmed before this sound bite from feinstein?

dippin · 02-14-2009, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

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 .....

YOU are missing the point. The idea that this will generate any "heat" is silly. Is public and well known that Pakistan has an agreement for certain types of military cooperation with the US. It is public and well known that the US removed the sanctions it had in place against Pakistan in exchange for the use of Pakistani airspace to launch attacks on terrorist camps. It is public and well known that predators were being used inside Pakistan for some time now (Special drones pursue militias - Los Angeles Times). It is also public and well known that president Bush signed an order giving US special forces permission to launch attacks within Pakistan without asking for Pakistani permission, something that Obama actually publicly supported during the last campaign.

This is not faux new, it is faux outrage.

scout · 02-14-2009, 09:18 AM

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.

dc_dux · 02-14-2009, 09:32 AM

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.

filtherton · 02-14-2009, 09:49 AM

Maybe she was trying to throw a bone to self-righteous, internet based, armchair military/US intelligence experts...

dc_dux · 02-14-2009, 10:00 AM

I forgot about the time Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) revealed classified intel:

Quote:

...on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, Roberts himself was involved in disclosing sensitive intelligence information that, according to four former senior intelligence officers, impaired efforts to capture Saddam Hussein and potentially threatened the lives of Iraqis who were spying for the United States.

NATIONAL JOURNAL: Is There A Double Standard On Leak Probes? (04/25/06)

Hmmmm..what was Senator Shelby thinking? What was Senator Roberts thinking?

dippin · 02-14-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

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.

The military cooperation at the tune of over 5 billion dollars is official policy and publicly known. The authorization to use Pakistani airspace is official policy and publicly known. US military support for actions within Pakistan itself is official policy and publicly known.
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.

Rekna · 02-14-2009, 10:13 AM

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).

dksuddeth · 02-14-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

I agree, this 'slip' will have little impact except for those that just want to make it so. The real problem may develop in pakistan directly. It's been a country issue that the tribes in the north don't agree with cooperating with the USA, but I think the pakistan government wants to get rid of OBL because of the influence he has over the tribes. Trying to keep cooperation quiet was preventing a civil war in Pakistan, Feinsteins loose lips might be incendiary to that action.

dippin · 02-14-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I agree, this 'slip' will have little impact except for those that just want to make it so. The real problem may develop in pakistan directly. It's been a country issue that the tribes in the north don't agree with cooperating with the USA, but I think the pakistan government wants to get rid of OBL because of the influence he has over the tribes. Trying to keep cooperation quiet was preventing a civil war in Pakistan, Feinsteins loose lips might be incendiary to that action.

How exactly was the US trying the keep the cooperation quiet?

TheNasty · 02-15-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Maybe she was trying to throw a bone to self-righteous, internet based, armchair military/US intelligence experts...

Are these sort of like the self-righteous, internet based, armchair political/policy experts?

filtherton · 02-15-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNasty

Are these sort of like the self-righteous, internet based, armchair political/policy experts?

A lot like them. Except the military specialists haven't had much fodder lately, with the current CIC keeping on the former CIC's defense secretary.

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.

smooth · 02-16-2009, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

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 .

My wife used to do shit like this where she referred to differences in language that either don't exist or aren't apparent to others. I think it stems from failing to unpack the containers you believe are delivering messages. I encouraged her to take a logic course so she could recognize for herself when she's doing it.

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?

Daniel_ · 02-16-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

hold up here. where in the public domain was that information confirmed before this sound bite from feinstein?

From the OP article:

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:

Originally Posted by smooth

**snip**

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.

One could argue that USED in Pakistan means "flying over", but LAUNCHED and CONTROLLED means "the operator is in the country with the permission of the Government of Pakistan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

Furthermore, what difference does it make to anyone drones are used where they originate from? **snip**

It's a question of Pakistani Government complicity. Not preventing the overflying if launched elsewhere could be the result of not being ABLE to stop the mighty US Military.

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.

smooth · 02-16-2009, 01:26 PM

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:

"As part of an escalating offensive against extremist targets in Pakistan, the United States is deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems"..."U.S. campaign, which has included half a dozen Predator strikes and a ground raid in the last few weeks.

This morning, witnesses said, at least eight people were believed killed in what appeared to be a Predator strike in North Waziristan, near the Afghan border.

Pakistanis complain that U.S. raids frequently kill civilians in addition to militants."

I don't know how any reasonable person reads those sentences and doesn't understand them as Predators being launched within Pakistan and controlled within the borders to conduct missions against people inside Pakistan borders unless that person a) didn't read the article and/or b) is just being argumentative.

02-13-2009, 12:44 PM	#3 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	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 __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

02-13-2009, 02:02 PM	#4 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Whether she was thinking or not, she doesn't have a proper support staff training her on how to communicate about national security issues. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

02-13-2009, 02:55 PM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-13-2009, 04:27 PM	#9 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Next thing you know she'll be outing CIA agents because she doesn't like the Op-ed's the agents husband writes. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club Last edited by Tully Mars; 02-14-2009 at 01:21 AM..

02-13-2009, 07:24 PM	#10 (permalink)
timalkin Addict Location: watching from the treeline	.. __________________ Trinity: "What do you need?" Neo: "Guns. Lots of guns." -The Matrix Last edited by timalkin; 12-20-2010 at 07:38 PM..

02-13-2009, 02:31 PM	#5 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

02-13-2009, 03:34 PM	#8 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Thanks, Rekna and Other RB. A much more reasoned response than the "Oh for fuck's sake!" that I would have posted.

02-13-2009, 08:18 PM	#11 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	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?

02-13-2009, 08:34 PM	#12 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	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?

02-14-2009, 03:50 AM	#15 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	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. __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

02-14-2009, 04:06 AM	#16 (permalink)
scout Psycho	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. __________________ "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

02-14-2009, 09:18 AM	#19 (permalink)
scout Psycho	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. __________________ "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson Last edited by scout; 02-14-2009 at 09:20 AM..

02-14-2009, 09:32 AM	#20 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-14-2009 at 09:43 AM..

02-14-2009, 09:49 AM	#21 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Maybe she was trying to throw a bone to self-righteous, internet based, armchair military/US intelligence experts...

02-14-2009, 10:13 AM	#24 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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).