Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/26/politics/cia-white-house/index.html?c=homepage-t

Pretty dumb mistake there...

They picked the best candidates from ID10T forms in this Admin it seems

Yeah... someone better lose their job for this.

Regardless of Admin if they get "fired" its a promotion out of the position

 streamdragon wrote:
Yeah... someone better lose their job for this.

At the very least the Intelligence Chief is getting relegated to a desk job, unless they get an entire new identity for him.

So yeah, someone kinda lost their job

I'm sure we'll see a ton of dems coming out calling for special investigations and such. Of course they'd follow this up with the same exact zeal that they did in the Scooter Libby case.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm sure we'll see a ton of dems coming out calling for special investigations and such. Of course they'd follow this up with the same exact zeal that they did in the Scooter Libby case.

Or Benghazi.


Sorry, it was too easy Low hanging fruit there

If you're going to screw up at least do it in style I guess

Thing is, whoever compiled that first list with the name and position on it had to have been someone relatively high up in order to have that information to begin with.

On the other hand, with the sheer volume of paperwork that moves around that has to be classified, redacted, etc., it is bound to happen that something eventually gets missed or the wrong copy gets forwarded. There is no such thing as a 0% error rate, after all.

Still a big blunder, though.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm sure we'll see a ton of dems coming out calling for special investigations and such. Of course they'd follow this up with the same exact zeal that they did in the Scooter Libby case.

Hopefully with the same zeal Republicans attacked Oliver North over that drugs-for-guns fiasco back in the 80's. It's almost if as partisan politics helps criminals hide their actions from the American populace. Who would'a thunk it right?

Inevitable fowl up when public office is more about celebrity than duty these days.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm sure we'll see a ton of dems coming out calling for special investigations and such. Of course they'd follow this up with the same exact zeal that they did in the Scooter Libby case.

Are we going to pretend there is no difference between incompetence and malice? That an oversight, while awful and to be avoided, is the same as intentionally leaking the names of an undercover asset to settle a political score, as payback?

Also, no one was prosecuted for leaking. Scooty Libby was convicted of perjury, which i am quite sure you're aware of.

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'm sure we'll see a ton of dems coming out calling for special investigations and such. Of course they'd follow this up with the same exact zeal that they did in the Scooter Libby case.

Are we going to pretend there is no difference between incompetence and malice? That an oversight, while awful and to be avoided, is the same as intentionally leaking the names of an undercover asset to settle a political score, as payback?

Also, no one was prosecuted for leaking. Scooty Libby was convicted of perjury, which i am quite sure you're aware of.

Wait... Richard Armitage leaked it as payback? Really? I thought that was a goof too...

Armitage's was, but the other leakers (Rove, Libby), were not.

Have faith noone, repeat no one ever gets fired in the Obama administration.

 Frazzled wrote:
Have faith noone, repeat no one ever gets fired in the Obama administration.

As opposed to the Bush administration and its huge revolving door of lackeys, amirite?

 Frazzled wrote:
Have faith noone, repeat no one ever gets fired in the Obama administration.

I don't think that Presidents formally fire people at all anymore, regardless of administration. Doing so makes it look like the Administration erred in hiring such a person. Instead, that person is forced to "resign", and of course as you well know, there have been people who have been resigned by the Obama administration, such as Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod (oops), Robert Petzl, Kathleen Sebelius, Greg Craig, Steven Miller, Stanley McChrystal, and so on.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Have faith noone, repeat no one ever gets fired in the Obama administration.

As opposed to the Bush administration and its huge revolving door of lackeys, amirite?

They were almost as incompetent.

Well at least they got it out before it got leaked.

Saves embarrassment later I suppose.

 Ouze wrote:
Armitage's was, but the other leakers (Rove, Libby), were not.

What exactly did Rove & Libby leak then?

djones520 was simply remarking the apparent media hypocrisy between this event and what happened over Plame.

If you need a refresher... here's Hitchens himself in 2006:

The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.

So what will happen on the military side to the person who sent a list that was titled as being for the press pool but included a name that absolutely was not for the press? It seems odd to blame only the administration for missing it when they were one of two groups that seem to have flubbed it.

Would the admin have known the list included a name it shouldn't have?

Edit: i.e. Would the title next to the name be enough of a give away?

 Ahtman wrote:
So what will happen on the military side to the person who sent a list that was titled as being for the press pool but included a name that absolutely was not for the press? It seems odd to blame only the administration for missing it when they were one of two groups that seem to have flubbed it.

I dunno...

I can't really be that half-arsed about this.

It was a goof. A really, REALLY bad goof. But very most likely unintentional goof and should be administratively punished.

It's just a marked contrast to the whole Valeria Plame thing.

I mean... we had Joe Wilson, a very vocal and open opponent of the Bush Administration, getting a CIA gig, and then getting an article in a top paper slamming said Bush Administration.

So, how did he get the gig, with his background??? Inquiring minds wanted to know. The answer, of course, is that his wife at the CIA put his name and qualifications into the hat. Whoops. She was just outed. Keep in mind that it was her husband (via Armitage) who accidently outed her with that article slamming the Bush Administration. (even though she wasn't truly covert. But, alas, rules are rules).

It was natural for some folks to question why he got the gig in the first place, given his extremely partisan background. And, everything else is history, with Scooter Libby convicted of lying about not remembering something that he was assumed to have remembered.

How many people in the Obama Administration would be convicted felons if they were being held to the same standard? I would suggest quite a few. Not Biden...of course, since he's everyone's favorite uncle... and for sure not his boss.

Another long example of the continuing Media Bias towards this administration. (although, that's changing now... must be because the fatigue is beginning to start?)

We don't list their job titles.

Name, rank and organization (or parent organization)

 Jihadin wrote:
We don't list their job titles.

Also aren't supposed to put names on Press lists that aren't supposed to be on Press lists, but it still happened.

Regardless if the name is on the list or not. One major common factor when dealing with the US Military. You know who your talking to list or no list. Our last name and rank is on our uniform Our shoulder patch indicate what unit we are in

 whembly wrote:
And, everything else is history, with Scooter Libby convicted of lying about not remembering something that he was assumed to have remembered.

I was going to respond to your earlier posts, but after reading this is seems clear you're not actually interested in discussing it, you're interested in historical revisionism in the name of "media bias".

Suffice to say I don't believe any reasonable person would believe you can be convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for not remembering something that he should have. Certainly Mr. Bush wasn't swayed by that claim, either.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
And, everything else is history, with Scooter Libby convicted of lying about not remembering something that he was assumed to have remembered.

I was going to respond to your earlier posts, but after reading this is seems clear you're not actually interested in discussion it, you're interested in historical revisionism. Suffice to say I don't believe any reasonable person would believe you can be convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice for not remembering something that he should have.

You're right... I wrote that poorly... he routinely stated that he didn't remember or was confused. But, he was found that he did indeed lie and he got caught.

It's extremely difficult to convict someone of perjury, no matter the circumstances.

It's just that the political pressure at the time was to go after Bush & Cheney... and Libby got caught in between (literally!).

But the point is, I'd bet you that outside someone like you and me (political junkies), folks still say that it was the Bush administration who outed Plame. Hence why it comes up whenever something like the OP occured... it's an attempt to deflect.

After the Wilson/Armitage story... keep in mind that what Robert Novak was trying to get to... which is why in the Elvis' bunghole would the CIA would send someone (Wilson) so out of place into Africa to track down the "truth" of the British intelligence claim that the Hussein regime had been attempting to procure yellow cake from Niger. Wilson had no nuclear expertise, no recent contacts in Africa and no intelligence background.

Armitage was the one who told Novak that the dept that sent Wilson was one in which Wilson's wife, Plame, worked in the CIA.

Interesting to note is to this day, British intelligence stands by their insider accounts of Husseins attempts to procure yellow cake from Niger... which all predated Bush becoming President.

 whembly wrote:
But the point is, I'd bet you that outside someone like you and me (political junkies), folks still say that it was the Bush administration who outed Plame. Hence why it comes up whenever something like the OP occured... it's an attempt to deflect.

Well, there were 3 sources for the story - Armitage, Rove, and Libby. Every single one of those men were employed by the Bush administration; therefore it's literally true that the Bush administration outed Plame; but I see what you're expressing. I don't think there was a concerted effort directly from Mr. Bush's mouth, per se; but I do think there was a cabal of underlings who loosely coordinated the leak - or at the very least, were cavalier with classified information to the degree we both would consider criminally negligent.

In any event, I do think there should be an investigation of this. I think there should always be a thorough investigation whenever classified information is leaked, regardless of how or why it happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:After the Wilson/Armitage story... keep in mind that what Robert Novak was trying to get to... which is why in the Elvis' bunghole would the CIA would send someone (Wilson) so out of place into Africa to track down the "truth" of the British intelligence claim that the Hussein regime had been attempting to procure yellow cake from Niger. Wilson had no nuclear expertise, no recent contacts in Africa and no intelligence background.

He has spent around 20 years in Africa in the Diplomatic Service, and he was the previous National Security Council Director for African Affairs 4 years before the trip. While there is some elasticity in "recent", I think the characterization of him as "out of place in Africa" might be a little off.

His subsequent posting after Africa was to Iraq; he was the last American diplomat to speak with Saddam Hussein. So, the two roles probably segued nicely into each other.

Also, that noose story? Pimp.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But the point is, I'd bet you that outside someone like you and me (political junkies), folks still say that it was the Bush administration who outed Plame. Hence why it comes up whenever something like the OP occured... it's an attempt to deflect.

Well, there were 3 sources for the story - Armitage, Rove, and Libby. Every single one of those men were employed by the Bush administration; therefore it's literally true that the Bush administration outed Plame; but I see what you're expressing. I don't think there was a concerted effort directly from Mr. Bush's mouth, per se; but I do think there was a cabal of underlings who loosely coordinated the leak - or at the very least, were cavalier with classified information to the degree we both would consider criminally negligent.

I'd actually agree with this assessment...who knows what kind of "House of Cards" any WH does these days.

In any event, I do think there should be an investigation of this. I think there should always be a thorough investigation whenever classified information is leaked, regardless of how or why it happened.

Sure... there are SOP to deal with this. Let's hope it's done accurately and concisely.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:After the Wilson/Armitage story... keep in mind that what Robert Novak was trying to get to... which is why in the Elvis' bunghole would the CIA would send someone (Wilson) so out of place into Africa to track down the "truth" of the British intelligence claim that the Hussein regime had been attempting to procure yellow cake from Niger. Wilson had no nuclear expertise, no recent contacts in Africa and no intelligence background.

He has spent around 20 years in Africa in the Diplomatic Service, and he was the previous National Security Council Director for African Affairs 4 years before the trip. While there is some elasticity in "recent", I think the characterization of him as "out of place in Africa" might be a little off.

How did I miss that? I thought he some EU ambassator. o.O

His subsequent posting after Africa was to Iraq; he was the last American diplomat to speak with Saddam Hussein. So, the two roles probably segued nicely into each other.

Do you have a source to that? I'd like to read up on this one...