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.

 whembly wrote:
I like this one better: The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush

Jesus, that article is weak.

1.) Bush claimed Iraq was recently trying to obtain uranium.
2.) We found uranium in Iraq - specifically, the documented uranium the UN found in 1981. There was nothing found newer than 1991.
3.) Also, there were a lot of chemical weapons labs (which no one ever disputed, ever)
4.) Therefore, Bush was right.

lol, no

 Jihadin wrote:
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

You can pretend all day long that no one in the military would ever make an error, but it doesn't line up with reality. A list was requested by the White House and the military sent a list with a name on it that shouldn't have been and they didn't notice. The White House copy pasted the list and sent it out without noticing it either. Both fethed up, but we are only picking on the administration, which only makes sense if we are being partisan. This was certainly an error, but it wasn't an error entirely on the White House side. Giving the guy who sent out the letter a free pass because he is in the military, or just denying that anyone in the military could ever make a mistake, is a disservice to the truth and insulting to others intelligence.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I like this one better: The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush

Jesus, that article is weak.

1.) Bush claimed Iraq was recently trying to obtain uranium.
2.) We found uranium in Iraq - specifically, the documented uranium the UN found in 1981. There was nothing found newer than 1991.
3.) Also, there were a lot of chemical weapons labs (which no one ever disputed, ever)
4.) Therefore, Bush was right.

lol, [i]no[/]

Lol... Okay I'll drop it as it's not pertinent to this thread.

The list was not provided by the military. No idea where you got the impression the list was provided by ISAF showing the names of CIA operatives. Even if I was to ask to provide a list of all SOCOM Operators and "Civilian Counterpart" Operators being I know where they originated from for a AMR or LMR. At most that is allowed to be known is Last Name, First Name Middle Initial, Rank, Last Four, and Parent Unit.

Vast majority of time depending on mission you will get
"Call Signs"
"Rank"
"1111", "2222", "3333", "4444"
Camp they are from IE "Camp Vance"

We do not add "Job Title". Its SOP and sanitized by at least two individuals before release. If you want to see what additional duties we have you need to look into the Unit "Additional Duty Assigned" book to see what duties are assigned.
You can find out the Primaries for;
Equal Opportunity
HAZMAT
CO2
Arms Room
NBC Room
to name a few

Unless you are authorized by a Higher Authority to look into unit inner circle
The US Military is not the same as a Civilian Admin

I would go further and explain but
OPSEC
SAEDA
and other neat acronyms comes to mind.


Also one thing that's important. Current Date.

 Jihadin wrote:
The list was not provided by the military.

Here, for starters:

A White House official then asked the military for a list to provide to the pool of journalists. The official got an e-mail back from the military with a subject line, "manifest for briefing for Pool," Wilson told CNN. That e-mail was forwarded to Wilson and he proceeded to copy and paste that list for the pool report. He then sent it to the White House official, who sent the report to the distribution list.

It also wasn't a list of CIA operatives, just a CIA station head that somehow got on to the list. No one asked for a list of CIA operatives of "civilian counterparts". It seems like you are commenting on some other incident than the one being discussed, or don't know what exactly what is being discussed.

The list was provided by the military Jihadin.

Where the error took place was not with the military though. It was when the White House staff released the list, unredacted, to the public. They should have reviewed it before making it open to the public.

The chain of events pretty much had the White House asking for the list. The military provided it to the White House (not the public), then the White House released it to the public. So the onus was on them to make sure the data on it was secure.

 djones520 wrote:
Where the error took place was not with the military though.

The name wasn't supposed to be on the list that was sent, and they didn't redact it because no one realized until to late a name was on there that shouldn't have been. I don't blame the administration any more than I blame the military, which is to say it wasn't tha fault of either organization, but the two individuals who weren't paying attention. I just find it asinine to ignore one sides screw up while pouncing on the others.

Deleted

They asked the military for a list of names to give to the press and gave that list of names to the press. It's really not that hard to understand what happened here.

They need to fix how it happened that a name that wasn't supposed to be on the list made it past (at least) two individuals that should have noticed it though.

Delete