• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Aiming for Obama, House Republicans blow CIA cover

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Read the rest here

When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover.

The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee was to examine security lapses that led to the killing in Benghazi last month of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others. But in doing so, the lawmakers reminded us why “congressional intelligence” is an oxymoron.
An interesting opinion piece to say the least. To me, it doesn't speak to the Republican's ineptitude as much as it speaks to American politics as a whole and how willingly politicians will try to throw one another under the bus at whatever cost. This kind of thing is amazingly reckless and may have cost us some American lives and it was done in an attempt to smear another politician which to me is simply impressive. I don't know how you go about presenting things like this without realizing you are in possession of classified information on TV.

What do you think should happen in cases like this? Should people be punished for blowing government ops? How so or why not?
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
More ridiculous assertions from the øbama loving media. Did anyone tell Milbank that the "annex" came under heavy attack from RPGs and mortars? Do you think the cover was already blown? That exposing this (non)secret would endanger lives? I guess no one told her that FOUR PEOPLE WERE ALREADY KILLED YOU DOUCHEBAG!

There is are no boundaries that the øbama loving media won't cross to protect and defend their dear leader.
------
Maybe if the øbama admin hadn't lied about the attack we wouldn't need an investigation.
 
Last edited:

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
Please address the topic, SS.

This is not about the 'Obama loving media' this is about politicians doing whatever they think is necessary to beat or smear their opponents including misfires like this. Rather than call the author a douchebag, what about the fact that he pointed out? That these photos were not declassified and not for public viewing yet were paraded around anyways? I mean, it wasn't the 'Obama-loving media' that got upset and demanded the photos be removed from public viewing, it was Tea Partier Rep. Jason Chaffetz of the Republican party so even they knew this sort of thing was not supposed to open for viewing.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
Oh, you mean how the administration purposefully LIED blaming the attack on a video so as to obfuscate their lack of providing adequate security despite multiple requests from our embassy officials in a hostile war-torn country?

Is that what you mean by politicizing the issue? Do you really think our spooks are going to return and reoccupy a building that they had to evacuate because it was attacked by RPGs and mortars? The cat's outta the bag, dude.

But if this is really such an issue, then why is Milbank trumpeting it and drawing more attention to it? How about all the times the WaPo has revealed sensitive information? Where are the complaints?

This is such a desperate attempt to misdirect attention from the failure of the administration it would be laughable except that four people are dead.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
This is not about the 'Obama loving media' this is about politicians doing whatever they think is necessary to beat or smear their opponents including misfires like this. Rather than call the author a douchebag, what about the fact that he pointed out? That these photos were not declassified and not for public viewing yet were paraded around anyways? I mean, it wasn't the 'Obama-loving media' that got upset and demanded the photos be removed from public viewing, it was Tea Partier Rep. Jason Chaffetz of the Republican party so even they knew this sort of thing was not supposed to open for viewing.
Actually, it kinda is. First off this is an opinion piece, not an article. And really calling that a fact may not be entirely true because, as the author pointed out:

A State Department official assured him that the material was “entirely unclassified” and that the photo was from a commercial satellite.
Secondly, we had an ambassador sodomized and killed along with 3 other Americans on American soil and 1) we have intelligence that we knew something like this was going to happen; 2) extra security was asked for and denied; and 3) not only have we had no response, for two weeks the administration refused to admit this was a terrorsist attack AND blamed some obscure movie no one has seen. And instead of focusing on how bad this was and who could have done more and WHY this was allowed to happen, we have an op-ed writer ridiculing the House for trying to get to the bottom of this. In other words, what you are accusing SS of doing is exactly what this author is doing. Not focusing on what happened here and getting as much information as possible and trying to hold people accountable for what appears to be a serious lapse in judgment and focusing instead on partisanship.
------
Is that what you mean by politicizing the issue? Do you really think our spooks are going to return and reoccupy a building that they had to evacuate because it was attacked by RPGs and mortars? The cat's outta the bag, dude.
This is the real issue. They found Stevens "in a safehouse", so yeah, they already know where our buildings were. There is VERY little information here being disclosed that these terrorists don't already know.
 
Last edited:

Frenzy

Registered Member
I'm not entirely sure any "classified" info in fact slipped out or not during the hearings, that remains to be seen. With today's media reporting so many opinion pieces to make this party look bad or that it is hard to tell anymore what in fact is truth, half truths or just a flat out lie. I think anyone today who calls themselves a journalist NEEDS to be reminded of what that means to the public, not a party or individual.

I'm with CO on this though, I think the biggest issue is why and how they knew where the safe house was. Someone dropped the ball big time on that in it's self, and I for one would like to know who we need to hold accountable. Hilary say's not her, Obama says not him, so who?
 

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
I'm sure it won't be covered in the hearings but it might be interesting to hear if the CIA officially regrets aiding the Gaddafi regime.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Well it was the republicans that cut the budget for funding embassy security. Should we start with them?

The GOP's embassy security problem

It is a big deal when politicians blow someones cover like they did with Valeria Plame.

Valeria Plame
Absolutely IF there was a causal connection between the two. The problem is even with the cuts, DID the administration have information this could happen and COULD this have been avoided? In other words, just because there were cuts does not aquit any complicity of anyone.

I've always loved the Valerie Plame example, it's funny. 1) She was no longer actively working overseas, she had a desk job; 2) they would have to prove they knowingly blew her cover which they could not (remember Scooter Libby was convicted of obstructing the investigation NOT blowing her cover) and 3) no one died as a result and 4) everyone ignored the nepotism in her sending her husband to Nigeria AND the possible conflict of interest as Wilson has previously written an op-ed piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim of there being yellow-cake uranium. Shouldn't someone who had shown neutrality be sent to investiage the claim rather than someone who had already shown opposition to the administration and thus didn't want to prove himself to be wrong? I mean, wasn't that the bigger issue rather than "OH NO! ROVE OUTED A PRIOR SPY"?
 
Last edited:

Frenzy

Registered Member
Well it was the republicans that cut the budget for funding embassy security. Should we start with them?

The GOP's embassy security problem

It is a big deal when politicians blow someones cover like they did with Valeria Plame.

Valeria Plame
No offense intended Hilander, but I personally do not consider any political news by MSNBC fact worthy news, it's more like news with an opinion. 75% of what they report is completely misquoted, misinterpreted or just a blatant lie when it comes to political news. One over looked fact in your article is that Republicans have a very slight control majority in the House of Reps, but it also was passed by a majority Democrat Senate and signed by a Democrat President. Like I said MSNBC loves to spin a story to fit it's political view, especially in a time of a Presidential race.

And as far as Plame, CO is right, she was no longer on any assignments, and it was never actually proven her cover had ever been in fact blown, again all pointed out by CO.
 
Top