I think Obama has CREDIT issues.
Virtually every tax payer, the folks who did all of the leg work, the ones who risked their lives, and of course Obama's decision all had some part in this, how ever large or small.
He takes CREDIT.

Every job that has been created since the election, no matter who or how it was created.
He takes full CREDIT for it.

And for every person who worked 16 hours a day for years, hocked his house, put his family at financial risk all to start a business.
Obama tells them no CREDIT to you buddy.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 08-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Peter Bergen says that much of the information cited came from sources outside of the White House.

Umm, hello, . The information originated from inside the White House. It got outside the White House because of the leaks.
Much of the information ? So, some did come from inside the White House ? Isn't that enough to Swift Boat 'em ?

Obama team revives ‘birther’ claim to fend off veterans’ criticism
http://dailycaller.com/2012...f-critical-veterans/

quote President Barack Obama‘s aides and allies are trying to undermine an emerging campaign by former soldiers who are slamming the White House for what they see as a willingness to betray the nation’s secrets in exchange for publicity. His aides released a plea from Sen. John Kerry late Friday, urging supporters to ignore the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund’s hard-hitting criticisms. OPSEC is military jargon for operational security. The email from Kerry did not include any evidence that Obama’s aides were not responsible for the release of the secrets to the media. Those secrets included the existence of a U.S. spy in al-Qaida, as well as secret details about the successful killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011. Those details included the existence of a U.S. spy network in Pakistan. The release of secrets has prompted bipartisan criticism from senators and representatives. Kerry’s email was accompanied by a second message from Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. With the subject line “Forwarded Without Comment,” LaBolt’s message consisted of article which said the head of a different group of veterans — not the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund — believes Obama was born outside the United States. The article, published in Foreign Policy, quoted Larry Bailey, who founded the unrelated Special Operations Speaks organization, saying “I have to admit that I’m a Birther.” LaBolt’s effort to associate the birther movement with the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund is likely intended to mute the impact of the group’s charges. Democrats have chosen to be sensitive to criticism from veterans because they blame a veterans groups for derailing Sen. Kerry’s 2004 run for the presidency. “Seeing the new outrageous attacks made against President Obama from a shadowy Republican-allied veterans group called OPSEC, which take issue with the mission to kill Osama bin Laden, remind me all too well of the notorious ‘Swift Boat’ attacks I faced in the 2004 campaign,” Kerry’s email declared. That group of veterans, “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” said then that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam combat activities; Kerry’s supporters tried to refute the group’ charges. After he lost to President George W. Bush, they angrily declared that their new neologism — “swiftboated” — should be used to describe people who are unfairly criticized. The OPSEC group’s mission statement, according to its website, is to “stop the politicians, President Obama and others, from politically capitalizing on US national security operations and secrets!” The group also says it aims to “educate the public on the importance and necessity of Operational Security in today’s environment.” Its 22-minute video, titled “Dishonorable Disclosures,” has been viewed nearly 1 million times on YouTube since its Aug. 15 launch. Kerry’s email did not make an argument against the group’s concerns, but accused it of lying and smearing Obama unfairly. “No matter how self-evidently false the attacks are, or how disreputable the people telling them may be, there’s no attack that can’t take hold,” said Kerry. “It’s easy to look at the attacks, smears, and lies being told about President Obama and his record and say, ‘Come on, that’s ridiculous. No one could possibly believe that,’” said Kerry’s email. Kerry’s email was released the same week that Vice President Joe Biden told a group of Africa-American supporters in Virginia that Gov. Mitt Romney would “put y’all back in chains,” if he is elected in November.

Probably the most difficult part of the operation was keeping republicans out of the loop. They would have sabotaged the mission had they known about it, just as they have sabotaged the recovery for most of 4 years. At least. as best they could.

Had the mission failed , you can bet they would have given him full credit. Our resident "cut and past boy", would be slinging dirt labeling the President as an incompetent novice.
But, Hey, that's who they are. They care only about their party and nothing for their country. They take pride in their lack of integrity.

Continued from:
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...HTML/095706.html#p26

A better title for this topic would be "Navy SEALs emerge in thinly disguised Republican PAC ad."

The OPSEC film that I have been discussing has only two premises:

The first premise is that Obama has stolen the credit for the bin Laden raid from those to whom it was justly due and tried to use it for partisan political advantage, a premise that was best described by Republican strategist Karl Rove:

Rove: "President Obama Doesn't Want To Give Credit To Anybody But His Own Brilliance." On the May 2 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Karl Rove claimed that "the SEAL team, the logistics people, the pilots, all of those who planned and executed this mission have sort of gone back into the shadows as President Obama's put a big Klieg light on himself for the purpose of launching a partisan attack against his presumptive Republican opponent." Later in the segment, Rove said, "I know President Obama doesn't want to give credit to anybody but his own brilliance," but that the "president would make himself look bigger if he made" the Navy SEALs "look bigger by giving them the credit that's due to them." [Fox News, Hannity, 5/2/12]

But the film's far more important premise is that the Obama administration has compromised national security by leaking top secret classified information, either through sheer incompetence or in a more carefully calculated way, again, to obtain partisan political advantage--to burnish the president's public image and enhance his prospect of being reelected in November.

This will be the first of two posts: First, about the stolen credit issue, and then, in a second post, the national security issue.

How can Karl Rove's indictment of the president for "stealing the credit" stand up, when it's demonstrable that the president has repeatedly thanked and praised the military and intelligence teams that killed bin Laden?

Obama gave the Navy SEALs (and all the other military and intelligence personnel that executed the mission) their due props at the very first opportunity, when he went on national TV to announce the killing of Osama bin Laden--and he didn't neglect to include the Bush administration:

Over the last 10 years [a clear reference to the ground work laid by the Bush administration], thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals . . . we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice. We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.

Just a few days later Michelle Obama spoke at the University of Northern Iowa:

"Just imagine, a small group of brave men, dropped by helicopter, half a world away in the dead of night into unknown danger inside the lair of the most wanted man in the world," Mrs. Obama told the graduating class at the UNI Dome in Cedar Falls. "They did not hesitate, risking everything for us, for our freedom and security. And they did it not just as Navy SEALs. They did it as husbands, as fathers, as sons. Their families were back here, with no idea of their mission or whether their loved one would ever come home."

The first lady evoked the SEALs' actions as part of a call for the graduating class to engage in public service after they leave the university.

"Now, that's the very essence of the word 'service,'" she said of the military action. "And the least we can do is give something back to these troops and their families who have given us so much."

Obama Awarded Military Units Involved In Mission With Highest Possible Honor That Can Be Given To A Military Unit. A May 6, 2011, CNN article reported that Obama "awarded Presidential Unit Citations to the units involved in the Pakistan mission ... the highest such honor that can be given to a military unit."

They practiced tirelessly for this mission, and when I gave the order they were ready," the president told the troops. "They're America's quiet professionals."

Obama on April 30, 2011:

I think that people -- the American people rightly remember what we as a country accomplished in bringing to justice somebody who killed over 3,000 of our citizens. And it's a mark of the excellence of our intelligence teams and our military teams; a political process that worked. And I think for us to use that time for some reflection to give thanks to those who participated is entirely appropriate, and that's what's been taking place.

Almost a year later, on May 2, 2012, in an interview with NBC's Brian Williams:

WILLIAMS: Back home, days later the president got to meet the SEALs who had conducted themselves so brilliantly and with characteristic modesty, including the veteran pilot whose expertly controlled crash landing prevented disaster and saved all the SEALs on board his helicopter.

OBAMA: I will tell you, when I saw that pilot, I gave him a pretty good hug.

WILLIAMS: What was it like for you to get to know them and to see them?

OBAMA: Great guys. They presented me with the flag that had gone on that mission, signed by all of them on the back. And I think it's fair to say that will probably be the most important possession that I leave with from this presidency. [NBC News, Rock Center, 5/2/12, via Nexis]

So the president has given "the guys" (SEALs, CIA, etc.) their due props, on many occasions. (Do you doubt that I could find more examples?)

But does the president deserve any credit for himself?

Here's what Peter Bergen (a widely quoted source on Islamic terrorism) posted just two days ago, on CNN:

As to the notion that Obama has taken too much credit for the bin Laden raid, well he is commander-in-chief, and it was entirely his decision to launch the risky raid on Abbottabad based on the only fragmentary intelligence that bin Laden might be there.

As Adm. William McRaven, who was the military commander of the bin Laden raid, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer last month, "at the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process, because I pitched every plan to him."

The raid decision was opposed by Vice President Joe Biden, who had run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency against Obama. If Biden had won the White House in 2008, Osama bin Laden might still be alive.

And the decision to do the raid was also opposed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who had served every president going back to Richard Nixon. Gates was concerned about some kind of replay of the 1980 Iran hostage rescue debacle, which helped to turn President Jimmy Carter into a one-term president.

The notion that the decision to greenlight the risky raid was made by anyone other than Obama is just plain silly, and it was a decision he made against the advice of both his vice president and his secretary of defense.

If people prefer Romney (or just despise Obama), that's well and good--but why make up "stuff" about Obama that is so demonstrably false?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-21-2012).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: If people prefer Romney (or just despise Obama), that's well and good--but why make up "stuff" about Obama that is so demonstrably false?

Because Comrade Obama-- and his "superPACS"-- does the same thing, too.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game."

Now as for the raid: Obama didnt wield any weapons or ride in any choppers. Obama didnt fire any shots. Just because he gave orders doesnt deserve him all the credit. Dear leader was never in any danger--but the SEALS were.

Instead of his speech that we saw that said, I.....I....I.... he could have said this:

"On information the US obtained, we decided the mission was worth it, we formulated a plan, and the SEALS were directed to take him out."

Now if I can do that, I am sure that some "Harvard educated lawyer" could do the same.

[This message has been edited by htexans1 (edited 08-19-2012).]

Continued from:
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...ML/095706-2.html#p44

On August 17, 2012, Peter Bergen reviewed the OPSEC film on CNN, using the heading "Are 'Swift Boat' attacks on Obama bogus?"

quote Editor's note: Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, is a director at the New America Foundation, a Washington-based think tank that seeks innovative solutions across the ideological spectrum, and the author of the new book "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for Bin Laden -- From 9/11 to Abbottabad."

I viewed the OPSEC film, but you don't even need to view the film to confirm that it is almost entirely bunk from start to finish. All you have to do is to read the Bergen post, follow the Internet links that are embedded in the post, do a little more digging with Google (if you are still not satisfied) and consult your very own memory of what transpired on May 2, 2011 when bin Laden was killed, and what you know has happened since then.

Bergen debunks almost every single point that the film tries to make--all but one. And I will cover that one for you myself.

I have taken the entire Bergen post, cut away the parts that seem not relevant, and interspersed my own commentary for you.

I put all of Bergen's text in italic.

The particulars of the indictment against Obama as laid out in the new film, which is titled "Dishonorable Disclosures," are:

-- The president announced the bin Laden raid before intelligence picked up from bin Laden's compound could be fully exploited.

-- The use of hitherto covert "stealth" helicopters on the raid was publicized.

-- The name of the secret unit that executed the raid --SEAL Team Six -- was made public putting them and their families at risk.

-- The name of the Pakistani doctor recruited by the CIA to help find bin Laden was leaked, jeopardizing him and the CIA's ability to recruit spies in the future. The doctor is now serving 33 years in a Pakistani prison.

Criticism of the way that the bin Laden raid has been discussed publicly by the Obama administration makes up the bulk of "Dishonorable Disclosures," but the administration is also taken to task for supposedly leaking details of covert U.S. actions against the Iranian nuclear program to New York Times reporter David Sanger (who has said he was not the recipient of "deliberate leaks out of the White House") and outlining to other journalists the personal involvement of Obama in selecting targets for the CIA drone program in Pakistan.

One former Navy SEAL featured in the film demands dramatically, "Tell the president to stop leaking information to the enemy."

Is there any merit to these serious accusations?

In fact, Obama and his national security team made every effort -- successfully -- to keep the intelligence about bin Laden a closely held secret for almost a year, from the time they first identified what they believed might be the al Qaeda leader's hideout in the city of Abbottabad, Pakistan, in August 2010 until May 1, 2011, when the raid was launched to kill him.

The raid itself was conducted as a covert operation under the overall direction of then-CIA Director Leon Panetta.

I have written a book about the hunt for bin Laden during the course of which I was the only journalist granted access by the Pakistanis inside the compound in Abbottabad where bin Laden was killed. I also spoke on the record about the hunt for bin Laden with a variety of current White House, Pentagon and intelligence officials, as well as former Defense Department and CIA officials familiar with aspects of the story.

None of them divulged classified information about the bin Laden operation. Indeed, they went to great pains to avoid doing so.

What precipitated the operation going public was not Obama's announcement of the raid but the crash of one of the Black Hawk choppers used in the raid, which turned what had hitherto been a covert operation into a very public event.

Pakistani journalists started arriving at bin Laden's Abbottabad compound soon after the helicopter crashed and started filing stories about the mysterious helicopter and its oddly shaped tail rotor. An Abbottabad resident even tweeted about the unusual sound of helicopters flying over the city in the middle of the night.

It wasn't much of a leap for reporters to ascertain that these helicopters had particular features that had prevented them from being detected by Pakistani radar.

Does anybody NOT remember the video on TV soon after the president's announcement, showing the partially destroyed U.S. helicopter with the unconventional looking tail configuration? The SEALs weren't able to obliterate it more completely, and with Pakistani journalists already on the scene, with their cameras and tweeting messages around the world, was there anything that the Pakistani government could possibly do (even if it were so inclined) to keep the security lid on this secret?

Soon after the SEALs had raided the Abbottabad command, Pakistani officials on the ground were interrogating bin Laden's wives and children at the compound who told them that bin Laden had just been killed. None of this was going to stay secret for long.

Indeed, it was Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's top military officer, who sped up the Obama administration's announcement of the raid. A few hours after the raid, Kayani told his American counterpart, Adm. Mike Mullen, "Our people need to understand what happened here. We're not going to be able to manage the Pakistani media without you confirming this. You can explain it to them. They need to understand that this was bin Laden and not just some ordinary U.S. operation."

Mullen then told Obama and his national security team, "Kayani has asked for us to go public," which swayed Obama to announce the raid sooner than was planned. (Obama wanted to wait for 100% DNA confirmation that it was bin Laden. At the time of the president's announcement about the raid the confirmation was at 95%.)

Yet the film has the audacity to suggest that Obama willfully chose to announce the operation before intelligence picked up from bin Laden's compound could be fully exploited.

During his speech to the nation and world, Obama did not divulge the name of SEAL Team Six, saying only that a "small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability."

It quickly leaked that SEAL Team Six had executed the raid, but this was hardly surprising as the SEALs are the principal Special Operations Forces in the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater, something that has been discussed in multiple news stories over the past several years and in bestselling books such as "Lone Survivor" by former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell.

And the SEALs have hardly kept a low profile of late, cooperating in a movie "Act of Valor" that was released in theaters this year, which actually featured real SEALs playing the parts of the heroes of the movie.

Perhaps if you had absolutely no knowledge of the U.S. military, or indeed access to Wikipedia where SEAL Team Six has had an entry since 2004, it would be news to you that SEAL Team Six, along with the Army's Delta Force, are America's premier counterterrorism units. Obviously, a mission to take out bin Laden would not be entrusted to any other than these elite units.

So the notion that the public naming of the unit that killed bin Laden endangers the lives of its members and their families is overwrought. Members of SEAL Team Six are well able to take care of themselves and their families. And who first leaked the involvement of SEAL Team Six in the bin Laden operation remains unclear.

It is just plain wrong that anyone in the U.S. government leaked the name of the CIA asset in Pakistan, Dr Shakil Afridi, who was recruited by the agency in its quest to find bin Laden. This information first surfaced in a story in the Guardian newspaper in July 2011 after Afridi was arrested by the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI. It is obvious that this information was leaked not by the Americans but the Pakistanis who have done their own investigation of the bin Laden raid, which embarrassed them considerably.

On July 11, 2011 the U.K. newspaper Guardian revealed the doctor's name in a report under the heading "CIA organized fake vaccination drive to get Osama bin Laden's family DNA" with the subtitle "Senior Pakistani doctor who organized vaccine programme in Abbottabad arrested by ISI [Pakistan's intelligence service] for working with US agents".

quote Pakistani intelligence became aware of the doctor's activities during the investigation into the US raid in which Bin Laden was killed on the top floor of the Abbottabad house. Islamabad refused to comment officially on Afridi's arrest, but one senior official said: "Wouldn't any country detain people for working for a foreign spy service?"

The film "Dishonorable Disclosures" gets even sillier. At one point one of the former officers interviewed for the film charges that the Obama administration "divulged to the world we are using drone technology." The fact that the United States uses drones in Pakistan is one of the world's worst kept secrets. In fact, the New America Foundation where I work has maintained a public database of these attacks since early 2010.

An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2012

quote The research on these pages, which we have created in a good faith effort to be as transparent as possible with our sources and analysis and will be updated regularly, draws only on accounts from reliable media organizations with deep reporting capabilities in Pakistan, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, accounts by major news services and networks—the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, and the BBC—and reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan—the Daily Times, Dawn, the Express Tribune, and the News—as well as those from Geo TV, the largest independent Pakistani television network.

The database reveals that there have been at least 311 drone attacks in Pakistan since 2004.

Is there any way that this massive drone campaign could have been kept secret?

Similarly, the claim that the Obama administration has recently leaked information about the Stuxnet virus attacks on the Iranian nuclear program to the New York Times is overblown, as this information has been reported since 2010, and the Iranians themselves publicly acknowledged that their nuclear program was under cyberattack two years ago. It is true that the U.S. role in the cyberattacks was disclosed in the New York Times.

And in June, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed two federal prosecutors to investigate leaks including the New York Times story about Obama ordering the cyberattacks against Iran with the Stuxnet virus.

quote Lawmakers have called on the administration to assign a special counsel to look into the source of leaks related to the Stuxnet computer worm the U.S. used against Iran as well as the president’s handling of a secret “kill” list, both reported extensively by the New York Times.

The main culprit in the unraveling of the secrecy protecting the Stuxnet virus was the Stuxnet virus itself:

quote Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet.

Eschewing the use of even a single image of President Bush, the OPSEC film is careful not to suggest that any of the Stuxnet related leaks could go back to the Bush administration, but it is worth noting that David Sanger started reporting on the cyber warfare program (using the Bush era code name "Olympic Games") in the New York Times in January 2009, just before Obama took office.

From the same column in the Washington Post:

quote There was the May (2012) leak about an intelligence agent who infiltrated the branch of al- Qaeda in Yemen and posed as a suicide bomber in a clever operation that uncovered a new type of underwear bomb. Though U.S. officials talked about it after its initial disclosure, the original leak came from Saudi intelligence, according to CBS News.

There remains much that is unknown about the still-classified intelligence surrounding the bin Laden raid, including:

-- How did the CIA find the real name of bin Laden's courier who was the key to finding him?

-- How was the courier's cell phone first tracked down?

-- How was he tracked to bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad?

-- How did the CIA establish a safe house in Abbottabad? And who staffed it?

None of this information has been leaked, and it remains classified for good reason as it gets into the CIA's "sources and methods."

Don't expect to hear any of those details any time soon.


The only other allegation in the OPSEC film is about the leaking of classified information to Hollywood film makers, who have a film in development, called "Zero Dark Thirty", about the bin Laden raid, now scheduled for release in December.

U.S. News on NBC ran a story on May 22 that began with:

quote Judicial Watch [a conservative watch dog group] has released hundreds of Defense Department and CIA communications that reveal the Obama administration leaked classified information to filmmakers on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The most recent update that I find on the Judicial Watch web site (also May 22) is this:

Judicial Watch Obtains DOD and CIA Records Detailing Meetings with bin Laden Raid Filmmakers

I don't see any confirmation here that national security information was actually compromised.

Access to people who have classified information doesn't mean that access was granted to classified information.

So that's the OPSECTeam's "Dishonorable Disclosures": Eliminate the bunk, and all that remains is the Justice Department's recently opened investigation of the Stuxnet and presidential kill-list leaks, and then this one possibility that maybe the CIA or DoD leaked some classified information to certain Hollywood film makers.

I return to my summary of it as "Navy SEALs emerge in thinly disguised Republican PAC ad".

See it for yourself.

See how unconvincing it really is.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-21-2012).]

Navy SEALs PAC Rips Liberal Website for 'Gutless' Comment
http://www.newsmax.com/Head...al&promo_code=FCA4-1

quote Longtime CIA operative Fred Rustmann tells Newsmax that the liberal writer who called Navy SEALs gutless is either “very brave” or “very stupid.” Rustmann, a member of a new political action committee that includes former SEALs, also says the Obama administration’s intelligence leaks that led to the writer’s comment could ultimately cost the lives of intel sources. And former SEAL Brandon Webb agrees, saying the leaking of sensitive information could kill Americans and put our national security at risk. Rustmann’s PAC, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, posted a 22-minute video on the Internet criticizing the Obama administration’s decision to grant filmmakers access to intelligence material for their upcoming movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011, by a team of Navy SEALs who attacked his compound in Pakistan, and the video asserts that the intelligence leaks could have dire national security implications. In response, a writer for the liberal, George Soros-funded website Media Matters, Eric Boehlert, tweeted that “former Navy SEALs don’t have guts to admit they’re running a GOP, anti-Obama campaign.” In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV on Friday, Rustmann — who spent 24 years in the CIA — says of Boehlert: “He’s either a very brave guy or very stupid guy to call a Navy SEAL gutless. It’s beyond me.” To serve as a SEAL or as an intelligence operative in the CIA, he adds, “you have to have some serious guts. “This is very risky business and when people leak our sources and methods — well, there’s one fellow, a Pakistani doctor, who is now in jail for 33 years” because the Pakistanis believe he helped Americans locate bin Laden. “Everybody from the Pakistani intelligence service through the Taliban and down to al-Qaida are looking for individuals who were in that area at the time who might have been working for the CIA and were involved in the operation to locate and kill Osama bin Laden. These people are going to die if they’re found.” Webb, a former SEAL sniper and editor in chief of the website SOFREP (Special Operations Forces Report), also expresses outrage over Boehlert’s comment. The SEALS in the PAC “put themselves out there front and center and that takes guts. I ask Eric Boehlert what his credentials are,” he tells Newsmax. “Has he served? Has he seen the ugliness of war and the cost on both sides? The loss of friends? I think not. “It's safe to say that he wouldn't stand in the same room with any of these SEALs and mutter the word gutless. “Politics aside, I'm glad this group is making an issue and educating citizens to the very serious consequences of intel leaks from Washington. The consequences of leaking sensitive information is that Americans and coalition forces die and we lose trust with foreign spies and our national security is put at risk.” And Ryan Zinke, another former SEAL and a member of the PAC that created the video, tells Newsmax that calling a SEAL gutless “is nuts, and yet another attempt to discredit honorable service and sacrifice for our country.” Rustmann, who worked closely with SEALs during his time with the CIA, was also asked about the comments of Bob Beckel, a liberal who works at Fox News, who said the SEALs featured in the film “Dishonorable Disclosures” should “take their benefits and go home.” Rustmann declares: “I think he’s a jerk. That’s what I think.” The intelligence leaks cited by the PAC’s video are said to have come from high-ranking White House staff members. Rustmann was asked if the leaks were motivated by political concerns, or resulted from the ignorance of people who did not fully understand the repercussions. “I don’t know, but I will say this: People who have security clearances in the government and work in secure facilities in the government like the CIA, their security clearance is a part of their job. If they lose their security clearance, they lose their job. So they understand the need to keep secrets. “A lot of security clearances, however, are given out to people by virtue of their job, from the president on down. Elected officials, staffers, what not, they have to see classified information and so they’re given clearances. They’re not really attuned to working in that kind of an environment and they’re more likely to leak stuff because they don’t really get it. “For a person with a security clearance like me, for example, all the things I write I have to pass through the agency for clearance, to make sure that I didn’t inadvertently disclose any classified information. This is a contract. And if you breach that contract you can be sued legally and it’s a criminal offense. “These guys, I think, a lot of them don’t understand that. I think a lot of them probably couldn’t get a clearance to work in the CIA’s cafeteria if they applied for a job there. They just got the clearance by virtue of their appointment or their election.” Webb shares those sentiments: “Our political election system and national security are in trouble and it got this way because of career politicians that make decisions regarding their next election cycle instead of being civic-minded. “The only light I see at the end of the tunnel is a train coming at them and the train conductors are unhappy American patriots from all walks of life." He did say, however, that President Obama “has been exceptional on the national security front with the exception of some damaging leaks. Bin Laden is dead, period, and that was a huge blow to the radical Islamic movement. “The U.S. Commander of Special Operations Command, Admiral [William] McRaven, said it best when he gave full credit to the president for making the decision. I know McRaven personally and he's a man of high integrity. He wouldn't say this about the president unless it was genuine.” Rustmann was also asked to compare the intelligence leaks criticized by the SEALs video and the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA agent. “It was terrible that her name was leaked. That is against the law. That is a leak of classified information,” he tells Newsmax. “But I thought the witch hunt that went on after the people that may have leaked this, because it was a Republican administration at the time, was much ado about nothing. “I thought that the leak was probably inadvertent. And as it turned out, we know that Secretary [Richard] Armitage was the guy that did it and he did it inadvertently. It was not with any malice. It was not in an effort to ‘gotcha’ anybody. It was an inadvertent slip of the tongue and the reason was because Valerie was at that time working in a position that didn’t appear to be a covert position and she didn’t appear to be a covert operative.” As for the fact that his PAC has not revealed its donors, Rustmann says: “I’m not a lawyer and I’m not involved in that part of it. I’m just an old CIA grunt who is very concerned about these leaks, that’s all.”

quote Originally posted by htexans1: Because Comrade Obama-- and his "superPACS"-- does the same thing, too.

That's the only thing that you said here that makes any sense.

quote Originally posted by htexans1: Now as for the raid: Obama didnt wield any weapons or ride in any choppers. Obama didnt fire any shots. Just because he gave orders doesnt deserve him all the credit. Dear leader was never in any danger--but the SEALS were. Instead of his speech the doctored video that we saw that said "I.....I....I....", he could have said this: "On information the U.S. obtained, we decided the mission was worth it, we formulated a plan, and the SEALS were directed to take him out." Now if I can do that, I am sure that some "Harvard educated lawyer" could do the same.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-21-2012).]

I was thinking this morning that this was actually a benefit for Obama, keeps heat off of the economy.
With three debates both will have to tell the folks how they plan on getting us out of the funk we are in.

Then this afternoon I saw who the moderators of the debates will be, four Obama licking liberals.
There will be no debate on the economy in the debates.
BACK to the attacks.

quote Originally posted by partfiero: I was thinking this morning that this was actually a benefit for Obama, keeps heat off of the economy. With three debates both will have to tell the folks how they plan on getting us out of the funk we are in. Then this afternoon I saw who the moderators of the debates will be, four Obama licking liberals. There will be no debate on the economy in the debates. BACK to the attacks.

Got your mind up without seeing the debates huh?

quote Originally posted by dratts: Photo shop? Didn't he dress up in a pilots uniform?

That was only when he landed on the carrier. The speech on the carrier deck came later, and by then he was back in his business suit.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Got your mind up without seeing the debates huh?

Don't know if I got my mind up?
But the slobbering love affair between him and the left-wing press will be something I have seen all too often.
Could be a big neg for him and the country, as most in the country are looking for some sort of a solution.
There will be no questions about a plan to straighten out the economy, as that would indicate that the shovels weren't as ready as he thought they were.
8.3% and $16 Trillion will be two numbers that he won't have to explain.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Allegations about the official leaking of sensitive national security information ? Allegations ? You have got to be kidding. The leaked info is so sensitive that it had to come from someone within the President's closest circle in the Situation Room. The President is investigating himself. Why is it taking so long ? There can not be that many people involved. Whether he is being Swift Boated or not, he deserves to be.

EXACTLY....PERIOD.

I wonder if Obama takes bad credit as well as good credit ? When Romney states that he is trying to fix Obamas mess, like Obama says about Bush, will he accept he was at fault for all his screw ups ? I think hes awesome at passing the blame, but doubt if hes willing to take ANY blame on anything. Hes an egomaniac like someone else was back in the late 30s

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: Peter Bergen says that much of the information cited came from sources outside of the White House.

Imagine that, , Peter Bergen knows more than the Obama Justice Dept, who has not released any findings.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-20-2012).]

Swift Boating verb \'swift-ˈbōt-ing\

Definition of Swift Boating

1: patrolling a shore line in a naval military gun ship
2a: to publically expose a lie or deception
2b: to attack the integrity of a person for embellishing the re-telling of an act

See Swift Boating defined for English-language learners »
See Swift Boating defined for kids »

Examples of Swift Boating

<Looks Like John Edward's girlfriend did a little Swift Boating of her own>

<They tried to Swift Boat John McCain but he actually WAS a war hero>


Origin of Swift Boating
origin was the 2004 US Presidential election in which John Kerry, presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, doctored his combat record to receive awards. A group of his fellow officer (241 in total) came forward and signed sworn affidavits that his action reports were incorrect and in many cases, completely fabricated. Kerry lost the election.
First Known Use: 2004

Related to Swift Boating
Synonyms: divulge, disclose, let on, let out, reveal, unwrap, expose, give away, discover, bring out, break,

blow - cause to be revealed and jeopardized; "The story blew their cover"; "The double agent was blown by the other side"
out - reveal (something) about somebody's identity or lifestyle; "The gay actor was outed last week"; "Someone outed a CIA agent"
come out of the closet, out, come out - to state openly and publicly one's homosexuality; "This actor outed last year"
spring - produce or disclose suddenly or unexpectedly; "He sprang these news on me just as I was leaving"
get around, get out, break - be released or become known; of news; "News of her death broke in the morning"
betray, bewray - reveal unintentionally; "Her smile betrayed her true feelings"
confide - reveal in private; tell confidentially
leak - tell anonymously; "The news were leaked to the paper"
babble out, blab, blab out, let the cat out of the bag, peach, spill the beans, tattle, babble, talk, sing - divulge confidential information or secrets; "Be careful--his secretary talks"
tell - let something be known; "Tell them that you will be late"
reveal - disclose directly or through prophets; "God rarely reveal his plans for Mankind"

Swift boating worked against Kerry and got us 8 years of Bush. Of course they will try it again. AGAIN, not pushing Kerry or Obama. Just a protest against the technique. And that goes with both parties. I don't recall a democratic "swift boat" case, but I wouldn't put it past them either.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Swift boating worked against Kerry and got us 8 years of Bush. Of course they will try it again. AGAIN, not pushing Kerry or Obama. Just a protest against the technique. And that goes with both parties. I don't recall a democratic "swift boat" case, but I wouldn't put it past them either.

Kerry deserved to be Swift Boated, so does Nobama.
Nobama's cohorts in corruption are trying to Swift Boat Romney by saying he was responsible for a man's wife death. The difference is, Nobama's charges are false.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Kerry deserved to be Swift Boated, so does Nobama. Nobama's cohorts in corruption are trying to Swift Boat Romney by saying he was responsible for a man's wife death. The difference is, Nobama's charges are false.

I didn't buy the connection between the womans cancer death and Romney. I didn't buy the Swift boat attack on Kerry either (a Viet nam vet) which was solely to benefit Bush who never did any actual combat duty and was actually AWOL from his outfit at one time. If you want to start throwing mud, there is plenty to go around without making stuff up.