Skip to comments.Leaks, Lies, and Libya: How Not to Inform a Nation
Posted on 10/17/2012 10:36:18 AM PDT by jazusamo
While the current administration has strayed far from Barack Obama's 2008 campaign promise that it would be the most transparent government in history, nothing so points to its failure to keep that promise as have events of the past two years.
Starting with the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, the Obama administration has, in a very real sense, "informed" Americans of current events via selective and random leaks (many of them apparently unintentional). For example, on the day after the bin Laden mission, both the president and the vice president identified SEAL Team 6 as the unit executing the mission.
One might call this a "leak in plain sight," but a leak it was, carrying with it every negative connotation in the word. From the perspective of my military mind, the identification of a specific unit as responsible for the death of bin Laden should, if it ever happened at all, have been the result of intelligence-gathering of the highest order on the part of America's al-Qaeda enemy. That information surely should not have been provided "free of charge" by the nation's commander-in-chief.
What damage, one asks, did the release of that information cause to the national defense? One of the principal elements of information on the enemy, I was always taught, was the identification of the unit with which one was in closest contact (the technical term for this is "order of battle"). This is the most important element of the quintessential "know-your-enemy" adjuration. Armed with this gem of knowledge, one is enabled to exact revenge upon or counter future attacks by an enemy.
How does this apply to SEAL Team 6?...
One can only hope that the American public will recognize "The Raid" for what it is -- electioneering at the expense of truth.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Larry Bailey Ping!
Is that not the very same word he used when citizens complained about these "leaks" which leading Intelligence Committee members attributed to the White House--that was "offensive"?
Perhaps he does not realize how "offensive" his Administration's lack of credibility is to his employers--"the People"!
". . . he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him." - Jefferson
When a man stands before the world and makes claims which are as easily disproven as those made by the President last night, then, truly, "his infamy becomes more exposed."
The 5-minute Rose Garden statement was on FOX Radio this morning, and it reveals that both Crowley and the President might take Jefferson's warning to heart: "Nothing is so mistaken as the supposition, that a person is to extricate himself from a difficulty, by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice."
Last night, American voters saw the "chicanery," the "dissimulation," the "trimming," the "untruth," and the "injustice" attempted by avoiding the real question from the audience, and on November 6, both may see that the President did not "extricate" himself from the "difficulty" of his attempted cover-up of a terrorist attack on his watch.
I believe that has much to do with his on going failure to carry out his number one responsibility of protecting our nation, he's little more than a clueless narcissist.
Thanks for your most appropriate post and those words from Thomas Jefferson.
I'm reminded of John Quincy Adams' remark in his "Jubilee" Address:
"Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.
Just a thought!
Those are powerful words by John Quincy Adams and hopefully prophetic words regarding the people speedily giving this president a successor being neither House of Congress has effectively controlled his power.
I shudder to think how much further he may go with his ignoring of our Constitution and existing laws should he be reelected.
Notice all the media outlets calling for Hillary Clinton to resign?
Why would Hillary and Obama run a commercial about that movie when things had already quieted down?
Who here believes that Obama just went to bed after his administration watched that attack for six hours? Anyone? What if he had a political meeting to see how this would affect his campaign? How would that sit with Americans? Better to make him look sleepy than the slick little politician that he is.
Good article, jaz.