Imagine if Edward Snowden had revealed this:

[BlueStreak]

1) We have the ability to monitor secret communications between various al Qaeda groups in the Middle East. Don't tell al Qaeda.

2) We have intercepted a specific communication between the highest remaining al Qaeda leader and his people in Yemen. Don't tell al Qaeda.

3) The message spells out in detail a major plot these guys are planning to carry out. We intercepted that message. We know what they are planning and it is huge. Don't tell al Qaeda.

4) They said they were going to do something on August 4, so we are going to give them a head fake by closing a couple dozen embassies in the region. That will outsmart them. They will go to blow us up and nobody will be there. Don't tell al Qaeda.

5) And if they don't do anything on August 4, here is a list of embassies we will keep closed the rest of August. But we will go back to normal on Sep 1. Don't tell al Qaeda.

I have been absolutely astounded about just how reckless the administration has been in releasing information that -- assuming they are actually telling us the truth -- could have devastating consequences. If nothing else, alerting the top al Qaeda leadership that we are able to tap their conversations is a disaster that puts thousands of people at risk. If Snowden had revealed that, I would be in favor of a public hanging at dawn without a trial.

But he didn't. What he revealed was evidence that our government is conducting illegal spying on American citizens. He did not release a single bit of information that compromised any legitimate overseas terror spying operations.

But somehow Snowden is a traitor and we don't even notice that what our own government just leaked is 1000 times worse. Can somebody please explain that?

Here's what it boils down to. It is completely implausible that if we truly had intercepted such vital messages, we would intentionally reveal them, compromising that anti-terror operation. We would NEVER do that intentionally. NEVER. Because if we really had intercepted such a message, we would do everything possible to keep that intercept channel working for us.

Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that the administration is lying to us about this whole thing. I'll say it. There never was an intercept such as they have leaked. We never had any specific knowledge of an attack planned for Aug 4. This is all a disinformation campaign to protect the security industrial complex.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. who would ever assume that the administration is being completely honest and forthright with us?

After 8 years of lies from the previous administration, it would be hard not to notice that such lies and fear mongering work. And work well. The timing is questionable, too, just as congress and the american people were beginning to sit up and take notice that Big Brother listens in on EVERYTHING and to everyone.

[pnwmom]

62. The OP is just another conspiracy theory. McClatchy news service

obtained the info from an interview with a Yemeni official.

[geek tragedy]

65. Worse, it's an Issa like smear job from a hater.

"Obama leaked this informashun!!"

"Actually, the admin asked US outlets to not publish the information. The people who did publish it never discussed it with the admin."

"But Obama is evul!!!"

[marshall]

75. And unfortunately government lying wasn't invented by the previous administration

They may have furthered its clever use, but it would be naive to think the world was a sunshiny primrose path prior to that.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

84. Very true

On several issues, I have a great disappointment in this admin. From Medical Marijuana, to refusing to allow that FISA court judgement into the public eye, it seems that they don't seem to have our best interests in mind.

[Autumn]

2. Those are the reasons IMO this whole terror spiel is bullshit.

Pretty damn sad, I thought that shit had gone with bush.

[Hydra]

3. We owned Al-Qaeda

And there's no reason to think we don't own them now.

This whole "Terra!" thing was ridiculous when Bush did it, and this President should be ashamed of digging into the Bushco barrel for tricks again.

TL;DR: They must think we're idiots.

[BlueStreak]

4. To be fair to Obama, it may be out of his hands

We all tend to start from the assumption that the President is in charge. That may be a bad assumption.

The people in the Security Industrial Complex watch Presidents come and go. I doubt that they give them the kind of respect that we assume should be extended. It is probably the tail wagging the dog.

One could very easily imagine a circumstance where NSA people made it clear to the White House that they are not willing to stand on the sidelines as this anti-domestic-spying fervor takes hold. They could have presented Obama with the proposition that they were going forward with a disinformation campaign whether the President likes it or not. Obama has the option to get out in front of it and cheer-lead for the NSA or else appear completely powerless in front of the world as they go their own way without him.

[Hydra]

6. He could always make the choice to do the right thing

Powerless or not, he's cheerleading for this, and that's his choice. I'm not sure if the President has the final say in things(unlikely), but if we're voting for a figurehead, we need to know that and decide if it's appropriate for the Military/Spooks and Corps to be running things.

[BlueStreak]

7. How would this go, exactly?

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 12:54 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm not saying that Air Force One would have a freak accident, but it seems to me there are a whole lot of people who are philosophically committed to the security state, and a lot more who are economically wedded to the security state. How would "doing the right thing" play out in practice?

Would Obama call a speech and say "My fellow Americans, I have discovered that there is a rogue element running this country ..." How well do you think life would go for Obama after that?

[Jackpine Radical]

30. Two words.

Grassy knoll.

[BlueStreak]

35. I didn't want to say that, you know, because the grassy knoll guys are listening in

These SOBs really don't mess around -- any more than Putin's henchmen do.

[Life Long Dem]

60. And it smells of Republicans

Referring to presidents. I doubt that they give them the kind of respect that we assume should be extended.

[valerief]

69. Al Qaeda is the boogey-man du jour, an invention of our government. nt

[Enthusiast]

74. They had to be invented. There was no more Soviet Union......nt

[valerief]

83. Exactly! And we're quickly becoming the crumbling, oppressive USSR our teevees (if you're old

enough) warned us about.

[Enthusiast]

86. Yes. I just asked No Elelephants, "When will they go FULL NAZI on us?"

The day is coming.

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."

— Frank Zappa

[geek tragedy]

85. I'm sure the 3000 people who died at the WTC will be relieved to learn this nt

[valerief]

87. Unfortunately, they'll never know who's responsible for the bombing,

not even the official story, let alone the truth.

[Bacchus4.0]

5. I think the government should inform the public more, not less

I thought this warning was vague enough as it was.

[KittyWampus]

8. Ah, so if they have intelligence they shouldn't act on it to protect Americans & other foreign

nationals?

[BlueStreak]

10. They shouldn't "act on it" by telling al Qaeda exactly what we know The point is

if Snowden or Manning had disclosed information like that, the authority apparatus would have been in full meltdown mode. But to paraphrase Richard Nixon, "When the President says it, it isn't a leak."

[geek tragedy]

17. derp.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-calderone/mcclatchy-editor-defends-al-qaeda-intercept_b_3713226.html

Our story was based on reporting in Yemen and we did not contact the administration to ask permission to use the information. In fact, our reporter tells me that the intercept was pretty much common knowledge in Yemen.

On your larger question about the administration's request, I'm not surprised. It is not unusual for CNN or the NYT to agree not to publish something because the White House asked them. And frankly, our Democracy isn't well served when journalists agree to censor their work.

As I've told our readers in the past: McClatchy journalists will report fairly and independently. We will not make deals with those in power, regardless of party or philosophy.

[BlueStreak]

36. They made sure they briefed enough Senators that would all run out blabbing about it

If you don't think this was an intentional leak, you really need to think this through again.

Look, I don't mind an honest debate about whether this extra-constitutional stuff is a necessity, or justified on some basis other than the laws of the country, or you can even make an ends-justify-the-means argument. But if you want to deny the administration is leaking this stuff on purpose, there really is no place to start any reasonable debate.

[geek tragedy]

73. You've already shown that you are immune to facts and reason.

You have your story, and you're emotionally committed to it, just like the Wingnuts are committed to the Benghazi 'scandal.'

Why do you believe it? Because you want to. Your inability to understand why people would follow the facts instead of your weird intuitions is not our fault.

P.S. the source wasn't a Senator, not that you care about facts.

[BlueStreak]

76. Did they condemn Saxby Chambliss?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/04/as-us-embassies-shut-down-senator-calls-terrorist-threat-most-serious-in-number/

No. They gave him a detailed briefing and then sent him right out to talk about it.

Terra!! Terra!! Terra!!

Politics makes strange bedfellows.

This is all about keeping the secret budgets and secret spying operations intact. Too much money at stake.

[geek tragedy]

79. Chambliss revealed no specifics or operational details.

You are perhaps failing to appreciate the difference between generalized "we're spying on Al Qaeda" and "we listened to a specific conversation between specific individuals on a specific date." The latter provides useful information to Al Qaeda as it allows them to identify specific breaches and vulnerabilities in their security protocols. The former tells them nothing.

You are engaging in Alex Jones-style thinking--you have your conspiracy theory, and then you try to fit the facts into that theory, no matter how much they contradict it.

[JaneyVee]

46. They do this to prevent attacks, if they know we know it may lessen the threat.

[treestar]

88. And obviously it was some big secret that we make attempts to intercept

their communications. AQ would never have thought that possible!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Far from the only possible conclusion.

the only possible conclusion is that the administration is lying to us about this whole thing. I'll say it. There never was an intercept such as they have leaked. We never had any specific knowledge of an attack planned for Aug 4. This is all a disinformation campaign to protect the security industrial complex.

Another conclusion would be that the administration is disrupting Al Quaeda and provoking an internal war to flush even more operatives and names out into the open.

Yet another conclusion would be ordinary mundane incompetence in thinking that publicizing this information would be strategic.

Information releases like this are nothing new. Republicans have done it many times, including their poster boy Darrell Issa. The Bush administration did it.

What would you rather do? Leave the embassies open and have innocent citizens of the countries murdered in a terrorist incident as they come and go getting visas and student applications?

[BlueStreak]

11. What would I rather do?

QUIETLY take steps to secure the embassies, including evacuating personnel if that is called for by the information at hand. And instead of telling al Qaeda exactly what we know, continue to monitor those channels and use that to get in position to kill their leadership.

That's exactly what the government WOULD do if the situation were as they described it.

Instead they intentionally leaked this to a bunch of newspapers and send Senators out shooting off their mouths. NO way that helps our fight against al Qaeda. The only thing that helps is to shot down the resistance to the security state, which quite clearly is the driving purpose here.

Yes, of course Cheney used the same playbook. That's why it is getting real old.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. You would still kill foreign nationals. I guess they don't count in your book.

If you can quietly evacuate personnel, which I don't buy, you'd have to do so without cancelling appointments, meetings, and services. That means that lots of foreign nationals and local service staff and delivery people would be coming and going and would be killed.

The 1998 United States embassy bombings were a series of attacks that occurred on August 7, 1998, in which hundreds of people were killed in simultaneous truck bomb explosions at the United States embassies in the East African capitals of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.

In Nairobi, approximately 212 people were killed, and an estimated 4,000 wounded; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[15] Seismological readings analyzed after the bombs indicated energy of between 3–17 tons of high explosive material.[16] Although the attacks were directed at American facilities, the vast majority of casualties were local citizens; 12 Americans were killed

211 locals don't count?

Come off your indignation and think about somebody else other than Americans.

[BlueStreak]

38. You can do this quietly without it having to be top secret

That is completely different from this administration going on every news program in the world spelling out our response plans in detail.

If they quietly shut down the embassies, that would not tell al Qaeda how much we know, or for how long we planned to take that action.

[randome]

13. Go ahead and run for President in 2016 if you think you can do better.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[geek tragedy]

15. On what basis did you conclude that it was the Obama administration

that leaked this information?

[cherokeeprogressive]

41. What administration WOULD it have been? The bush administration?

[geek tragedy]

58. McClatchy got it from someone in Yemen. Didn't even discuss it with the USG. nt

[rhett o rick]

71. Why dont you just say, "It aint Obama's fault." and leave it at that? nm

[geek tragedy]

72. Facts matter. nt

[rhett o rick]

77. Open-minded people are skeptical. People that are certain they know the

facts are usually wrong.

[geek tragedy]

78. No, people who know the facts know the facts.

Ignorance and cherry picking facts is not skepticism, it's foolishness.

The facts here are completely at odds with what this poster is claiming.

[rhett o rick]

80. And only you know the REAL facts. Open-minded people realize that things are rarely

as they seem. They doubt and are skeptical. Certainty is commonly a sign of narrow-mindedness.

Let me ask you this. Do you trust Fox's facts? Or CNN's facts? Or The Guardian's facts? Their "facts" usually are at odds.

Be skeptical.

[geek tragedy]

81. There are certainly areas where fact and opinion blend together.

My approach is to act as if the claims had to be proven in a court of law, with witnesses and exhibits.

Here, the question is "who divulged that the US was listening in on Al Zawahiri and/or the head of AQAP when they communicated?"

First witness: McClatchy says they learned it from someone in Yemen and never discussed its publication with the administration .

Second Witness: CNN says they learned it, ran it by the administration, who asked them to NOT publish it

Third Witness: NY Times says they learned it, ran it by the administration, who asked them to NOT publish it

No other witnesses with relevant information at this time. Summary judgment in favor of "the administration did not leak the Zawahiri information" and against this thread.

[rhett o rick]

82. Didnt you claim that Snowden gave secrets to China? nm

[geek tragedy]

14. Shorter BlueStreak: "I make shit up so that means Obama is the liar"

BlueStreak:

I have been absolutely astounded about just how reckless the administration has been in releasing information that -- assuming they are actually telling us the truth -- could have devastating consequences. If nothing else, alerting the top al Qaeda leadership that we are able to tap their conversations is a disaster that puts thousands of people at risk. If Snowden had revealed that, I would be in favor of a public hanging at dawn without a trial.

So, it's been proven that the Obama admin leaked this, right?

An official who’d been briefed on the matter in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, told McClatchy that the embassy closings and travel advisory were the result of an intercepted communication between Nasir al-Wuhayshi, the head of the Yemen-based Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and al Qaida leader Ayman al Zawahiri in which Zawahiri gave “clear orders” to al-Wuhaysi, who was recently named al Qaida’s general manager, to carry out an attack

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/04/198521/embassy-closings-travel-warning.html#.UgAPB-DXfS8

Okay, so it's someone in Yemen, not Washington DC.

But Obama wanted this information out there, right?

In an article posted on the Web on Friday and published on Saturday, The New York Times agreed to withhold the identities of the Qaeda leaders whose conversations were intercepted after senior American intelligence officials said the information could jeopardize their operations. The names were disclosed Sunday by McClatchy Newspapers, and after the government became aware of the article on Monday, it dropped its objections to The Times’s publishing the same information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/world/middleeast/qaeda-chiefs-order-to-yemen-affiliate-said-to-prompt-alert.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

The only possible conclusion is that people at DU shoot off their mouths without thinking things through or doing research.

[BlueStreak]

42. Yes. The administration has been out there talking about it. They are clearly happy

to be talking about it. If you want to make an argument about exactly where it first appeared, that is irrelevant. They wanted it out there, and that's exactly what happened.

Show me one quote from any administration official condemning this leak. Just one. I can show you dozens of quotes where they condemn Snowden's revelations. Show he just one sentence, show me the slightest hint of disapproval from anybody in this administration. Even thee third shift janitor at the White House.

Time to put up or else concede the point.

You can start your search here. DO you find the slightest hint of disapproval in Jay Carney's statement?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=104_1375789276

[geek tragedy]

56. THEY ASKED CNN AND THE NY TIMES TO NOT PUBLISH IT.

CNN and the NY Times honored that request.

It got published by someone who did not talk to the government about it.

That is all fact. You are inventing bullshit, dishonest excuses to make up for this deranged post.

The facts all contradict your central assumption--that the admin leaked this on purpose.

You don't care about the facts. You care about your hatred of Obama.

Go sit next to Darrel Issa.

[SidDithers]

70. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[geek tragedy]

16. McClatchy: "Our story was based on reporting in Yemen and we did not contact the administration

to ask permission to use the information. In fact, our reporter tells me that the intercept was pretty much common knowledge in Yemen. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-calderone/mcclatchy-editor-defends-al-qaeda-intercept_b_3713226.html

[randome]

18. Damn! You'd make a fine reporter, geek!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[geek tragedy]

22. It's amazing what happens when one uses Google instead of speculating blindly. nt

[woo me with science]

19. The power of logic

in this sick morass of propaganda.

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
and
Terra! Terra! Terra!

Thank you for this post reminding us that 2 + 2 really doesn't equal 5 .

[geek tragedy]

20. Obama Derangement Syndrome is not logic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-calderone/mcclatchy-editor-defends-al-qaeda-intercept_b_3713226.html

On Sunday, McClatchy reported that the decision to close U.S. embassies and issue a travel warning last week was prompted by an intercepted communication between Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri and Nasir al-Wuhayshi, the Yemen-based head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The McClatchy report helped clarify why the U.S. government was taking such extreme caution overseas and included information about the much-discussed terror threat that at least two news organizations, CNN and the New York Times, held back at the government's request.

CNN's Barbara Starr acknowledged on air that the network withheld the names attached to the intercept, while the New York Times -- which noted holding back information in a Friday night report -- explained the decision in an article Monday.

So they didn't get the information from Obama? no.

Our story was based on reporting in Yemen and we did not contact the administration to ask permission to use the information. In fact, our reporter tells me that the intercept was pretty much common knowledge in Yemen.

On your larger question about the administration's request, I'm not surprised. It is not unusual for CNN or the NYT to agree not to publish something because the White House asked them. And frankly, our Democracy isn't well served when journalists agree to censor their work.

As I've told our readers in the past: McClatchy journalists will report fairly and independently. We will not make deals with those in power, regardless of party or philosophy.

[pnwmom]

39. Reading comprehension is important, too.

Funny that a "science" guy is so into conspiracy theories -- so McClatchy, the NYTimes, and the WA Post are all in this together, plus Yemen, plus the U.S. Wow.

[Waiting For Everyman]

21. If legit, this alert has revealed "sources and methods" bigtime, flagrantly.

Supposedly, not revealing sources and methods is what all this secrecy is about, and it's what ruthlessly prosecuting leakers is about. So does it matter, or not? It can't be both ways.

It can't be that when the administration does it, somehow AQ doesn't catch on. The (lack of) logic of this is plain nutty.

Your conclusion is certainly a possible one, OP.

[geek tragedy]

23. Leak did not come from Obama administration, came from Yemen. nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

24. That's where, not who. nt

[geek tragedy]

25. Wasn't from Obama administration. Other sources sat on the information

because Obama administration asked them to not publish it. McClatchy said they did not contact the administration to clear it with them.

[Waiting For Everyman]

29. That still doesn't say who provided it to McClatchey.

Perhaps McC didn't verify it with admin because that's where it came from in the first place.

Or... AQ could've reported it to McC. I guess that's always a possibility, though a remote one.

[geek tragedy]

31. The administration asked other news agencies to not report it.

That's a pretty good indicator that they didn't leak it.

[leveymg]

32. It's not a leak when the target already knows about it. It's reporting.

As you acknowledged and quoted," the intercept was pretty much common knowledge in Yemen. "

[geek tragedy]

33. Semantics. nt

[pnwmom]

50. A Yemeni official, according to McClatchy News Service. n/t

[BlueStreak]

43. Show me one quote where anybody in this administration has condemned the leak

[pnwmom]

49. It wasn't a "leak" so there is nothing to condemn.

The source was a Yemeni official -- not someone we are in a position to condemn.

[BlueStreak]

52. The administration approves -- almost as if they put it out there themselves.

It they don't approve of this leak, show me where any of them has condemned the leaks.

[pnwmom]

54. They're not going to "condemn" a "leaker" in Yemen

with whom they're trying to work. That would be idiotic.

And they're not going to "condemn" a news outlet that merely published an interview with a foreign official. That's called "freedom of the press."

[geek tragedy]

66. It's not a leak. A foreign national told is the source. nt

[baldguy]

40. The OP presupposes that al Qaeda (and other terrorists) are stupid.

[darkangel218]

26. +1 million

[JoePhilly]

27. Or ...

We have enough info to know that an attack is very likely, but not enough to be sure we can prevent it. So we announce that we have Intel, and then take some specific, announced steps that can be seen ... in an attempt to get them to have to change their plans, and perhaps give away their target and larger plan as a result.

If that seems unlikely to you, you should read up on how the US determined that Japan planned to attack Midway Island during WWII.

Further ... its ironic that today is Aug 6th ... 13 years to the day on which Bush ignored a PDB indicating OBL was determined to attack in the US.

Bush was wrong to do nothing. This administration should not make a similar mistake.

[geek tragedy]

28. The US didn't release this info--they asked media outlets to not publish it nt

[woo me with science]

34. LOL. nt

[geek tragedy]

57. Sorry reality contradicts your Glenn Beckian warped fantasies. nt

[BlueStreak]

44. Show me a single quote where they condemned any news source for publishing

They WANTED it out. That is how this game is played. It is a wink and a nudge. Plausible deniability.

[geek tragedy]

55. The NY Times and CNN withheld the information at the government's request.

Learn to read, and think.

[pnwmom]

37. This is garbage. The US didn't reveal this -- McClatchy news service did, after learning

of this from Yemen. The NYTimes and the WA Post had heard the story, but acceded to Washington's wishes not to publish the story. McClatchy refused to, and after they published this, the other newspapers went ahead.

You are right. It is completely implausible that we would intentionally reveal these messages. AND WE DID NOT.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/06/198678/yemen-denounces-us-evacuation.html#.UgGaJRbvyYM

[BlueStreak]

45. Show me one citation where anybody in the administration has condemned this

I can show you hundreds of condemnation of Snowden and Manning. Why does the cat have their tongue now?

Show me what actions they are planning to take to against McClatchy? Are they threatening to try McClatchy for treason?

[pnwmom]

48. Why would they try MClatchy for treason? They didn't try even Manning for treason, and Manning,

unlike McClatchy, leaked classified documents that he was sworn as a soldier to protect.

McClatchy got their information from an interview with a Yemen official, and they had no obligation to refrain from publishing it.

There is no reason for the US to condemn McClatchy for doing what newspapers are supposed to do. The Administration might have wished that McClatchy had listened to them, but they had no basis for condemning McClatchy for publishing information obtained in an interview with a foreign official.

[BlueStreak]

51. OK. Show me one quote from any administration official that even vaguely expresses:

Last edited Tue Aug 6, 2013, 10:15 PM - Edit history (1)

"While we respect the rights of a free press. we are troubled with the release of details that provide operational details about our monitoring capabilities. Because of the grave damage that can be done by such releases, we ask that all media outlets act responsibly."

Anything?

OK. I'll make it easier. Show me a quote that expressed any disapproval whatsoever with the release of these crucial operational details.

You cannot because this administration orchestrated these leaks. They want them out there. It helps them shut down the criticism and calls for oversight of the $300 Billion / a year dark budget agencies.

[pnwmom]

53. What effect would such a quote have had? They spoke privately to the news media involved,

and two of them responded by not publishing this, and one did not.

To take it any further would have been pointless.

[geek tragedy]

61. " Show me a quote that expressed any disapproval whatsoever with the release"

Here you go:

In an article posted on the Web on Friday and published on Saturday, The New York Times agreed to withhold the identities of the Qaeda leaders whose conversations were intercepted after senior American intelligence officials said the information could jeopardize their operations. The names were disclosed Sunday by McClatchy Newspapers, and after the government became aware of the article on Monday, it dropped its objections to The Times's publishing the same information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/world/middleeast/qaeda-chiefs-order-to-yemen-affiliate-said-to-prompt-alert.html?pagewanted=print

On CNN, Barbara Starr says network held news of Zawahiri intercept over weekend because of US govt concerns.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mlcalderone/status/364477095063199745

If you have any integrity, you will concede the point.

[BlueStreak]

63. BS. Where is the administration condeming this?

They came out with guns blazing when Snowden revealed information that had only a tine fraction of the potential to jeopardize real terrorist tracking. Not a peep from this administration. In fact they briefed senators, who immediately came out repeating all those same details. That is what you do when you want the leaks out there. that isn't what you do when you are trying to stop leaks.

Can you even show me a single quote where an administration official expressed any regret whatsoever that the information was out there?

Let me give you a reminder of what "regret" sounds like:

Show me anything remotely similar to that with regard to this new set of leaks.

[geek tragedy]

64. Dishonest moving of the goalposts on your part.

A request ex ante to not publish the information more than disproves your silly little conspiracy fantasy , and your insistence that only an ex post condemnation would count is bad faith and evidence of a lack of intellectual honesty.

Or perhaps you are not smart enough to realize that there is now Snowden-like figure in this story. If a foreign official talks anonymously to our press, the administration is not in a position to condemn that nameless person, let alone have them arrested.

This is not a disagreement of opinion. You are simply being irrational and illogical.

[BlueStreak]

67. This is all a dance. The players know their roles

If the administration didn't want that info out there, they would make that clear. It is obvious for all to see what is going on.

Three are good leaks and there are bad leaks. As far as the administration is concerned, this is one of the good leaks. It saved their bacon. Before they rolled out this "Cheney maneuver", they were losing the NSA debate and losing it badly. There was a very real chance that Liberals and Tea Party types were going to come together to finally agree on something. and that would potentially have shut down half of the dark operations.

That is at least $100 billion / year of dark, unaccountable money at stake. They couldn't have that. This "good leak" did the trick.

I don't care to debate it with you. I don't learn anything from your unconditional support of this administration's superficial actions.

[geek tragedy]

68. No, I am just capable of basic logic.

Question: what is the best evidence someone doesn't want something to happen

Answer: they try to stop it from happening.

To show how inane your little fantasy is, let's apply your thinking and my logic:

Question: what is the best proof someone doesn't want to get rained on while outside?

Me: they take an umbrella with them

You: they complain because their hair is wet.

You have no facts, you have nothing resembling logic. Just your fantasy.

[treestar]

89. If they administration did so, you'd just say that was part of the plan

Part of the show.

[geek tragedy]

59. They got it from a foreign government/source. No one to prosecute. nt

[KG]

47. 'assuming they are actually telling us the truth', which I don't believe for a second they are.

let's get real: the obama administration is just as ready to lie to the american people as another.