RED ALERT: NYT REVEALS ***MILITARY SECRETS*** ON FRONT PAGE!!!

[kpete]

In The New York Times today, Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins expose very sensitive classified government secrets -- and not just routine secrets, but high-level, imminent planning for American covert military action in a foreign country:


U.S. Military Seeks to Expand Raids in Pakistan
By MARK MAZZETTI and DEXTER FILKINS
Published: December 20, 2010

......
Senior American military commanders in Afghanistan are pushing for an expanded campaign of Special Operations ground raids across the border into Pakistan’s tribal areas, a risky strategy reflecting the growing frustration with Pakistan’s efforts to root out militants there

...........

The decision to expand American military activity in Pakistan, which would almost certainly have to be approved by President Obama himself, would amount to the opening of a new front in the nine-year-old war, which has grown increasingly unpopular among Americans. . . . One senior American officer said, “We’ve never been as close as we are now to getting the go-ahead to go across.”

The officials who described the proposal and the intelligence operations declined to be identified by name discussing classified information.

...................

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/world/asia/21intel.html?_r=1&hp
via:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

The question that emerges from all of this is obvious, but also critical for those who believe Wikileaks and Julian Assange should be prosecuted for the classified information they have published: should the NYT editors and reporters who just spilled America's secrets to the world be criminally prosecuted as well? After all, WikiLeaks has only exposed past conduct, and never -- like the NYT just did -- published imminent covert military plans. Moreover, WikiLeaks has never published "top secret" material, unlike what the NYT has done many times in the past (the NSA program, the SWIFT banking program) and what they quite possibly did here as well.

[leveymg]

1. That we will soon be in a 3rd (and possibly 4th) war in the region is an open secret.

And, there's not a whole hell of a lot that any of us can do to stop it.

[sarcasmo]

2. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Why is our deficit in the Trillions?

WAR!

[snappyturtle]

3. More upheaval, death and misery in the name of national security.

Excuse me, but who in the hell are 'we' going after and what genuine threat are they to the U.S. anyway? I need to know.

[BeFree]

13. Shhhh, don't tell anyone, but...

...we are making war in Pakistan to stop Saudi Arabians from hijacking airplanes here.

It's complicated, most people don't understand how it all works.
Bush and Cheney started all this, and now we get to play along, and that's all most of us ever need to know?

[JDPriestly]

21. We fight these wars to benefit the Saudi monarchy.

I wonder whether Al Qaeda is actually made up of Saudis who want to depose the king? I don't know anything about internal Saudi politics, but that thought has occurred to me. Does anyone else know something about this?

Of course, we need the Saudi monarchy to keep oil flowing at relatively reasonable prices.

I should add that I think we are Afghanistan and might go into Pakistan in order to have some control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

We have just entered into an agreement with Russia about nuclear weapons. It is not unreasonable to want to be sure that the Pakistani nuclear weapons are not used to start their own war. This I think is a legitimate reason to be concerned about Pakistan and to be in that area.

[Hannah Bell]

23. something like that is the best explanation i can think of, given that

reportedly a lot of the financing of "AQ" comes from SA & regions in the gulf.

other arab gangs, other capitalist gangs, family power struggles, something like that.

and i'd bet non-arab actors involved on both sides as well.

[defendandprotect]

26. Best explanation ... fear that Russia/China/India may take control of ME ... if we don't!!

and evidently that's been the thinking of the CIA since ....

Well, see: "30 Days of the Condor" -- presume this was an active

plan right after their coup on JFK?

CIA, all fascist all the time!

[Hannah Bell]

28. but the funding is -- reportedly -- not coming from russia/china/india

but from saudi arabia mainly.

and we already *have* control of much of the middle east, through our proxies i.e. in saudi arabia.

and our allies in israel, who are purportedly at odds with our proxies.

because of the jewish-moslem thing.

a lot of this makes no sense at all when you follow the money.

so the challenge is to come up with a scenario that *does* make sense.

[defendandprotect]

30. This Night Owl is ....

getting sleepy, so I may not make sense here ...


but ... what "funding" ... ?

For all we know the Saudis may own all of America at this point -- ????

Wasn't that a theme in at least one or more of Michael Moore's movies?

Didn't they give Reagan the money for Iran/Contra?

But this thinking isn't being put in place NOW -- this is an agenda set decades ago.


Was reading an interesting article on this the other day -- and will look for it tomorrow.

This has mainly to do with Russia/China/Indian influences/sympathies in area.



But, keep in mind our whole repulsive move in "baiting" Russia into Afghanistan during

Carter administration only came to light five/six years ago from Brzezinski.

We also created Taliban/Al Qaeda -- we also produced, printed and shipped those obnoxious

and violent Islamic "holy" books into ME to try to create a more violent strain of Islam!

Religion long a tool -- false flag, also.


Nixon's arming right wing Israel -- and ultimately US making Israel a nuclear power --

certainly buried peace-loving Israel, especially after the right wing assassination of Rabin.

Yes -- NOW we have control of the ME, but planned long, long ago.


Iow, at least by the time of the coup on JFK, CIA was after this --


Obviously, we're not leaving the ME -- it will be perpetual occupation -- BUT it will

be Americans footing the bill for all of this -- bankrupting our Treasury.

One of the surest ways to end this attempt at democracy.




I'm less worried about Israel and Saudi conflicts -- Jewish/Moslem -- than I am about

Biden pushing Israel for year now to attack Iran!!


What we do know is that our military has always been used to protect the interests of

the wealthy who control and profit from control of our natural resources.

80% of the oil is used by our military -- making oil a "national security issue."


Back tomorrow to take another look at this --

:)

[JDPriestly]

37. defendandprotect, yes. Fear that Russia/China/India will grab control

of the oil supply is a big fear. Actually, though the US has a big advantage over those countries because, culturally, we are much more devout nation. Our religion may be different, but we share with the Middle East our essentially religious nature. That is very important in dealing with people from the Middle East.

Your theory is something that Kissinger would probably like and may be promoting.

But underneath it all, we pretty much do what the Saudis pay us to do. They invest in our country. China, Russia and India invest less. They are busy developing their own economies. The Saudi royal family and their Saudi supporters support Fox News, some of our, if not all of our major banks and so many other things.

We react to Russia, China and India, but we are the servants of Saudi Arabia. That is why Britain sides with us on so many things. The Saudis and their close allies in the Middle East such as Qatar and the UAE have a very impressive economic influence and interest in Great Britain.

[Raster]

33. There are factions of Islam that believe the Saudi Royal Family (SRF) have neglected their duties...

...to protect the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. They believe that the SRF have desecrated the Arabian peninsula by allowing infidels and heretics to not only do business, but allow foreign warriors on sacred soil.

[truth2power]

16. It's not WHO, but WHAT we're going after...

It's about clearing the way for the TAPI pipeline. Not about bringing freedom, democracy, women's rights, blah blah...

Our blood and treasure, the lives of our sons and daughters, are being expended to further enrich wealthy industrialists.

How convenient is was that the "terrorists" were clustered around Helmand Province in Afghanistan. Quelle surprise! Just along the route of the proposed pipeline.

Now we have to push on into Pakistan to get those accursed insurgents.

Look for the word "Quetta" to be mentioned. Keep your eyes peeled.

[molly77]

35. One wonders why the NY Times chose this particular time to publish

secret National Security information.I consider them to be a corporate/military industrial complex friendly newspaper.

Have often wondered if people like this have some pangs when they see their country twirling in the toilet.

It helps WikiLeaks for them to be doing this.They must know something we don't.

[unblock]

4. yes! good idea! let's bomb the crap out of cambodia!

er, pakistan!

[mrdmk]

19. Dude! You beat me to it. Shame on you... n/t

[mmonk]

5. When are the calls for the Espionage Act going to start?

Feinstein? Lieberman? Where are you?

[Luminous Animal]

6. K&R.

[DirkGently]

7. Silly rabbit. Political trial balloons leaked by self-serving insiders aren't treason like Wikileaks

[KurtNYC]

31. Right. This ain't WikiLeaks, this is TrickiLeaks n/t

[northernlights]

32. the election is over. why would they care what the little people think?

More likely in-fighting in Washington. Maybe Somebod(ies) are against expanding perpetual war and seeking to stop the new front before it starts.

[DirkGently]

34. Quite possible. An example the sanctioned leak double-standard either way, eh?

[stevenleser]

8. Sure, if they were unauthorized to release it, those giving the information should be prosecuted

the difference is, of course, that this release was authorized.

[northoftheborder]

9. yes, these leaks were likely authorized

[tomp]

29. authorized leaks are not leaks. nt

[BetsysGhost]

10. yesterday

Andrea Bitchell (MSNBC) had this on her program.

KnR for content.

[Rex]

11. That is okay for the NYTs to do so, they get a free pass from our govt

because they are already a proven 'team player' and have no problem betraying the American people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Were the NYT editors wearing condoms in Sweden?

[glinda]

18. Yes but they broke.

[sudopod]

14. Could this be the Times's way of throwing their weight behing Wikileaks?

By exposing themselves this way, everyone has to ask that question, and taking down and institution with the Times's history would be much more difficult legally and politically than taking down nerdy foreigners.

[defendandprotect]

27. Only if the NYT's actually comes out to support WikiLeaks ....

the NYT's is pretty much finished -- in fact from what they've said over

past 5 years, think they can't wait to close down!!

[stray cat]

15. The NY times is now a hero to DUers!

send them money quick!

[DainBramaged]

17. All they need is the A-Team

[Senator]

20. K&+R

[Major Hogwash]

22. Wow, why isn't the FBI stopping all of these leaks? Talk about incompetent boobs!

We need a new FBI director, that guy sucks.

[Hannah Bell]

24. special ops already in pakistan for some time per various reports.

[defendandprotect]

25. W/GOP idea of "Let's set the entire world on fire" .... If this is America ....

I'm ashamed to be an American --

[Turbineguy]

36. Did Michelle Bachmann

start early in her role on the Intelligence committee?