MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Mark Hosenball, Reuters, a few minutes ago:
A group of former U.S. intelligence and Special Forces operatives is set to launch a media campaign, including TV ads, that scolds President Barack Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden and argues that high-level leaks are endangering American lives.
Leaders of the group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, say it is nonpartisan and unconnected to any political party or presidential campaign. It is registered as a so-called social welfare group, which means its primary purpose is to further the common good and its political activities should be secondary.
....
An Obama campaign official said: "No one in this group is in a position to speak with any authority on these issues and on what impact these leaks might have, and it's clear they've resorted to making things up for purely political reasons."
...
The White House has denied leaking classified information.
The president of Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, Scott Taylor, is a former Navy SEAL who in 2010 ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for a congressional seat in Virginia.
Calling itself "OPSEC" for short - which in spy jargon means "operational security" - the anti-leak group incorporated last June in Delaware, a state that has the most secretive corporate registration rules in the U.S.
It also set itself up as a nonprofit organization under section 501(c)4 of the U.S. Tax Code, allowing it to keep donors' identities secret. Spokesmen for the group declined to discuss its sources of financing.
Several group representatives say their main motivation for setting up OPSEC was dismay at recent detailed media leaks about sensitive operations.
....
In an interview, Taylor denied OPSEC had any political slant. He described the group as a "watchdog organization" but added that the current administration "has certainly leaked more than others."
OPSEC spokesmen said the group has about $1 million at its disposal and hopes to raise more after the release of its mini-documentary, entitled "Dishonorable Disclosures," which aims, in spy-movie style, to document a recent spate of leaks regarding sensitive intelligence and military operations.
Following the film's release, OPSEC's spokesmen said, the group expects to produce TV spots on the anti-leak theme that will air in a number of states, including Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina and Nevada - key battleground states.
.....
Comments
Oops, wrong link. Correct one is: http://news.yahoo.com/special-ops-group-attacks-obama-over-bin-laden-011757844.html
by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 6:30pm
But aren't they, in a way, just calling attention to the fact that Obama got bin Laden, whereas their party's two-term president did not? I realize this is a brazen attempt at Swiftboating 2.0. But unlike John Kerry, Obama actually got bin Laden. Seems like a pretty solid rebuttal.
by acanuck on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 7:24pm
Yes, they are reminding voters about that. So...it might backfire.
OTOH, Kerry actually was a Vietnam veteran with a distinguished record, so it might have been said, probably was said by some at the time, that there was no way those ads could have succeeded in hurting Kerry.
by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 7:57pm
Was Kerry a Vietnam vet who got bin Laden? No. That's the big difference.
by acanuck on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 9:00pm
Did any of these guys complain when Bush and aides made 935 false statements to gin up the war in Iraq?
Did any of them care?
Probably not. These guys know jackshit about running the military, or running the nation. They should spend the rest of their lives in the new free Baghdad, created by their hero, The Decider.
by NCD on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 8:03pm
No of course they didn't NCD, that is only OK when Republicans do it, they are the real patriots of this country and no one else. It's lame, but it's how they roll.
by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 8:42pm
I think it can hurt Obama. I just don't see any new votes falling off the fence on his side based on having killed Ossama a while back.
The swift-boating of Kerry was complete, unsubstantiated bullshit and still hurt him while there is some substance to the charges being made against Obama as to leaking classified information for political purposes. I hope it doesn't gain traction but the fact that a bunch of Republican operatives are hypocritical politicians saying things we don't like to hear and don't want people to believe is not what will keep it from being an effective charge.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 10:25pm
Here is a Youtube video preview. It is call "Dishonorable Disclosures".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Xfti7qtT0&feature=player_embedded#!
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 10:37pm
What makes you believe there is some substance to the charges of leaking classified information, rather than a complete fabrication? Is it what you saw in the version of the ad that you provided the link to? If so, which part or parts in particular? Or is it something else besides the ad video that leads you to that view?
Thank you for posting the link.
by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 08/15/2012 - 11:54pm
I only watched a very little bit of the ad. No, it wasn't the ad that makes me believe that the current administration has leaked some classified information. Enough to give the charge some substance. I seem to remember a big blow up about it recently.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 08/16/2012 - 2:47am
Easy for you to say.
by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 08/18/2012 - 12:08am
"Easy for you to say".
What does that mean? What are you trying to say with that statement? That it is easy for me to say that the campaign tactic in question has the potential to hurt Obama? Yes, that is easy to say because it is easy to believe. Republican operatives who have been very successful in the past believe it enough to invest a lot of money in pushing it. Would you argue that their similar tactics have not been successful in the recent past?
Maybe you are referring to my statement that the charges had some substance which I did not support with any of the many available links. Rather than invest time doing that now I will just assert that a great many people across the political spectrum believe that the charge has some substance and so even if the charge is, in fact, baseless, it has the potential to be politically effective.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 08/18/2012 - 1:05pm
Lulu: The comment of mine you are responding to was not a response to your comment. It was a tongue-in-cheek remark in response to what looked to be an automatically-generated, lengthy spam comment on a completely unrelated matter (by "singaporef", if you go to the tracker for the thread--again, it was deleted), of the sort that appears around here from time to time--not your comment. The spam comment was deleted and the result is that there is now a false appearance in the thread that I was responding to your comment.
by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 08/18/2012 - 2:40pm
Gracias, yo entiendo y todo es bueno.
by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 08/18/2012 - 3:32pm