dagblog - Comments for "U.S. issues travel alert, will close embassies due to al Qaeda threat"

US embassies to reopen in

artappraiser — Sun, 11 Aug 2013 05:12:17 +0000

In reply to U.S. issues travel alert, will close embassies due to al Qaeda threat

US embassies to reopen in Middle East and Africa after terror threat
Yemen mission stays closed amid fear of al-Qaida attack but 18 other offices will open doors on Sunday

Agencies & staff @ theguardian.com, 10 August 2013

Noted that the 15th anniversary of the 1998 African embassy bombings by Al Qaeda (August 7) has just passed:

Photo caption from LA Times's Framework: Nairobi, Kenya — Margret Jowu, who lost her daughter in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing in Nairobi, prays as she touches the monument built at the site where the embassy stood. The U.S. has temporarily closed embassies in four sub-Saharan African countries -- Rwanda, Burundi, Madagascar and Mauritius -- as a safety precaution ahead of the 15th anniversary of the bombings by Al Qaeda of U.S. diplomatic missions in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people.

Photo credit: DANIEL IRUNGU / EPA

You realize you're basically

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 08 Aug 2013 15:51:22 +0000

In reply to You realize you're basically

You realize you're basically making the "Obama is an eight dimensional chess player" argument? I'm sorry, I'm not ready to buy that the administration and the country's intel agencies are so wicked smart that they have complete control of "the message."

I am not making any such argument. Obama may be attempting the equivalent of some multi-level game but I did not suggest he is playing it well. It should be obvious that if I thought he was successful in exerting "complete control" of the message that I would not be pointing out contradictions in how various messengers are treated or how messages of one sort can be leaked anonymously but others bring on the wrath and legal attack powers of his administration. In spite of concerted efforts to scare future whistle-blowers by persecuting the ones who have been identified and caught, and the protection of leakers of classified information when that information suits the governments purposes, embarrassing revelations continue.

BTW, going back to the Bush period, Seymour Hersh was an example of a journalist whose main modus operandi was talking up intel sources and then squeezing them when he wanted something.

I am interested in how Hersh 'squeezed' those sources. Can you tell me? Did he threaten them with prosecution and prison time? Or with the loss of their jobs and pensions and chances of further gainful employment at a level that their qualifications justified? With solitary confinement and torture? The Obama administration has used such power publicly against whistle-blowers if it did not like what was revealed and if it could identify them. Also, it has worked hard to expand its ability to identify everyone who says anything. You might have noticed. I am confident that the "anonymous official" noticed who held the bread and the knife and how sometimes that knife went to the butter dish and sometimes went into someone's back, and so he acted within approved [by the administration] boundaries.

And they didn't always give him correct information.

That is the significant part of what I was saying. I'm glad you agree.

(i.e., Bush never invaded Iran.)

We have differed on the meaning of this for several years now. Do you still say that because people have been warning of an attack on Iran for years and it has not happened that no one with real power and influence ever really wanted to attack Iran in the first place, that the threat to do so was always just a bargaining strategy, and that we should quit making note of the mongers who are still on message and may yet be successful? That if we don't quit noticing that we are being silly dupes like the theory supposes the Iranians to be, that we are being the equivalent of Chicken Little?

And I don't have a lot of respect for his administration's control of message, either. Nor do I think he and his minions have total control over the intel apparatus. That they are known to punish after the fact actually means quite the opposite. If they had control, they wouldn't be trying to punish so many leakers over the last few years.

There is quite a difference in the inferred meaning of "leaker" versus "whistle-blower". Punishing some selected few of both categories, publicly and harshly, demonstrates what you seem to acknowledge here, and that is that the administration does in fact attempt to control the message just as all political entities do. It is the methods they are using which are breaking new ground. It is their reaction to failures which proves the point. Their successes are, by nature of success in this area, largely unnoticed.

Ah, but if it looked like

Verified Atheist — Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:25:51 +0000

In reply to You realize you're basically

Ah, but if it looked like eight-dimensional chess, then they'd already be losing! See, Edward Snowden and the conflicting messages in Egypt were all part of their plan. It's brilliant, just wait and see!

You realize you're basically

artappraiser — Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:03:20 +0000

In reply to There was a time when that

So disciplined and controlled on message that right now they sent McCain and Graham over to Egypt to contradict their main message? It's really a plot to say what they don't want said?

I saw this as a big problem with the left with George Bush, too. On the one hand his administration were Machiavellian geniuses, on the other hand, they were teh stupid miserable failures. I'm usually with the latter. And I'm certainly leaning toward our intel agencies currently still being fairly incompetent, albeit trying hard to make up for the what's in the 9/11 Commission Report.

BTW, going back to the Bush period, Seymour Hersh was an example of a journalist whose main modus operandi was talking up intel sources and then squeezing them when he wanted something. And they didn't always give him correct information (i.e., Bush never invaded Iran.)

As far as Obama is concerned, I am now certain he is no eight-dimensional chess player. And I don't have a lot of respect for his administration's control of message, either. Nor do I think he and his minions have total control over the intel apparatus. That they are known to punish after the fact actually means quite the opposite. If they had control, they wouldn't be trying to punish so many leakers over the last few years.

There was a time when that

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:52:07 +0000

In reply to As to The official was

There was a time when that would be a sensible explanation and I would have agreed with you, but times have changed. I just do not believe that an intelligence official in a position today to be a reliable source for such information would dare to speak at length on the telephone with a journalist and reveal sensitive information, or analysis, or propaganda, which was not vetted and approved by higher-ups. Is there any doubt that there are levels or persons in the Executive branch, the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon, the State Department, Homeland Security, and many other "intelligence agencies" who could, if they chose to, identify that "anonymous official" and burn his ass if he had gone off the reservation and spoken without authorization? They can almost certainly just get a readout of who called who, but if necessary to fill in any blanks they can certainly squeeze a lot harder than can any journalist. Could that "anonymous official" who said he was not authorized to speak on the subject not have known that to be the case? That official was doing his job as instructed, or at least received approval before giving out that information, IMO which I hold strongly enough to bet a fair amount and give odds on.

Paul Woodward says today at War in Context:

3. At a time when the Obama administration clearly has an interest in hyping terrorist threats and promoting the idea that leaks from Edward Snowden made America less safe, there are leaks currently coming out of the administration that indisputably have the highest level of classification and whose disclosure poses a real national security threat. Are we to suppose that there is another Snowden out there, but this time someone willing to take an even greater risk of being tried for treason? I doubt it very much.

Much, much, more likely, these are leaks that were authorized by President Obama himself, the leaker-in-chief who can declassify whatever he wants.

Coming from anywhere else it would be treason, but coming from the Oval Office, it’s business as usual.

http://warincontext.org/2013/08/06/something-big-a-big-attack-a-big-leak..., much, more likely, these are leaks that were authorized by President Obama himself, the leaker-in-chief who can declassify whatever he wants.

Coming from anywhere else it would be treason, but coming from the Oval Office, it’s business as usual.
- See more at: http://warincontext.org/#sthash.IhpJaL8Y.dpuf

Much, much, more likely, these are leaks that were authorized by President Obama himself, the leaker-in-chief who can declassify whatever he wants.

Coming from anywhere else it would be treason, but coming from the Oval Office, it’s business as usual.
- See more at: http://warincontext.org/#sthash.IhpJaL8Y.dpuf