Wednesday, May 23, 2007
|
|
Romney On The ABC Leak Of National Security Secrets
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
5:50 PM
|
|
ABC news' story on the covert plan to destabilize the Iranian government is either a big pile of nonsense or a serious breach of national security. Either way it does no credit to ABC.
Mitt Romney made a statement on ABC's conduct today:
"First of all, I woke up this morning, and I was shocked to see the ABC News report regarding covert action in Iran. I was not shocked because of the covert action. I was shocked because a news organization with such a renowned reputation as ABC News would deem it appropriate to publish information about a covert action existing, and publish that not only to America but to the entire world. The reporting has the potential of jeopardizing our national security. Stated quite plainly, it has the potential of affecting human life. We may never know.
"As you know, Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Iran sponsors terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran's President has denied the Holocaust. Its leadership has incited to genocide. Its leadership has suggested the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, the spread of nuclear terror – nuclear proliferation – is certainly the most threatening of all the prospects on the planet today. And Iran is the most noted perpetrator of this nuclear proliferation. And Iran is supplying weapons and expertise that kill American soldiers in Iraq.
"And with all those things in mind and despite those factors, ABC News published classified information that warns Iran and that has the potential of putting Americans at risk. Now no one wants in a country like ours any form of censorship, but the media has a responsibility to police itself. And in the last little while, we've seen two examples of a failure in this responsibility. One by The New York Times with regards to reporting on the electronic eavesdropping on potential terrorists and the other is this report by ABC News. Responsible policing I just don't think happened on their part. Responsible policy-making happened on their part.
"And I think it's important to recognize that we have a global war on terror which continues. It's a global war against violent jihad. We've seen six years of this. It's not about to disappear anytime soon. With that in mind, I think it's time for leadership in the media to consider and adopt voluntary rules of responsible reporting with regards to matters of national security. Of course, we have a First Amendment which we cherish and value. It provides for freedom of the press but with this freedom goes the responsibility of the press. I'm not looking, as I said, for government censorship. I'm looking for corporate responsibility."
Romney is correct to note that media irresponsibility in an era of terror is a huge issue int he campaign, and one on which large majorities of Americans will agree with him.
|
|
I read what you said. Read what I said. We "rant" to the subject at hand. And in these parts, the ranting about our country's enemies is usually within the context of how the domestic political opposition does not understand how to deal with them.
For my part, the antipathy towards Bush veers precisely from my awareness of our terrorist enemies and his failure in improving our position (indeed, he has undermined our position) relative to the terrorists. |
|
I like how Dubya answered NBC News' David Gregory yesterday:
"Because I've seen the intelligence, David!"
Gregory asked, essentially, how Dubya can go on justifying intervention in Iraq.
How many Libs here have seen the intel, I wonder? |
|
»»Does it seem to you that Gabby has multiple on-line personas? Like maybe some open channel at an Internet cafe? Maybe the collective effort of some netroots or Moveon.org seminar?««
Now that you mention it...
The Left is not interested in solving problems. They are not interested in going forward, rather getting back.
So, instead of having decent discussion, all they can offer is empty blatherings.
I believe that they have been told to kick up as much dust as possible. They have been told not to discuss, rather to cause a riot where civil discussion is taking place.
They want to take us off our game. |
|
swampthing writes:
"He's a lot more brave than those taking cheap shots at him from the anonymous safety of a message board."
Does it seem to you that Gabby has multiple on-line personas? Like maybe some open channel at an Internet cafe? Maybe the collective effort of some netroots or Moveon.org seminar? |
|
|
|
»»I still want everyone who
wants the War on Terror expanded to Iran, to lobby congress so that all proponents are able to go overseas themselves and prove their support.««
To whom?
Nobody has to prove their point to 100% of the people. If you're not satisfied with what they do, you have the opportunity to vote the next time. THAT's your statement. Between votes, our representatives do what they feel they must do. You have to live with it.
»»Only then, will we know that they are sincere.««
You don't have to know that they are sincere. You won't agree that they are sincere anyway. It's an easy thing to say that, if they don't go, they must not be sincere; but that doesn't prove anything. It's just a cheap shot.
»»Why don't those sitting in safety in the USA lobby congress to allow them to go fight against Iran.««
Cuz somebody has to be in command.
»»George Bush is certainly healthy enough to go fight in Iran after he leaves office.««
He is in command. Commanders have jobs to do, and they are part of the whole military machine. Another part has to do the actual fighting; but the commanders are doing no less of the fighting.
»»Think he would have the guts to go do it folks?««
Sure. He's a lot more brave than those taking cheap shots at him from the anonymous safety of a message board.
|
|
»»So republicans want to provoke Iran?««
Really??
And, what about the UN's finding that Iran is ignoring UN warnings on nukes? Does THAT count for anything, or is it all Bush, Bush, Bush, again?
»»Who on EARTH would be surprised that covert activities were not going on already?««
Nobody. But so what?
»»Bush has wanted to attack Iran for quite some time and everyone knows it.««
You're confusing Iran with Iraq; Libs said that Bush wanted to attack Iraq for a long time.
»» He is gunning for a fight (with other peoples sons and daughters, of course) and provoking Iran would be an excuse to attack it.««
Bush is provoking Iran and Iran is just innocent as can be, not bothering anybody with their nukes cuz they aren't made yet, even though Iran is constantyly threatening Israel. Do I have that right?
»»Sheepster republicans would never think the provocation was wrong...««
So, you're comfy with a nuked-up Iran. We see.
»»... the would only think themselves holier than thou and perfectly justified if America responded to Iran defending itself against our CIA.««
You wanna wait until they get nukes? Would that make it better?
»»What ARE we doing in the middle east folks?««
TGrying to heop countries get their acts together.
»»Would you like Iran invading Canada and occupying it?««
Too ridiculous to consider seriously.
»»Bush will provoke Iran, and when Iran defends itself, republicans will blame Iran and advocate an attack on it though it was America who provoked her.««
You got is backwards. The UN says it is Iran that is provoking. |
|
»»I'm all for taking out Iran, but from afar but only after a clear attack from them and approval by congress.««
Gabby, this is where you are on your page, and I'm, on mine. On the other stuff, we agree, but not on this.
If you wanna wait until Iran attacks, you feel that some people ought to sacrifice their lives in order to provide the reasoning for our warring with Iran.
So, pick the ones who should surrender their lives to the Cause.
And, another thing:
The Commander in Chief doesn't need Congress' permission to respond to a threat.
Congress declares war. It cannot initiate such declaration; it must wait for the prez to ask it for one. It cannot wage war. It cannot issue orders. It is not in the chain of command.
The Commander in Chief has the power to wage war. He cannot declare war. He is power to respond to threats, and he doesn't need for Congress to go along.
»»CIA wars will bring us nothing but grief and they are out of the hands of the people (who will pay the ultimate price when things go wrong) because they did not get to "vote" or delcare war.««
Irrelevant. We have representatives who have the intel to make the decision for us. You don't have to agree. Our representatives cannot come to us each time they feel they must respond to threats.
»»It violates our constitution for the CIA to wage their little covert wars under the executive brance.««
CIA is in the Executive. The Commander in Chief gets to order CIA around.
»» Our wars have to stand the light of day and that can only occur with approval by congress (the peoples house).««
Congress is not the Commander in Cnief's commander in chief.
»»And it is time to stop these hidden wars, they are a violation of our laws.««
The Commander in Chief has authority to resond to threats to this country. |
|
Liberal Patriot,
You wrote;
******************
"That's simply false. I have always been clear on the distinction between this nation's enemies and our countrymen over on the other side of the aisle."
******************
Please, Sir, make a better effort to read more closely.
I NEVER said you didn't make a distinction between our nation's enemies and Republicans.
What I said is that you never RANT about our nation's enemies---you only ever rant about President Bush, conservatives, Republicans, people who go to church, et al.
Your ability to carelessly conflate two different ideas is amazing.
|
|
I will preface this by saying that I think the Iranian mullahs are oppressive tyrants who should be overthrown by their own people who have suffered more than anyone under their ‘leadership’.
But this news is hardly surprising, and the Iranians, given the covert cold war between them and the US, and they would be fools not to assume this already. Publishing information that confirms what everyone already knows is hardly worth whipping up the base over. Now if ABC publishes the names of the people the government funds or spies/operatives in Iran, then we can talk treason.
It is, however, disturbing that we are trying to repeat the very same course of action that led us to our current problems in Iran. The only thing we’re lacking to repeat our 50’s exercise in regime change is a plan to install a new Shah.
|
|
Which left wing nut job campaign are you working for?
Full disclosure please. |
|
That's simply false. I have always been clear on the distinction between this nation's enemies and our countrymen over on the other side of the aisle. Others in here should be as clear.
I was just responding to our friend SP's assertion that the left thinks GW is the enemy.
Keep in mind that my comments are not directed towards al-Qaeda and our country's other enemies. They are directed towards guys like you--compatriots with a different opinion. If I had the opportunity to put forward America's case to a terrorist enemy, I would jump at it--and moreover, would make it convincingly. |
|
|
Mitt Romney made a HUGE mistake in sensitivity and judment when he USED the graduation exercise at Hillsdale College (Michigan, May 12) to present his political views!! He never once used the word "graduate" and said nothing personal to grads and families!!! I suspect that he will take out the introductory phrase, "I'm honored to be here at this fine colllege" and we'll hear that same speech at political rallies! Nothing wrong with Romney having strong POLITICAL views--but to use a captive audience of graduates and families to totally dump his views on us!! Why do so many commencement speakers forget that this is a tender time for grads and familes!? We can get PLENTY of politics at rallies and panels! |
|
»»Bush is evil and they "know" it. this is an "illegal war". blah blah blah. The Left is terrible at recognizing real evil and who our enemies are. ««
And you'll notice that Dubya ignores it all and goes on doing what he believes is right and correct. That is true leadership. The Left cannot get over it and they cannot do anything about it either. |
|
»»It's quite fine for Bush to release secrets regarding bin Laden...««
His job is to protect this country. His job is to make the case.
»»...and you call it "supportive intelligence", but when the media finally DOES ITS JOB...««
It's no one's job to spill the beans on current, on-going, covert operations.
On the other hand, ABC reports that, when given the chance, the Administration didn't try to stop publication of the story.
This indicates to me that ABC is the vendor of a disinformation campaign that is intended to create doubt and confusion in Iran. This is legitimate. ABC news may be a willing partner in this campaign. In which case, ABC news would be the dishonest party, given its claims of being a disinterested news-gatherer.
I'm not saying that it's wrong for a news-gathering organization to be a part of operations to protect this country. I'm pointing out only that you Libs don't think beyond your nose.
»»... and pulls the curtain on Bush's antagonistic covert shenanigans in Iran...««
Why don't you go to Iraq and fight against Americans? Essentially, you are doing that through your posts anyway, "Jane." |
|
Liberal Patriot,
You missed the point, old timer.
The point is that you never rant against our nation's enemies---you only ever rant against President Bush, conservatives, Republicans, people who go to church, et al. |
|
ABC compromises another action that will save Americans lives. What lovely people, apparently they don't thing Admannutajob won't drop the bomb on them.
Once again I'm reassured. |
|
Oh please. Its precisely because the War on Terror is so important--and our nation's enemies so fearsome--that Bush's failed leadership is such an important issue.
|
|
-- So republicans want to provoke Iran? --
SURE! After they invaded our embassy (US Territory, dear), captured hostages in 1979, attacked our shipping, sponsored the terrorists in Lebanon who killed hundreds of our marines in a peacekeeping mission, sponsored other terrorist attacks, have operatives in Latin America and sleeper cells in the US, are sending high-tech weapons and are training terrorists to attack our troops in Iraq, and are threatening us with nuclear weapon development – oh, and use the terms “Death to America” more than we say “Good morning” – yep, WE are provoking THEM… Ummmm…. Lay off the schrooms, child!
-- What ARE we doing in the middle east folks? --
Well, sleepyhead, we are protecting our ability to function as a society by maintaining our oil supply. We COULD do it all on our own if your frat slobs in Congress would let us drill in Alaska and off the coast of the Kennedy compound, but … no, we have to deal with it.
- - Would you like Iran invading Canada and occupying it? How would you feel about that? Not so good, I presume. --
Nor do we feel good about them sending operatives into Latin America, or sleeper cells into the US, or threatening to nuke us, or training terrorists to go into Iraq and kill our young men and women, or invading our embassy. I love the fact that our government is giving them a taste of their own medicine. We’ve been choking on it for TWENTY EIGHT YEARS!!!!
-- Bush will provoke Iran, and when Iran defends itself, republicans will blame Iran and advocate an attack on it though it was America who provoked her.
This is how crazy people think.
And this is very old news.--
Unless you are describing your previous arguments, I have to say you are projecting. Facts and history are stubborn things. Being stubborn back just makes you an idiot.
|
|
Scarlet Pimpernel,
Hey friend, you have to admire the ironic way Liberal Patriot states "sometimes I think you Republicans are more antagonistic towards the Democrats than our nation's enemies"---right before he descends into a 130 word rant about the President, rather than about our nation's enemies.
That's classic.
|
|
It is true that the terrorists are our enemy and not President Bush (sometimes I think you Republicans are more antagonistic towards the Democrats than our nation's enemies). But is definitely true that Bush is on our side and the terrorists are on the other.
Still, you must admit that GW's release of confidential info over the years has been suspiciously political. He has lost his much of his credibility in the War on Terror, because his wartime leadership has been so partisan and politically craven. Sorry, that's the way it is. When you lead at wartime, you lead all Americans: left, right, and center. Bush opted to use fear to consolidate a political advantage rather than do his duty and lead America away from fear. It revealed a lack of character on his part and on the part of the Republican leadership. Now we have to wait until we get a new CIC with some credibility and moral authority. Bush is tainted goods. |
|
Romney's "knee-jerk" statement is insightful because it is a reactionary remark based on "one" news show viewing. Why did he not investigate more sources before stating his opinion?
Hearing the news on one channel, I switched to another, and then to another, getting differing accounts of the same news story. It was reported, on one show, that ABC had repeatedly called the White House for confirmation on that story and asked if they had the go-ahead to release the information. All their calls were affirmed.
Another channel reported that the White House is not commenting. In a commentary one of the newscasters stated that the Bush Administration may have delibertly leaked the information, wanting to initiate a confrontation with Iran.
Who knows what really happened? Mr. Romney, let's not be so quick on the draw. |
|
To those of you too stupid to understand...This is comparable to ABC in WWII saying, "Hey, Japan. We've got a plane on it's way with an atomic bomb. Watch out!"
Romney in a nice way is putting ABC and others on notice: Police yourselves, exercise corporate responsibility, or the government will have to do it for you.
I respect him for speaking out quickly. Sure the Iranians expect us to respond. But they don't know how? Maybe they think we haven't tired of negotiation. Most of our enemies thought we were paper tigers under Clinton. And they were right. They know we don't have the support of both parties in this fight. We need to keep them guessing.
Those of you defending ABC, or criticizing Romney, ought to try playing a game of football sometime, only let the other team know what plays you're going to run when the ball is snapped.
Lots of luck.
|
|
"I'm not looking for any censorship...just corporate responsibility." Yeah, nice plan once the cat's out of the bag.
It is a felony to leak and publish sensitive information of this kind. It's not censorship to hold the media to the law. It will stop the first time a producer and reporter go to jail for ten years. I, for one, am FOR that.
Until a politician calls the media out this specifically, it's the same weak, backboneless nonesense as ever. It's not "gutsy" to ask the media to be more responsible, it's pathetic. How about Mitt really shake things up and call for prosectution? He won't do it, will he? Why? Because he knows the day he does this, he's out of the race.
Save your non-confrontation confrontation to other weighty matters like garbage collection and dog catching. |
|
|
has hardly done anything to help his party by way of PR or progress or pie charts but as soon as he releases old info that no one cares about anymore, then we are supposed to get excited. |
|
Bush released PAST information on a message from Bin Laden to a guy who is now dead - and has been for nearly a year.
ABC released information on a plan we may have that would be carried out in the FUTURE or CURRENTLY underway.
Bush is trying to educate us on what our enemies plans were to warn us of the continuing danger and why we cannot drop our guard.
ABC is trying to educate the people that wish to annihilate Israel and then the US so they can continue to develop nuclear weapons that will eventually be used against us.
Sounds like the same thing to me. |
|
|
to shower before he shaves - he has such clarity. I have not heard this from any other GOP candidate - this from an interview on Romney in the latest issue of "D'uh" magazine |
|
ScarletPimpernel:
Exactly. When Carter launched the failed hostage rescue attempt, ironically against Iran, and someone asked the administration how they managed to keep it secret. They said, "We didn't tell anyone in Congress". |
|
ABC - this crap
CBS - Rathergate
NBC - the Virginia Tech shooter video
NYT - Yo, Terrorists! We are trying to prevent you from repeating 9/11! Here's how!
Our dear guests - Which is worse, you giving out your e-mail address on your web site or someone ELSE giving out your e-mail address when you keep it hidden to avoid spam? You seem to think them equivalent, or maybe you giving out your own address as worse. Maybe you should - maybe - oh - THINK sometime. If the government evaluates that a given block, and only a given block, of information is acceptable to release, couched as to prevent discovery of the source - they may do so. It's their intel and their decision. It should not be made by amateurs with no interest in national security. If this is the media "doing it's job", apparently they are paid by people who don't think life is exciting enough and could really do with a nice entertaining terrorist attack or copycat shooting. |
|
|
Is the notion that we (the people) MUST know every move our military and government makes in a time of war. It's laughable that some people expect that even Carter would give them the straight dope ahead of time on a military action. I don't think even he'd do it. Oh my stitches... |
|
|
Bush is evil and they "know" it. this is an "illegal war". blah blah blah. The Left is terrible at recognizing real evil and who our enemies are. |
|
|
There is information and there is disinformation. We are at war and there is no way for any of us to know what this means. Except those in charge. |
|
...is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Gentlemen, there are secrets, and there are secrets. If you can make the case that the making public of the classified information about Osama bin Laden that was released endangered national security, do so. Being free as yet from Bush Derangement Syndrome, I'm prone to suspect that whatever information was released was deemed harmless. The government does severely overclassify information.
On the other hand, details about an ongoing operation would seem to be more potentially dangerous to national security. I think we'd agree -- as long as one of your guys were in the White House. |
|
The President is authorized by law to declassify information whose release no longer threatens national security. It's one of his Presidential powers. Does the release of the bin Laden information pose any threat to national security?
ABC has released information whose release clearly poses a threat to national security -- and, no, that's not their job, no matter how loudly they claim otherwise.
It really does make a difference.
|
|
...about George Bush declassifying information on Bin Laden yesterday for purely political purposes?
By the way Hugh, pass this little nugget of information to Multiple Choice Mitt: this "revelation" comes as no surprise to Iran or any sentient being after Bush labeled Iran one of the "axis of evil". Raja is correct--nothing here but more faux outrage. |
|
|
that Romney is shocked. ABC et al have been doing this for years if not decades. Does he really think ABC has a great reputation? Or is he just condescending? Call them out but spare us the faux surprise. |
|
|
|