US NATIONAL SECURITY (How Messed Up We Truly Are)

[American Patriot]

Well... Gridlock is what I expect.

We've lived through it before, and we lived through a Clinton Administration where both houses were controlled at first by the Democrats.

While everyone wishes to look at this through doom and gloom eyes, even me to an extent, I'm prepared to fight the good fight. I won't let them take my guns, I'll buy more, and I'll stock up on Ammo.

I'm not going to stop writing letters, even if they want me too. I write everyone. A lot.

I'm not going to shut up pointing out mistakes.

We all will be watching the mistakes made. Everyone needs to write down what inflation is now, what the deficit is, what the gas prices are, milk, bread, and meat prices and what your taxes are right now.

Keep track of it.

Then you too can be an informed voter next time around (not YOU Sean, those who voted democrap)

[Sean Osborne]

You missed my point completely.

No, I didn't miss the point, and I didn't bring up a DOD issue, I said "Q" is a DOE designation, not DOD. I went on to clarify that Q is nothing more than a TS clearance with a "fancy" name.

I'm not arguing any points here, except to say that when people are given certain information in the media someone needs to be held responsible for giving that information out.

The material you posted before came from an article where at least one classified item was mentioned.

Opps, my bad... I should have addressed this before posting other items.

The issue I have here is simply this...

Irregardless of what clearances she had or didn't have...

Irregardless of what compartmentized access to DOE or DOD data she was afforded based upon a badge, access stripes, codings, etcetera, etcetera and knowing that the granting of which are based upon the "need to know"...

The fact is she physically had ALL of that classified data in her possession.

The data was illegally acquired and illegally removed from the LANL (DOE) facility and hidden in her residence. She had thumb drive electronic copies of both US and UK classified nucear weapons data.

She acted alone?

And who leaked this massive security breach to CBS News?

That's the real issue. And it is not being addressed.

This breach of security at DOE/LANL should never have been made public via a leak to the news media.

The unmentioned inference I detect here is that IF the US is hit with one or more nuclear detonations then the bug has been planted by CBS News in the publics collective mind that the weapons might be "friendlies" and such a nuclear attack not the result of foreign actions. In this respect this leak is a psyop for specific disinformational purposes.

[American Patriot]

I know what you were getting at. I know about the "bug being planted".

My job, real or imagined -- however the public sees ME, Rick Donaldson is to protect certain things.

When I see that the media has published information that is ... LIKELY classified for instance, some action should be taken, but generally it is ignored since it is now considered "open source information".

Secondarily to this, I want to correct some real misperceptions about "clearances" because this is used by (mostly conspiracy theorists) people to do damage to the US and what people know and do not know.

Look, as I explained before, I had a yankee white clearance, if anyone knows what that is. If not, see the thread I started about clearances. Anyway, that potentially gave me access to anything and everyting regardless of the level of classification, or the caveats, or the compartment. Why? because I was routinely exposed to things in the course of my duty that I might not necessarily have 'a need to know' but had to move, pass, or see -- read: COMMUNICATE to others.

Because of the proximity to the President of the US and the VP, I had cause to see many things that I probably didn't WANT to see.

My point it, someone with such a position normally does NOT see things that do not go with their job. But, perhaps a lot of other factors aren't being taken into account (I bet MONEY on it) and she did act alone.

One of the reasons people are given clearances is to be able to "trust" them to NOT do something like take data out on thumbdrives. However, most facilities I'm aware of ban those devices. I know for a fact that places like LLNL and LANL do NOT ban such devices. System admins and engineers routinely use such devices.

Anyone with direct access to the classified LANs would indeed have access to most things on it. So, she apparently collected the data from one machine.

That is an issue for their Security Manager with which to deal.... IF they recovered the data before it was copied over to something else, all the better. If not, then she personally is a breach of security and should be dealt with as a hostile person. She had the means, motive and opportunity -- and apparently the ability to know what she was looking at and what should could use it for.

Now... I'm going to make a supposition...

She was dealing in drugs. She knew that she needed money. She knew that data might be of value to someone and she could use it to get money, for her drug operation (or someone else's drug operation) -- so she stole the data in the hopes it would net her money, not necessarily to HARM anyone.

If you glance around you on the internet here, you will recall that there are thousands of idiots who've NO IDEA what "classified" means and they want "NO SECRETS kept". Jools, Porque and others come to mind. You see, someone like her... and Saints Preserve us, an awful lot of fools who lean WAY left even in my building who think that secrets are 'stupid".

[frankrm]

Well if we don't receive an attack soon these things you speak of will happen. If we do there will be other battles. The will power to hit back will be greatly hindered. Instead of hitting back they will hit each other. The wedge is set politicaly, here come the blows to split the stump of what was once a great moral leader of the free world.

[Backstop]

What's your clearance, Clarence?

[American Patriot]

Give me a vector, Victor.

[Ryan Ruck]

This would have worked on Election Day: "Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue!"

[Backstop]

Surely you can't be serious.


HAHAHA!

[Ryan Ruck]

"I am serious, and don't call me Shirley!"

[Sean Osborne]

In all seriousness... watch for media reporting on the meeting between POTUS and the ISG and US foreign policy redirection. These individuals are key. Their histories are extremely germane to the immediate future of U.S. policy decisions.


http://www.meforum.org/article/1056



Rumsfeld and the Realists
Consistency is irrelevant to progressives



by Michael Rubin
Wall Street Journal
November 13, 2006


On Dec. 20, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld, then Ronald Reagan's Middle East envoy, met Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. According to declassified documents, the Reagan administration sought to re-establish long-severed relations with Baghdad amid concern about growing Iranian influence. While U.S. intelligence had earlier confirmed Saddam's use of chemical weapons, Mr. Rumsfeld did not broach the subject. His handshake with Saddam, caught on film by Iraqi television, represented a triumph for diplomatic realism.

Iran and Iraq would fight for five more years, leaving hundreds of thousands dead on the battlefield. Then, two years after a ceasefire ended the war, Saddam invaded Kuwait. In subsequent years, he would subsidize waves of Palestinian suicide-bombers, effectively ending the Oslo peace process. Saddam's career is a model of realist blowback.

On Sept. 23, 2002, as Saddam defied international inspectors and U.N. sanctions crumbled under the greed of Paris, Moscow and Iraq's neighbors, Newsweek published a cover story, "How we Helped Create Saddam," that once again thrust the forgotten handshake into public consciousness. Across both the U.S. and Britain, the story provoked press outrage. NPR conducted interviews outlining how the Reagan administration allowed Saddam to acquire dual-use equipment. Mr. Rumsfeld "helped Iraq get chemical weapons," headlined London's Daily Mail. British columnist Robert Fisk concluded that the handshake was evidence of Mr. Rumsfeld's disdain for human rights, and Amy and David Goodman of "Democracy Now!" condemned Mr. Rumsfeld for enabling Saddam's "lethal shopping spree." While 20 years too late, progressives decried the cold, realist calculations that sent people across the third world to their graves in the cause of U.S. national interest.

What a difference a war makes. Today, progressives and liberals celebrate not only Mr. Rumsfeld's departure, but the resurrection of realists like Secretary of Defense-nominee Robert Gates and James Baker.

Mr. Gates was the CIA's deputy director for intelligence at the time of Mr. Rumsfeld's infamous handshake, deputy director of Central Intelligence when Saddam gassed the Kurds, and deputy national security advisor when Saddam crushed the Shiite uprising.

Mr. Baker was as central. He was White House chief of staff when Reagan dispatched Mr. Rumsfeld to Baghdad and, as secretary of state, ensured Saddam's grip on power after Iraqis heeded President George H.W. Bush's Feb. 15, 1991, call for "the Iraqi people [to] take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside." In the months that followed, Saddam massacred tens of thousands of civilians.

While Mr. Rumsfeld worked to right past wrongs, Messrs. Gates and Baker winked at the Iraqi dictator's continuing grip on power. For progressives, this is irrelevant. Today, progressivism places personal vendetta above principle. Mr. Rumsfeld is bad, Mr. Baker is good, and consistency irrelevant.
***

Progressive inconsistency will only increase with the unveiling of the Baker-Hamilton commission recommendations calling for reconciliation with both Syria and Iran. In effect, Mr. Baker's proposals are to have the White House replicate the Rumsfeld-Saddam handshake with both Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The parallels are striking. First, just as Saddam denied Kuwait's right to exist, Mr. Assad refuses to recognize Lebanese independence (Damascus has no embassy in Beirut) and Mr. Ahmadinejad calls for Israel's eradication. Washington realpolitik enabled Saddam to act out his fantasies; evidence suggests both Mr. Assad and Mr. Ahmadinejad aspire to do likewise.

Second, just as the Reagan-era Rumsfeld turned a blind eye toward Iraqi chemical weapons, so too does Mr. Baker now counsel ignoring their embrace by the Syrian and Iranian leadership. Tehran used chemical munitions in its war against Iraq, and senior Iranian officials have also threatened first-strike use of nuclear weapons. Syria is just as dangerous: On April 20, 2004, Jordanian security intercepted Syrian-based terrorists planning to target Amman with 20 tons of chemical weapons. Mr. Assad has yet to explain the incident.

And, third, there is the issue of detente enabling armament. Following his rapprochement with Washington, Saddam transformed investment into replenishment. The cost of ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait was far greater than any benefit borne of engagement.

Trade with Tehran has likewise backfired. Between 2000 and 2005, European Union trade with Iran almost tripled. During this same period, Iranian authorities used their hard currency windfall not to invest in schools and hospitals, but rather in uranium processing plants and anti-aircraft batteries. Mohammad Khatami, Mr. Ahmadinejad's predecessor and a man often labeled reformist by U.S. and European realists, showed the Islamic Republic's priorities when he spent two-thirds of his oil-boom windfall on the military. Said Mr. Khatami on April 18, 2002: "Today our army is one of the most powerful in the world. . . . It has become self-sufficient, and is on the road to further development." Subsequent discovery of Iran's covert nuclear facilities later that year clarified his boast. The Assad regime has shown its willingness to spend its discretionary income on a wide-range of weaponry and terror groups.

Realism promotes short-term gain, often at the expense of long-term security. With hindsight, it is clear that Mr. Rumsfeld's handshake with Saddam backfired. While it may have constrained Iran in the short-term, its blowback in terms of blood and treasure has been immense.

Why then do so many progressives then celebrate the return of realism? The reasons are multifold. First, having allowed personal animosities to dominate their ideology, they embrace change, regardless of how it impacts stated principles. Hatred of Mr. Rumsfeld became a principle in itself. Likewise, the same progressives who disparage John Bolton seldom explain why they feel forcing the U.N. to account for its inefficiencies or stick to its founding principles is bad. They complain not of his performance, but rather of his pedigree.


Second is a tendency to conflate analysis with advocacy. Progressives find themselves in a situation where they both embrace realism but deny reality. An Oct. 13 Chronicle of Higher Education article regarding a Columbia University professor's attacks on Azar Nafisi, author of "Reading Lolita in Tehran," highlighted the issue: "The conundrum, say these [Middle East studies] scholars, is how to voice opposition to the actions of the Islamic Republic without being co-opted by those who seek external regime change in Iran through a military attack." By embracing a canard, intellectuals convinced themselves of the nobility of ignoring evidence. Thus, Western feminists march alongside Islamists who seek their subjection while progressive labor activists join with Republican realists to ignore Tehran's attacks on bus drivers seeking an independent union, even as a Gdansk-type movement offers the best hope for peaceful change in Iran.





Both realism and progressivism have become misnomers. Realists deny reality, and embrace an ideology where talk is productive and governments are sincere. While 9/11 showed the consequences of chardonnay diplomacy, deal-cutting with dictators and a band-aid approach to national security, realists continue to discount the importance of adversaries' ideologies and the need for long-term strategies. And by embracing such realism, progressives sacrifice their core liberalism. Both may celebrate Mr. Rumsfeld's departure and the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, but at some point, it is fair to ask what are the lessons of history and what is the cost of abandoning principle.

Mr. Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.

[falcon]

“MADHOUSE - Left Turn”