"Jones, the White House adviser, took pains to point out that the documents describe a period from January 2004 to December 2009, mostly during the administration of President George W. Bush.
That was before "President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al-Qaida and Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years," Jones said."
if you think this is a mistake, consider what happened in april last year, as recounted by former vp Cheney:
"By presidential decision, last month we saw the selective release of documents relating to enhanced interrogations. ... somehow, when the soul-searching was done and the veil was lifted on the policies of the Bush administration, the public was given less than half the truth. ... For reasons the administration has yet to explain, they believe the public has a right to know the method of the questions, but not the content of the answers. ... One person who by all accounts objected to the release of the interrogation memos was the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta. He was joined in that view by at least four of his predecessors. I assume they felt this way because they understand the importance of protecting intelligence sources, methods, and personnel."
For context, for those of you who are old enough (even though I'm not) or have studied it in school, i want you guys to consider President Nixon's reaction to the leaking of the 7,000 page study of the Vietnam War known as the "Pentagon Papers", As described in Nixon's 1985 book "No More Vietnams":
"Because it was written in 1968, it could contain nothing about my administration's actions. Furthermore, the Times stories about the Pentagon Papers leveled serious charges against my Democratic predecessors ... Nevertheless, I decided to try to block the publication of the Pentagon Papers because concrete policy considerations outweighed whatever political benefits I might accrue. It posed a significant threat to some of our national security interests.
The National Security Agency feared that the more recent documents would provide code-breaking clues and contain information about our signal and electronic intelligence capabilities that would be spotted by the trained eyes of enemy experts. The State Department was alarmed because the study would reveal SEATO contingency war plans that were still in effect. The Central Intelligence Agency was worried that it would expose past or current informants and would contain specific references to the names and activities of agents atill active in Southeast Asia. One secret contact dried up almost immediately, and other governments became reluctant to share their intelligence information with us."
As well as Kissinger's account in his memoirs:
"The documents, of course, were in no way damaging to the Nixon Presidency. Indeed, there was some sentiment among White House political operatives to exploit them as an illustration of the machinations of our predecessors and the difficulties we inherited. But such an attitude seemed to me against the public interest: Our foreign policy could never achieve the continuity on which other nations must depend, and our system of government would surely lose all trust if each President used his control of the process of declassification to smear his predecessors or if his discretion in defending the classification system became a partisan matter. ... I not only supported Nixon in his opposition to this wholesale theft and unauthorized disclosure; I encouraged him."
Notice that I picked my good guys with some controversy - the reason is two-fold. 1.) Because political correctness is not patriotic. 2.) Because undermining our military is not patriotic, and defending our national security is the highest form of patriotism, and no amount of smears can take that away.
But now for the great patriot, Rush:
July 26, 2010
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, WikiLeaks did not "leak" anything. I don't know who leaked it, but since there's no mention of Obama and his administration, the regime, in any of these tens of thousands of documents, I'd have to say somebody in the regime leaked 'em. But WikiLeaks did not leak 'em. They just published 'em. WikiLeaks is just a sponge, a useful idiot sitting there over in the UK and some disgruntled military guy in Afghanistan somehow has access to all of this and hands it over. In the meantime, is Scooter Libby involved in this? Remember the Valerie Plame leak? You remember how exorcised the entire media structure was. We had to go get Valerie Plame; we had to get Scooter Libby; we had to get Karl Rove; we had to frog March them out of the White House; we had to put them in jail [It was all BS, by the way]. And now? Eh, no big deal, because this fits the template: US bad; US commits war crimes. So the media loves this. In fact, we're going to go back in time, we're going to show you, Obama back in '93, whenever it was, Obama was big on bringing Daniel Ellsberg into Illinois. The bottom line is a lot of respect for Daniel Ellsberg, who did what? The Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War.
Well, of course anybody would be infuriated if it's happening! What's news about this? "Still, they also included unreported incidents of Afghan civilian killings and covert operations..." That's the second time they mention this. "White House National Security Advisor Jim Jones said that the release of the documents put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk. In a statement he took pains to point out that the documents describe a period from January 2004 to December 2009, mostly during the administration of the Bush people." Well, these aren't just crimes; these are war crimes. We are so rotten! Do you realize what a rotten, scum of a country we've become, all because of George W. Bush?
Isn't it amazing that 91,000 secret documents have been published and not one of them mentions the Obama regime? Not one! There are 91,000 pages and not one of them even mentions Bush's tax cuts. Not one of them mentions Obama at all or anybody in his regime. "Jones noted the time period was before Obama announced a new strategy." Oh-ho-ho! (laughing) "Just in case there's any doubt that General Jones is working for the [regime], it's an obvious requirement that any and all Obama officials must blame Mr. Bush," and Jones is right in line here. So now we have a strategy that will please the America-hating radicals at WikiLeaks, the America-hating radicals in this country, the America-hating radicals all over. We are doing "secret operation" against the enemy. We are accidentally killing civilians (breathing heavily), and all of it happened before Obama was immaculated!
(Gasp!) And the Pakistanis are working with our enemies. Why, who would believe that one group of Muslims would work with another? Against us! Who would ever think that? No wonder people are ticked off at this. This story goes on: "Pakistan's powerful spy agency Inter-Services Intelligence said today the accusations that had close connections to Taliban militants were malicious and unsubstantiated." The New York Times says, "The raw intelligence assessments by lower-level military officers suggest that Pakistan allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan." This is news? This is something worth being leaked? You had no idea how rotten your country was, did you? But now you do.
The New York Times is happy point it all out. I wonder if this means Obama will be giving back his Nobel Peace Prize. "WikiLeaks Says Evidence of War Crimes in Documents." WikiLeaks doesn't "say" anything. WikiLeaks is the vessel. "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says there appears to be evidence of war crimes in the thousands of pages of leaked U.S. military documents on the war in Afghanistan." By the way, I think I've got a new name for the media: "Partisan political operatives." That is much more descriptive of who they are and what they do than to just call them "media." Now, remember, Obama had a historic speech when he was a state senator and courageously announced his opposition to the Iraq war, talked about how he wasn't against all wars. He was for the war in Afghanistan.
He said the war in Iraq was a distraction created by Karl Rove to distract from a terrible economy of 4% unemployment and 4% GDP. That's what Obama said. The Iraq war was a distraction created by Rove to distract from the terrible economy of 4% unemployment, 4% GDP. You know, the White House -- Jim Jones, everybody -- are saying that they are outraged, outraged at the release of classified documents, secret documents. Well, does Obama really object to the publishing of classified documents? When Obama was a student at Columbia, he thought Daniel Ellsberg was a hero. Does Obama really object to something that undermines the war effort in Afghanistan, a war he would love to get out of today? We have the statement by Jim Jones: "The US strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information," blah, blah, blah, blah.
But let's now jump forward to the Politico: "While a senior at Columbia University, Barack Obama," this is 1983, "wrote an article angling for a nuclear-free world," and here's the excerpt where he expresses his assignment about bringing Daniel Ellsberg to campus to get students' minds right. Here's what he wrote: "It seems that students are fairly aware of the nuclear problem and it makes for an underlying frustration. We try to talk to that frustration. Consequently, the thrust of ARA is towards generating dialogue which will give people a rational handle on this subject. This includes bringing in speakers like Daniel Ellsberg to campus, publishing fact sheets compiled by interested faculty." So here's Obama, who couldn't wait to bring Ellsberg to the Columbia campus in '83, Ellsberg who had leaked the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War. He's all for leaking documents back then to undermine the US military. Now all of a sudden he's opposed to these things that show up at WikiLeaks? Which, again, very suspiciously contain not one mention of anything in Afghanistan since Obama was inaugurated. Not one.
July 27, 2010
RUSH: Daniel Ellsberg on Larry King Alive last night, Larry King: "How do you respond to the White House assertion that this leak on that Wiki website puts our forces in danger?"
ELLSBERG: I think it takes a lot of -- I don't know what to say, chutzpah, effrontery for people who made the reckless, foolish, and I would say irresponsible decisions to escalate a war that I'm sure they know internally is as hopeless as these new revelations reveal it to be. I'd say that was exactly the same as the boss I served in 1965, Lyndon Johnson. He didn't want General Johnson, the chief of staff of the Army, and others to resign if he didn't give them enough of what they were asking for. I think President Obama has made the same terrible error.
RUSH: Oh, no! Obama's made the same terrible error as LBJ. And Larry King says, "Daniel, do you understand why Mr. Gibbs representing the president, do you understand why he's so upset?" I didn't think Gibbs was upset, did you? Gibbs was not upset. The White House is not upset about this. Anyway, here's Ellsberg's answer.
ELLSBERG: Well, he's very upset in part because he's working for a president who has indicted more people now for leaks than all previous presidents put together. This is an administration that's more concerned about preventing transparency I would say than its predators, which I'm very sorry to hear as somebody who voted for Obama, and expect to vote for him again, despite all this.
RUSH: So a socialist, a neo whatever, Daniel Ellsberg, can see the Obama double standard on leaks, but he's going to vote for him again anyway. He's worse than any president we've ever had on leaks and transparency, but he's going to vote for him again anyway. I only play the Ellsberg cuts because Obama is one of Ellsberg's admirers. Obama loved Ellsberg when he was leaking the Pentagon Papers. He was holding truth to power.
RUSH: And back to the phones we go to Illinois. This is Tim. It's nice to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hello. Nice to talk to you, Rush.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: Hey, I just got back from Afghanistan here a few months ago and --
RUSH: Welcome home, sir.
CALLER: Well, thank you very much.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: I actually have two comments if I have time. But the first one is: I might have to disagree with you a little bit and go along with Obama to pull us out of Afghanistan. Because the way it is, they won't let us fight. You got your hands tied so tight that you can't do anything.
RUSH: You disagree with me on...?
RUSH: What did I say? I said we should stay no matter what?
CALLER: No. I was just... The point I was making was, the Rules of Engagement while I was there were tight, so tight in some areas that in town you couldn't even point a weapon.
CALLER: You had to point a laser and wave 'em off -- and, you know, if you have a VBIED [Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Device] or something drive up on you, by the time you get your weapon you're already done. So either let us fight or pull us out.
RUSH: Well, that's my fear is that we're gonna pull out and that these leaks are oriented toward pulling us out under the idea that we can't win, which is silly. We are the United States of America. Look, I know what you're saying: "Why tie our hands behind our backs?"
RUSH: Political correctness has taken over the Rules of Engagement. There's no question about it.
CALLER: Yes, they have.
RUSH: You look at the projection of power we are capable of (it was true in Iraq; it's true here) and people -- average, ordinary Americans -- say, "What the hell are we doing pussyfooting around here? Look at the power we're able to project. Why are we handcuffing our people?" I know some people say, "Look, if you're going to do it this way, don't even do it. Just get out of there. It's senseless," but then pulling out of there you admit defeat, and this is something that frightens me, too. Because with these WikiLeaks and the way we're fighting the war, how are we ever going to get allies? Tim, you tell me. How are we ever going to get allies to join us if we're going to sell out and we're not gonna fight things to win? If we're gonna allow leaks to occur which basically compromise everybody helping us, how the hell are we going to get people to join us?
CALLER: I don't think we can because we actually support a lot of our allies that are there.
RUSH: Yeah, exactly, and you have a president who has openly said about Afghanistan he's "not comfortable with the concept of victory." Yet you have Democrats that said, "Afghanistan's the war. That's where we need to be," all the time we were in Iraq. "Iraq was an elective war. Bush went in there for whatever reason. We need to go to Afghanistan." Now we're in Afghanistan and we're ho-humming around. And we've let a magazine get rid of the commanding officer, McChrystal. And now a bunch of waif-y little wimps who run a "Wiki" website might get us out of the country altogether. And if we get out of there with circumstances as they are, the left and the rest of the world is proudly going to announce that we're losing and that we are getting out of there having been defeated, which is what they want.