Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Dishonorable Disclosures

Dishonorable Disclosures

This video has been making the rounds.

It’s a 22-minute examination of the pattern of leaks of classified and sensitive information intended to make Obama and his administration look tough.

How do you cut this down to 30 seconds so it can be run on television? I’m thinking take the minute that starts 6:09 and edit it down to 30 seconds.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I personally think its more telling what they don’t disclose, say like the Gun Walker Documents or who really killed Bin Laden. Its pretty clear they Obama was doing it to keep focus on Obama “Killing Osama”., so they denied the Special Forces their Day in the Sun. Really petty and classless.

    jackgately in reply to imfine. | August 16, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    The producers have created two trailers 30 seconds and 59 seconds that do a very good job. I do like the notion mentioned here of adding in the Sen. Feinstein voice over.

    30 second trailer link here, currently with 94,521 views:

    http://youtu.be/qeUiYdTBjrA

This is excellent, and a spot needs to be carved out of it, fer sure.

But these guys need to be interviewed on the radio and TV…a LOT.

Every time there is an Obama event where he polishes his “gutsy call” medal, these guys need to have a press availability.

Call it Operation SwiftQuote…

Ecuador will grant Obama asylum. He can leave now.

The military has had a long tradition of remaining apolitical. It’s one thing to point out John Kerry’s exaggerations and lies about his service when he was running for president, it’s another to so openly be critical of decisions made by the commander in chief while he was acting in that role.

I may not like whatever leaks Obama may be accused of allowing or even ordering, but he is the one that ultimately determines classification and what is proper to leak or not leak. It is not the role of the military to question that.

I’m not saying that the military should never object to any release of classified or sensitive information. What I’m saying is that the president has the responsibility of deciding whether it is worthwhile to release the information. That is part of his primary job description and it’s why we have an executive branch so that one individual can make decisions and react without being bogged down by a legislative process when it comes to national security.

The military has been becoming increasingly partisan in the past ten years and it’s a dangerous development. We need to have a military that our people trust no matter who is in office.

It’s not for the military to complain about these things, and for the non-military complaining, they are necessarily arguing from an ignorant position unless other information is also being leaked.

As a military officer, I find this distasteful, unprofessional, and dangerous.

    Ragspierre in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 10:15 am

    “All individuals are no longer in active service with any federal agency or military service.”

    You may have missed that.

    I agree with your comment generally as pertains to active duty personnel.

    Not the least being snarky, but how did you feel about the permission given to gay soldiers to parade in uniform in demonstrations?

      Skyler in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2012 at 10:55 am

      I don’t understand the significance of your question. It seems irrelevant. Are you trying to bait me with some accusation of homophobia? I’m not sure how it affects this issue if I were to respond to you one way or another.

      As for the current status of the people in the film, it seems irrelevent. They were in the service and the tradition is to be apolitical. That doesn’t mean you are apolitical until you don’t like what the other side did. That means you support the political leader in his decisions.

      The alternative would be to get political leaders who are more worried about currying favor with the military than with commanding it.

      This is a dangerous precedent.

        DINORightMarie in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 11:05 am

        Um…..no. It’s called the First Amendment.

        These men, with respect, ask the Administration and the President to stop the leaks that are harming our national and international security. They build their case, and give supporting documentation via periodicals and other public officials’ statements. Nothing wrong, against their oath, or “treasonous” about this in ANY way!

        I personally don’t believe you are a retired military person, as you state; rather, I believe you are a troll misrepresenting yourself to try to gain some level of credibility. Regardless of that, you are incorrect, or at the very least misguided and misinformed.

        As long as those speaking do NOT divulge secret information, and speak with respect, the have the RIGHT, outlined in the First Amendment(which they served to protect), to speak out to protect those who cannot speak.

          I have never stated I am retired military. I am not yet retired. The messenger’s status doesn’t change what the validity of the message.

          But I have been in for a long time and in my younger days this would have been unheard of for the military (or the CIA) to act so politically. This type of character attack on a sitting president is dangerous and as a professional, I don’t like it.

          I do not want to live in a banana republic where the military becomes an arm of one political party. There may be a first amendment, but professionalism trumps that. I’m not saying these people can’t say what they’re saying. I’m saying they are irresponsible, dangerous, and erode the concept of civilian control over the armed forces.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 11:18 am

        “They were in the service and the tradition is to be apolitical.”

        Yeah, and there’s another tradition wherein commanders-in-chief don’t make leaks that place those under his command and those who serve as assets to our side at greater risk, especially for no other reason than personal political gain.

        Was Dwight D. Eisenhower ‘apolitical’ once he left the military? How about Allen West? John Kerry? John McCain? Do you therefore condemn these men for failing to follow this tradition of yours?

        Your appeal to authority – your own claimed rank – has fallen completely flat.

        I R A Darth Aggie in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 11:21 am

        What was your oath of office? to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

        If Teh Won wants to declassify specifics, he’s allowed to do so. And there is a mechanism in place to do that.

        And it ain’t via a “leak”.

        Ragspierre in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 11:23 am

        Umm…

        Washington. Grant. Eisenhauer. McAnus. Rangel. West…

        Are you nuts or completely ignorant of history. There NEVER was a time in American history when the military service of a person meant they needed…or SHOULD…be silent and apolitical after they were out of the service.

        And my question had to do with your thinking (so much for that) on the politicization of gay CURRENT service members and their discriminatory privileges.

        But never mind.

          Skyler in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2012 at 11:43 am

          There’s a big difference in my mind between a person who serves in the military and then gets out and then seeks to speak out as an individual or run for office as an individual, and a group of current or former military who unite to create a political statement with the implication that they speak for the military.

          Roosevelt ran a huge war and he decided what he should disclose to foreign heads of state during the conduct of the war. He did so as he felt best to help the United States in its goal of victory.

          Obama, whether wisely or not, seems to have decided that the exploitation of the success of the attack was critical for whatever reasons he deemed best. If that served his political re-election bid, so be it. I suspect it will backfire for all but his most fervent supporters. But he has every right to make sure that our enemies know exactly how we went wherever we wanted and did whatever we wanted when we got there. Wise or not, it is not the place of the military to decide. It is his responsibility and no one else’s.

          This is why we have a commander in chief and not a committee. We cannot have our commander in chief worrying about the political support of the military when he gives commands.

          These men had every right to say what they said. No dispute. But they diminish the legitimacy of the military over something that is quite small in the grand scheme of things.

          There are plenty of good reasons to vote for Obama or not. The specter of the military and CIA’s approval should not be one of them.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2012 at 12:02 pm

          Sorry, but that is simply daft.

          Our military NEEDS to know they are supported…in more than lip service and when photo-ops are useful…by the civilian command.

          That is NOT a one-sided dynamic.

          Is it?

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | August 16, 2012 at 2:20 pm

          Skyler:

          “There’s a big difference in my mind between a person who serves in the military and then gets out and then seeks to speak out as an individual or run for office as an individual, and a group of current or former military who unite to create a political statement with the implication that they speak for the military.”

          Yes, and Washington, Eisenhower, McCain, Kerry, West, et al, never implied they spoke for the military. Of course they did, and so, your diferentiation is obviated.

          Basically, you have an opinion with which very few people agree. Thanks for sharing.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 10:25 am

    I’m not in the military, but can appreciate the seriousness. But our president sided with Castro and Chavez as Zelaya was trying to break their constitution and essentially become a dictator.

    It appears he also leaked classified intel against Israel to disrupt possible plans for an Iran strike. Even Feinstein says our allies can’t trust us, lives are being endangered.

    Obama’s protection of gun running, with implications that he is working on “gun control” beneath the radar. The granting of billions to his political friends … GM union men, Solyndra style donors, protection for Holder and Corzine, etc. These are serious issues, being washed out with the slimiest campaign.

    The list goes on … isn’t there some point where something short of charging the president with treason or sedition, should be done, to get our child president’s attention? I’m fairly certain these men have weighed the costs of their actions. I don’t think it is our military that is imperiling our government.

    I R A Darth Aggie in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 11:17 am

    They’re all retired, private citizens who have knowledge of proper OPSEC. There’s nothing improper or even unprofessional in calling out the President for his unprofessionalism.

    Sure, as President he could declassify that information whenever he feels like it. But that doesn’t make sense if it places lives in danger, and makes gaining additional human intelligence more difficult?

    In fact, after I heard that bin Laden had assumed room temperature, I wondered why we had wasted an opportunity to improve our intelligence and may find a couple more al Qaeda cock roaches and introduce them to their 72 virgins?

    I’m pretty sure the resident spooks at the CIA/NSA/DIA begged Teh Won to not make that announcement and the be allowed to do their jobs to the best of their ability.

    Sanddog in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    Ex-Operators and Ex-CIA have every right to speak out about what this administration is doing as long as they are not divulging classified information. The men who are still serving need someone to speak out on their behalf and I applaud anyone willing to do so.

    Bigurn in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Skyler, et.al.,

    I completely understand and agree with your position. I am medically retired from active duty, and can attest to the unspoken code that you describe. While in uniform, we voluntarily give up much of our 1st Amendment rights. Those of us who served for a length of time developed an understanding for remaining silent even after the uniform was removed.

    We are talking about the difference between what one CAN do, and what one SHOULD do according to a Code of Conduct. Most of us agree that a sitting president should be respected as long as he is in office, and that respect continues into his later years. It is not the duty of the military to make statements regarding his conduct.

    This difference of opinion is what makes the American experiment worth protecting. That’s what we volunteered to do, and the vast majority of us have enough to do with this activity.

      Skyler in reply to Bigurn. | August 16, 2012 at 6:44 pm

      Thanks, Bigurn. Sometimes people confuse a different opinion with being on the other side of every issue. Thanks for showing that others can differ reasonably in their opinions too.

        rdm in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 11:54 pm

        So in your world, once someone has served in the military and retires, they lose their right to participate in presidential politics, and the people who know the absolute most about how screwed up and dangerous the president is right now should be forbidden from calling him on it?

        Sorry, not buying what you are selling. Sounds sort of like the Obama Protection Package.

          Bigurn in reply to rdm. | August 17, 2012 at 2:09 am

          Rdm: never said they didn’t have the right. What I am suggesting is that there is an honor code among military members that governs their behavior, both during and after service. When we discuss issues like these, we often talk about the very precarious position the military holds in the public eye. We are meant to rise above mere politics, serve honorably, and be silent professionals.

          When you engage the military in sensitive conversations, you risk making it worse for those still serving. More importantly, you risk endangering their families. Please understand that the families have little or no knowledge of forward operations, and no one needs to talk about this. Information is a weapon. At the very least it puts even more pressure on people who already struggle in a vacuum of information.

          Clearly, these men are free to talk. They have more than earned it. The Boys just wish they wouldn’t. “OPSEC never dies”

        rdm in reply to Skyler. | August 17, 2012 at 7:59 am

        Skyler … the problem with your statement is .. is that nothing whatsoever that these guys are saying puts anyone at risk, what Obama is saying most definitely and blatantly does. SO I fail to see your logic.

          Bigurn in reply to rdm. | August 17, 2012 at 9:26 am

          rdm: I can tell you with certainty that discussing OPSEC puts people at risk. Continuing to talk about OPSEC without divulging anything creates a chain of people to find the person with OPSEC, and then *that* person is definitely at risk. Continuing to discuss matters which have no business being discussed is a national security risk.

          The entire point is that these people are professionals, and hold themselves to a higher standard. The unspoken tenet was to keep the “silent” in silent professionals.

          Again, they *can* talk, because they have have the same Free Speech rights as anyone else. But they *shouldn’t* talk because they know the tenet and they know the risks.

          This is wholly separate from who the president is, and which party he is in. It is far bigger than that – it has been a point of honor up to now. It is sad to see it reduced to a video.

    janitor in reply to Skyler. | August 16, 2012 at 8:40 pm

    What I’m saying is that the president has the responsibility of deciding whether it is worthwhile to release the information.

    Let’s not forget who has the ultimate responsibility here. The Commander in Chief remains subordinate to “We the People”. No one is second-guessing his military decisions. This issue is about his political decisions.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to janitor. | August 16, 2012 at 11:17 pm

      There is also a doctor in a Middle Eastern prison for the next several decades who might not share in this special code that protects presidents who leak militarily sensitive info for political gain during a political campaign, while the dead intelligence assets can no longer voice their opinion at all. Well, we’ll have far fewer assets to kill with loose lips now, so it’s all good with the ‘code’, eh?

Midwest Rhino | August 16, 2012 at 10:09 am

Maybe rotate three or four 30 second spots, since most people see the ads more than once. (though I’m not an ad guy, so I don’t know how important it is to repeat the exact same thing over and over, to penetrate). Maybe repeat one phrase at the end of each, like “Coke is It”, but instead “You Did NOT kill Osama”, or even Feinstein “this has to stop”, or “shut the bleep up”. heh

Show the outrage that Obama takes credit (“I decided there was adequate intel”), when he only knows what he is told, by experts that have risked their lives for years.

But also the clip about the leaks “we even knew the name of the dog”, and how Obama’s showboating costs America dearly. We sacrificed great intel, because Obama had to “get him some lovin'” from his media crew. Sure Obama deserves credit, he said “yes” … it was an easy decision.

And probably need three seconds of audio of Feinstein saying the leaks must stop. “This has to stop. When people say they don’t want to work with the United States because they can’t keep a secret, that’s serious”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myjCSS2oUng (at 0:52)

I’m sure they have plenty of other footage to work from, to put together three or four 30 seconds spots with similar format or music, to carry the same tone over.

And so people will watch the whole thing and spread it, flash at the end, below an image of the real men standing together:
“Dishonorable Disclosures”
“Google It”

    I like your thoughts. I’m not a ad guy either, but I can envision several series of ads on different subjects. For example, there are dozens of instances of Obama lying or promising things and doing the opposite. I can see a series, each one of which would feature one or two of these and then pointing out that they were false. The ad would end saying that you can’t believe Obama. A series like this would implant the idea that voters should not believe any of Obama’s ads or statements.

    It might be better if the super-pacs ran such ads rather than the Romney campaign.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to JayDick. | August 16, 2012 at 11:20 am

      I believe the group that put this together is a 501c … one guy was on Greta last night. I’m not sure what limits that puts on them, as opposed to a PAC, but I think they can do what they want except for campaign for or coordinate with Mitt.

quiksilverz24 | August 16, 2012 at 10:15 am

I mean no offense, and I haven’t watched the video yet, but doesn’t the guy on the screenshot look like Christian Slater?

Egypt spun out of control last week, with the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the Military and control of the media…

While Hillary was cuttin’ the rug in Africa.

HT Weasel Zippers
Hmmm: Obama And Biden To Meet With Hillary Clinton Today…
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/16/hmmm-obama-and-biden-to-meet-with-hillary-clinton-today/

DINORightMarie | August 16, 2012 at 11:13 am

These men are to be commended. I have “shared” this on my Facebook and Twitter accounts, because they are correct….and it’s that important to get the word out.

Democrats like Feinstein, as well as others who have decried these leaks, are not traitors; neither are these men.

They speak the truth. Frankly, to release, misuse, and even share with HOLLYWOOD top secret information for political purposes is more worthy of being called treasonous.

Read the Constitution. It’s in there!! The standard to be tried and found guilty is high; however, the Administration’s/POTUS’ actions come dangerously close to meeting that high threshold, IMHO.

Hold ’em to account!!

I commend these guys for coming forward. My son-in-law was special ops and his lips are still zipped because he has respect for his fellow soldiers. Leaks get people killed. What this administration has done to the CIA and SEALS is reprehensible. How are these men ever going to convince someone to give us valuable intel again? I, too, posted this everywhere!!!

Thanks Prof. Saw this floating around and didn’t take the time until you posted it.

The spot for me is simple. The Obama shot you suggest, followed by Ben Smith (6:55) “Mr. President you didn’t kill OSamaBL – America did.” and a wrap with (7:31) “I was appalled to find him leaking secrets I spent 25 years to protect.”

I’d cut a rough but don’t want to infringe on the copyright.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend