Custom Search

Friday, February 09, 2007

Is Anyone Taking National Security Seriously?

The news stories abound, Anna Nicoles tragic death, John Edwards and his lack of judgment in hiring two very controversial bloggers that practice in hate speech on a regular basis, The AP showing that they are more worried about spreading enemy propaganda than they are in reporting the news and let us not forget the Libby trial, and of course, the size of Pelosi's plane. (Hat Tip to Jules Crittenden on the AP news) More on the AP from Flopping Aces.

What about National Security?

With all the leaks coming out of Washington and ending up in papers such as the New York Times, it has become very clear that classified information is available for the right "price". I am not talking money here, I am talking about negative news reports against any specific political party in return for information that could potentially put our troops and our very lives in danger.

We have often claimed that the Democrats were incapable and disinterested in keeping our country safe, as seen by John Kerry recently in Davos, Democratic lawmakers meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus last December, and by the very fact that every talking points of the Democrats are the same EXACT talking points that the terrorists and our enemies use.

In yet another example we now have a classified document, the NIE Report on Iraq, to be opened up to the full 435 house members after they sign some "secrecy oath".

Who would like to take bets on how soon this informations gets "leaked" to the New York Times or Wapo or any MSM organization?

To the surprise of the Bush administration, the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously Wednesday night to allow all 435 House members to see the classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq sent to the White House last week. The report is classified in part because it contains information about sources and methods used in intelligence-gathering.

One has to wonder if the Democrats really truly understand that WE ARE AT WAR!!

This information, if leaked, could affect our ability to gather information and lessen our chances of breaking up a terror plot before our enemies can implement it.

I asked recently if you were proud to be an American. It is telling that the only yes answers I received were from conservatives, which I admit, my readership mostly consists of, but the few liberals that did come to comment or email me, would not answer the question.... the comments and the emails I received from liberals/Democrats each tried to change the subject or try to change the theme by bringing up other issues.


Very telling.

Tensions have always run high in the world of politics, but, in this day and age, in a post 9/11 America, one would assume that the dangers posed to us by al-Qaeda and other terror organizations would be clear and would be taken seriously by all sides..... sadly, the Democrats are once again showing that they do not "get it".

They do not fully understand that the question is not "will we be attacked again?" but "when will we be attacked again?"

The following question then becomes, "how can we minimize the damage?"

It truly does seem to me like half the world woke up on 9/11 and half the world turned back over, decided it was some sick nightmare and went right back to sleep.

We are at war dammit and we better all get on the same page and at least agree on one fact: We must protect ourselves.

Hugh Hewitt states:

We can predict with great certainty that some of the 435 Members will read the report and intend to say nothing, but that they will bleat out something or other at some point.

We are also certain that some will return from the secure office with the ink still fresh on their secrecy pledge, and dial up any reporter they can find if they figure out that there's a way to damage the Adminstration in the process. If you are, for example, somewhere in the Mahdi Army and you have expressed to us certainty of Sadr's willingness to pretend to cooperate with the government for the time being, that will spill out quickly, and possibly the sort of clues that the Iranian intelligence services will use to put the finger on you. If you are close to the al Qaeda fanatics and have given us a tip from time to time, well, let's hope that level of detail didn't make it into the NIE. Of course we have always assumed the classified versions of the NIE would be well protected, so in the past we have been expansive in the discussions to assure we wouldn't get blamed for cherry-picking again. Hard luck, I know. I can't tell you what's in there, but someone in Congress almost certainly will. Keep in mind some of these folks were never a threat to win the spelling bee.

It is human nature and that is the reason we have information that is classified.

Classified: Available to authorized persons only, as for reasons of national security: a classified document.

The purpose of classification is ostensibly to protect information from being used to damage or endanger national security. Classification formalizes what constitutes a "state secret" and accords different levels of protection based on the expected damage the information might cause in the wrong hands.

Depending on the level of classification there are different rules controlling the level of clearance needed to view such information and how it must be stored, transmitted, and destroyed. Additionally, access is restricted on a "need to know" basis. Simply possessing a clearance does not automatically authorize the individual to view all material classified at that level or below that level. The individual must present a legitimate "need to know" in addition to the proper level of clearance.

This lack of understanding and seriousness on the liberal left and the Democratic party shows their lack of respect for our soldiers safety and for our intelligence gathering capabilities.

This latest decision by the house goes to show that politics and the Democrats desire to "bash Bush" is much more important than our lives and America's safety and when the next attack hits because they jeopardized our intelligence gather abilities, they will be the first pointing fingers that the present administration did not protect us from it, when in reality they will be needing to look into the mirror and point in that direction.

Our problem is, by then, it will be too late.....the damage will already be done.

Decisions like these is why I have no doubt that in 2008, the American people will understand that our National Security cannot be trusted to people such as these.

The losses in the 2006 election was a blessing in disguise, it gives us a couple of years to understand the danger that the Democrats pose to our National Security.

Classify THAT.

[UPDATE] A related MUST READ from Right Truth .

You remember President George W. Bush's statement after September 11, 2001, "You’re either with us or against us." Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. says " the time has come to make it clear to those who are helping our enemies that they are not with us – and that there are real costs associated with being against us." He was talking about folks out there around the world. But what if we applied that same logic to people INSIDE America? A very interesting idea. We could apply that logic to Muslims inside the United States, require them to make a choice. What if we applied that logic to politicians? Now that would really be interesting.

Head on over and read the whole thing. She has a very good point.

Tracked back by:
Ahmadinejad wants peace, the peace of the grave from Right Truth...