4 ms·

The fact that the NYT published this piece is interesting. Assume all details are true. Why did the dog bark rather than choose to be silent? And the sources.

The fact that the NYT published this piece is interesting. Assume all details are true. Why did the dog bark rather than choose to be silent? And the sources. Assume all of this is true? Why feed the info to the NYT? When coupled with recent revelations that Mr. Obama personally approves every killing of militants (for certain strained definitions of that term), the upcoming election springs to mind as a motivation. There may be alternate and contradictory reasons, all of which may be true. Many players, cross-purposes. This could have remained hidden. Indeterminate. Who benefits from this revelation?

elarkin 14y ago
Likely the person(s) who spoke out now feel a burden lifted from their conscience. If the information is true, it surprises me that it has stayed hidden for so long.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
dantheman 14y ago
This is the standard practice of the Obama administration - prosecute only those who leaks don't help the president. Glenn Greenwald at salon.com has been writing about this a lot, here's his piece about stuxnet: http://www.salon.com/2012/06/01/tough_guy_leaking/singleton/ http://www.salon.com/2012/06/01/tough_guy_leaking/singleton/
ruttingchimpanz 14y ago
Former election strategist here. This is part of the Obama-Is-Tough roll-out, clearly done with current admin participation. Timed release to follow the "kill list" story and maybe even pre-empt the terrible jobs report. All the same, it's pretty stunning that the Obama administration would trade its (public) plausible deniability on Stuxnet in order to "look tough" on America's enemies. Playing fast and loose with foreign policy...great plan, guys.
- staunch 14y ago
  Iran already knew who did it. Everyone did. Why not take credit?
- wrekkuh 14y ago
  Agreed. I wonder if the people who leaked this information will be held responsible just the same as Thomas Drake & Jeffrey Sterling were/are. For this to be included in the sudden wave of media coverage on Obama's tough stances on foreign conflicts/terrorism is pretty weighty regardless of motivation.
zecho 14y ago
Two reasons are possible. First, it's over. Stuxnet is out of commission and the CIA/NSA/DOD have all moved on to other programs. It's an election year and this is the kind of strong-on-Iran thing that sticks with a certain segment of voters who may question Obama's foreign policy. That's a cynical view, but Washington is a pretty cynical city. Second, Ret. Gen. Cartwright is vainglorious. Here, he emerges as a hero.

elarkin 14y ago

Likely the person(s) who spoke out now feel a burden lifted from their conscience. If the information is true, it surprises me that it has stayed hidden for so long.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

dantheman 14y ago

This is the standard practice of the Obama administration - prosecute only those who leaks don't help the president. Glenn Greenwald at salon.com has been writing about this a lot, here's his piece about stuxnet: http://www.salon.com/2012/06/01/tough_guy_leaking/singleton/ http://www.salon.com/2012/06/01/tough_guy_leaking/singleton/

ruttingchimpanz 14y ago

Former election strategist here. This is part of the Obama-Is-Tough roll-out, clearly done with current admin participation. Timed release to follow the "kill list" story and maybe even pre-empt the terrible jobs report. All the same, it's pretty stunning that the Obama administration would trade its (public) plausible deniability on Stuxnet in order to "look tough" on America's enemies. Playing fast and loose with foreign policy...great plan, guys.

staunch 14y ago
Iran already knew who did it. Everyone did. Why not take credit?
wrekkuh 14y ago
Agreed. I wonder if the people who leaked this information will be held responsible just the same as Thomas Drake & Jeffrey Sterling were/are. For this to be included in the sudden wave of media coverage on Obama's tough stances on foreign conflicts/terrorism is pretty weighty regardless of motivation.

zecho 14y ago

Two reasons are possible. First, it's over. Stuxnet is out of commission and the CIA/NSA/DOD have all moved on to other programs. It's an election year and this is the kind of strong-on-Iran thing that sticks with a certain segment of voters who may question Obama's foreign policy. That's a cynical view, but Washington is a pretty cynical city. Second, Ret. Gen. Cartwright is vainglorious. Here, he emerges as a hero.