Mike the Usurper wrote:
That is not an accident. That's a political move to damage someone who disagreed with why these dolts went to war.
I'm sorry, I just don't see where this is true. I can see where you feel that this is important, but in fact, it sounds just like more blustering from the wings.
The fact that a NOC was exposed, is bad.
The people who exposed the NOC should be punished.
The people who PUBLISHED this data should also be punished. (it's against the law to publish National Security Information, regardless of the source)
The Fact that Flame was a NOC is mostly irrelevant, IMAO, in respect to the greater fact that this information was available to these senior staffers. The main purpose of information classifications in the covert operations world is protect the source. Those people who have released any information that injures a source, or in this case, burns a source, need to be punished.
The politics around who/what/why/where/when & how are totally irrelevant to me. Anyone can spin the big 7 above to their own ends, and since politicians lie at a drop of a hat, (regardless of what "camp" they're in), what's the difference?
We should be more concerned with the news outlet, the people who gave this information out about Flame, and to determine if Flame herself was spouting off her NOC status... it seems to me that Libby, with a very distinguished background and understanding of the classified covert operations world, would break a cardinal rule as basic as protecting your sources... it sounds like Libby is another scapegoat...
And before you dismiss that, just think back to Ollie North, and many other people who "took one for the team" to protect a higher ranking official.
That's just my 2ยข, YMMV.
