Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    5,129

    House Subpoenas Rice, Brennan and... Samantha Power?

    Samantha Power? Our former United Nations Ambassador?

    She's a diplomat and in no role of National Security. What would she have to do w/ any of this? Would she have security clearance at that level?



    House Intelligence Panel Issues Seven Subpoenas as Russia Probe Ramps Up


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-i...obe-1496261435
    Ever get the feeling that you've been cheated?

  2. #2
    Would an ambassador have a TS clearance? You can bet your sweet bippy! The ones working in embassies overseas essentially have the right to know about pretty much any and all intel operations going on. But the smart ones don't ask too many questions. That way, should they be grabbed by terrorists, they don't have that much to give away.

    One of our big catches back during the Cold War was a Soviet diplomat by the name of Arkady Shevchenko. Carried the rank of ambassador at the UN. He knew quite a bit. Intelligence informs foreign policy, and UN ambassadors are up to their eyeballs in foreign policy.

  3. #3
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Brown View Post
    Would an ambassador have a TS clearance? You can bet your sweet bippy! The ones working in embassies overseas essentially have the right to know about pretty much any and all intel operations going on. But the smart ones don't ask too many questions. That way, should they be grabbed by terrorists, they don't have that much to give away.

    One of our big catches back during the Cold War was a Soviet diplomat by the name of Arkady Shevchenko. Carried the rank of ambassador at the UN. He knew quite a bit. Intelligence informs foreign policy, and UN ambassadors are up to their eyeballs in foreign policy.
    So then Larry - can you make a case as to why Samantha Powers would have needed to unmask the names of American Citizens here in the US?
    Ever get the feeling that you've been cheated?

  4. #4
    So she can understand what she's reading? That's typically why unmasking takes place. Somebody is talking to the Russian ambassador? Who? What's that all about?

    Ideally, unmasking should work like all intelligence is supposed to work: the need to know principle. If you don't need to know something for your specific job, you don't see the intelligence. But ambassadors aren't used to having people say no to them. An ambassador makes an unmasking request, the knee jerk reaction of the individual deciding yes or no is to say yes.

    If intel takes a closer look at unmasking across the board and decides maybe it's time to tighten the rules, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

  5. #5
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Brown View Post
    So she can understand what she's reading? That's typically why unmasking takes place. Somebody is talking to the Russian ambassador? Who? What's that all about?

    Ideally, unmasking should work like all intelligence is supposed to work: the need to know principle. If you don't need to know something for your specific job, you don't see the intelligence. But ambassadors aren't used to having people say no to them. An ambassador makes an unmasking request, the knee jerk reaction of the individual deciding yes or no is to say yes.

    If intel takes a closer look at unmasking across the board and decides maybe it's time to tighten the rules, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
    Well wonders never cease. I had no idea that diplomats were also intelligence analysts. Who knew?
    Ever get the feeling that you've been cheated?

  6. #6
    More a case of needing to understand intelligence in order to do their jobs, SxS. All the intelligence reports we produced when I was overseas, and all of those produced by our military intelligence colleagues (Defense Attaches) were available to the ambassador. He also could have requested (essentially demanded) to see all the operational information on our sources (recruited agents). Who they were, how we handled them, etc. Our chief of station could have requested exemptions from DC to keep him from seeing information we felt he didn't need to know and/or was particularly sensitive. But you hate to get into a p*ssing contest with an ambassador, because it's pretty much a case of all official Americans in the country in question working for the ambassador. We were fortunate in that our ambassador did not want that kind of detailed operational information.

  7. #7
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    5,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Brown View Post
    More a case of needing to understand intelligence in order to do their jobs, SxS. All the intelligence reports we produced when I was overseas, and all of those produced by our military intelligence colleagues (Defense Attaches) were available to the ambassador. He also could have requested (essentially demanded) to see all the operational information on our sources (recruited agents). Who they were, how we handled them, etc. Our chief of station could have requested exemptions from DC to keep him from seeing information we felt he didn't need to know and/or was particularly sensitive. But you hate to get into a p*ssing contest with an ambassador, because it's pretty much a case of all official Americans in the country in question working for the ambassador. We were fortunate in that our ambassador did not want that kind of detailed operational information.
    America is a great country isn't it? Move here when you're a kid - get a journalism degree - work on a presidential campaign - work on a transition team and low and behold next thing you know your analyzing intelligence.
    Ever get the feeling that you've been cheated?

  8. #8
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    4,172
    Quote Originally Posted by SxS Shooter View Post
    Samantha Power? Our former United Nations Ambassador?

    She's a diplomat and in no role of National Security. What would she have to do w/ any of this? Would she have security clearance at that level?



    House Intelligence Panel Issues Seven Subpoenas as Russia Probe Ramps Up


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-i...obe-1496261435
    SxS, you underestimating Samantha Power's influence with President Obama. If you recall, it was Power, Rice and Clinton who were the triumvirate of voices who convinced Oblunder to support the resistance in Libya. Power used our lack of action during the Darfur tragedy as justification for regime change in Libya. We all know how that's turned out!

    This "Special Council" is going to uncover the extent to which Obama and his cronies used our spying agencies as a political tools, just like he used the IRS to stop conservatives from organizing prior to the 2012 election. Barack was more paranoid and Machiavellian than Richard Nixon. Had BHO been a Republican he would have been Impeached.
    "My favorite word is 'The Word'." - Nancy Pelosi

  9. #9
    You really think that's what the special counsel will uncover, DB? CIA/FBI/NSA and various other 3 letter agencies allowing themselves to be used as political tools? Highly unlikely, IMO. Remember, Power and Rice--as I pointed out in another post--differentiating political appointees (like them) from career intel professionals is important. The very LAST thing intelligence professionals want to see happen is their agencies used as political tools. Once that happens, their credibility goes down the toilet. INDIVIDUALS--especially political appointees, IMO--are a different story.

    A bit of history from the runup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003: The key connection the "hawks" who wanted war with Iraq (to get rid of Saddam) were looking for was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Make that link and war is a no-brainer. CIA received a report that Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. Straight from Czech Intelligence. And liaison reports like that usually get pretty high credibility. The hawks thought it was a done deal. Nope. Instead of playing "political tool" for the hawks, CIA shot down that report. They tracked the movements of all the hijackers in the wake of 9/11, and said that Atta could not have been in Prague when the report said he met the Iraqi intel officer.

    So now they're suddenly political tools? I don't think so.

  10. #10
    Eagle
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In the moment
    Posts
    4,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Brown View Post
    You really think that's what the special counsel will uncover, DB? CIA/FBI/NSA and various other 3 letter agencies allowing themselves to be used as political tools? Highly unlikely, IMO. Remember, Power and Rice--as I pointed out in another post--differentiating political appointees (like them) from career intel professionals is important. The very LAST thing intelligence professionals want to see happen is their agencies used as political tools. Once that happens, their credibility goes down the toilet. INDIVIDUALS--especially political appointees, IMO--are a different story.

    A bit of history from the runup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003: The key connection the "hawks" who wanted war with Iraq (to get rid of Saddam) were looking for was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Make that link and war is a no-brainer. CIA received a report that Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague. Straight from Czech Intelligence. And liaison reports like that usually get pretty high credibility. The hawks thought it was a done deal. Nope. Instead of playing "political tool" for the hawks, CIA shot down that report. They tracked the movements of all the hijackers in the wake of 9/11, and said that Atta could not have been in Prague when the report said he met the Iraqi intel officer.

    So now they're suddenly political tools? I don't think so.
    Yes Larry, they are now political tools. The fact you haven't figured that out yet is pretty scary. Let me connect a dot for you... it doesn't take an entire agency to get something done. It only takes a couple of willing actors taking direct orders from someone high-up in an administration. Do yourself a favor and do not continue to underestimate the political drive of left wing nutters entrenched in our government.
    "My favorite word is 'The Word'." - Nancy Pelosi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •