You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #56: Cheney's leak was of SPECIFIC information to a [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. Cheney's leak was of SPECIFIC information to a
specific and trusted source. He knew exactly what he was leaking and what he wanted the publication of that leak to do.

As is the case with most genuine leaks -- there's a specific purpose in mind, and generally the results are expected within a very narrow timeframe. If there's no urgency, there's no need to leak.

Nothing, absolutely nothing about this "Deep Modem" case makes any sense whatsoever. Do you really believe "Deep Modem" is leaking bits of nonsense to remind his/her bosses that they're dependent on IT gurus for security? Give me a fucking break, Coyote. That would be much more effectively done internally and/or by "leaking" a single email, whether on a sensitive or non-sensitive topic. Besides, why warn them if DM is on _our_ side? Why not just leak it, the more sensitive the better?

Do you really think it's impossible for a WH staffer to monitor DU? Would they really be worrying about Hatch Act violations at this point? Couldn't they claim that taking the pulse of the public on issues such as secrecy, the war, etc., is part of official work? And even if it were a violation, do you think the administration doesn't have people, outside the WH, off the record, monitoring it anyway? Or the RNC for that matter?

And if there are _secret code words_ hidden in the messages, why draw attention to them. Isn't that like shouting "Hey, everybody! I'm sending a secret coded message with secret code words in it!" No one, not even the repukes, are _that_ stupid. (And then to put out a couple of nice long posts with _possible lists of code words_?)

I'm not buying it. If I'm offering a challenge to anyone who thinks any kind of opposition must mean the codes and the secrets and the leaks are real, hey, I'm not gonna try to stop you. But don't be surprised if you don't find anything.


Tansy Gold, who is not speaking in code

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC