Re:Leak

Rusty at Jawa Report makes an interesting find

Rita Katz, said she personally provided the video on September 7 to the deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter.
So, SITE claims they are the source of the video given to the White House. Rita claims she personally gave the video to authorities on September 7th. But let's take a quick look at the very bottom of the translation of the video leaked by ABC's Blotter: 09/06/07

So, just because SITE's intel source got burned, doesn't mean that we've lost capability of tracking al Qaeda online. In fact, SITE was not the only one that had the "new" bin Laden 9/11 video before it was supposed to be released, as these two articles suggest.
Both Intel Center and Laura Mansfield also had the video. Hell, I had the video.

More at Captain Ed's place and from Allah Pundit

Now I understand that there's a delicate balance that must be struck between fighting an effective war on terror and respecting the First Amendment. However my question is this; isn't there some protocol implemented within the media to be sure intelligence that effects national security is safe to publish, regardless to whoever leaked it. The buck needs to stop there.

Now I know that's allot to ask of the media, far be it for them to take any responsibility in what they report.

Was This Another "Good Leak"?

Or was it a "Bad Leak"? So hard to tell, these days:

A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.

Let's see if we can follow the breadcrumb trail. Excerpts from the WaPo article:

September 7th, 10 a.m.: SITE contacts White House, provides access to tape.

A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition.

September 7th, 11 a.m.: By now, "a range of intelligence agencies" have begun downloading it from SITE's server.

September 7th, 3 p.m.: "Several television networks" have copies that indicate they came from the SITE server:

By midafternoon, several television news networks reported obtaining copies of the transcript. A copy posted around 3 p.m. on Fox News's Web site referred to SITE and included page markers identical to those used by the group.

September 7th, 5 p.m.: Katz emails Leiter, saying "This confirms that the U.S. government was responsible for the leak of this document,"

Some unspecified amount of time later: Al-Qaeda supporters, now alerted to the intrusion into their secret network, put up new obstacles that prevented SITE from gaining the kind of access it had obtained in the past, according to Katz.

The part that interests me is this:

A copy posted around 3 p.m. on Fox News's Web site referred to SITE and included page markers identical to those used by the group. ..."This confirms that the U.S. government was responsible for the leak of this document," Katz wrote in an e-mail to Leiter at 5 p.m.

Really? If SITE didn't give the tape to the White House until 10 am the morning of October 7th, how on earth did the White House manage to leak it to ABC in time for the Blotter to post an article at 9:23 a.m.?

Interestingly, the page markers on the FoxNews video released at 3 pm. don't appear any different than those from ABC's copy of the transcript

But we know from the WaPo's damning intro that administration incompetence is surely to blame for this traveshamockery:

A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.

Isn't it interesting how the WaPo story seques from attaching specfic times to events on September 7th (sometime around 10 am, 20 minutes later, 5 pm, to "By midafternoon that day...", a conveniently vague description that somehow manages to direct the reader's attention away from any troubling references to the network that broke the story -- ABC News -- and instead causes them to focus their attention on FoxNews?

You've got to hand it to those leakers at the White House.

They're fast. Not many folks can leak a document to the press in time for them to write up and post an article before they even get their hands on it.

Update: Doesn't the chronology here (ABC News posted an article about the "leaked video" at 9:23 a.m., the White House was "given access to the tape" somewhere around 10 a.m., the video transcripts on ABC match the ones supposedly "leaked" by the White House that later showed up on FoxNews) imply that the leaker was someone within SITE?

How else did the Pentagon manage to download a copy from SITE's server at 10:12? Doesn't this strike anyone else as blindingly fast action out of the administration? Given the timing, someone at SITE would have had far more time to leak the information.

What am I missing? More and more, this is looking like another Joe Wilson story.

More here.

Vegas Anyone?

BlogWorld and New Media Expo... November 8 & 9... Milbloggers will be there...

Facts Are Stubborn Things....

Apropos of Greyhawk's excellent post (which I agree with entirely) once again it appears the military is being blamed for following laws passed by Congress:

For the 448th time, the military cannot "scrap" a policy just because someone wants them to.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.***

So far, the most damning "evidence" of an evil Pentagon conspiracy seems to be the argument that it's too convenient for coincidence that the orders of Lt. Jon Anderson and John Hobot were written for 729 days - precisely one day short of the cutoff to receive benefits under the GI Bill. But unsurprisingly, the situation isn't quite that simple:

Almost half of the 2,600 Minnesota National Guard soldiers who deployed with the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 34th Infantry Division are getting shortchanged on their education benefits.

The 1,162 affected troops served just as long as their colleagues -- 22 consecutive months, the longest of any U.S. unit in Iraq -- but they are not eligible to enroll in the Chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill because they were demobilized before serving the 730 days of active duty deployment required by the bill.

How long before? From one to 12 days.

As Greyhawk points out, there is something a bit fishy about the reporting on this story:

Anderson said the soldiers he oversaw in his platoon expected that money to be here when they come home.

Why? Did someone fail to inform them of their pay and benefits? Who, exactly, should have done so? (Heh – I actually know the answer to that one…) Or worse, did someone lie to them about their pay and benefits?

Now let's simplify the numbers. Instead of saying "730 days" when referencing the minimum, let's use the term "2 years" - because 730 days = 2 years. We can even convert that into months - two years = 24 months. Now that we've got everything converted to like terms, lets perform complex mathematics:

24 months - 22 months = 2 months. That's how far short their actual tour fell of qualifying for the benefits.

But is that the issue? Do you have to serve two years, or do you just have to have orders for two years to qualify?

This raises more questions, at least in my mind:

1. Which document actually created the problem? Was it orders generated before deployment (when the unit could not possibly have known their tour would be extended because of the Surge), or does the Army generate orders on demobilization?

2. If the Pentagon intentionally defrauded these soldiers -- who served "just as long as" fully half of the Red Bulls -- why in the Sam Hill didn't they go ahead and intentionally defraud the other half to save twice as much money? Few things enrage this Marine wife more than half-assed, incompetent jackbooted oppression of the proletariat.

Unless, of course, they affect her personally, in which case all bets are off.

3. If the motivation was 'to save money", who exactly is saving this money? Again, who benefits? What pot do GI Bill benefits get paid out of?

(a) It's hard to believe the command itself had any incentive, either positive or negative, for fudging the numbers. Do individual commands really have to foot the bill for anyone who earns GI Bill eligibility through service with them? Wow. Sounds like an accounting nightmare.

(b) Or is it the Pentagon who somehow had the incentive to "save money" by doing the orders this way? Does the Pentagon spontaneously generate the information on which these orders are based, or do they get it from some more organic source such as... oh, say, the command? See item (a). Lather, rinse... oh never mind.

(c) Or is it possible the Department of Veterans Affairs (otherwise known as the VA) has sinister operatives who have managed to penetrate all levels of the federal bureaucracy, spitefully changing half a unit's orders at will to "save money"? Ah... finally a plausible explanation!

Update: Damn... there are times when it *hurts* to be this good:

Eligibility for this program is determined by the Selected Reserve components. VA makes the payments for this program.

Mein Gott im Himmell! Their own COMMAND was colluding with the VA to save Uncle Sam money!

4. And then there's the pesky matter of exactly how much money these gentleman have been deprived of:

Those who qualify for Chapter 30 Montgomery GI Benefits can receive $894 per month to be used for education, after making a $1,200 down payment. The benefits are available up to 10 years after the soldiers leave the service.

Those who don't qualify, like the 1,162 from Minnesota who are recorded as serving 729 days or less, can receive $660 per month as full-time students through the Reserved Education Assistance Program (REAP). The benefits expire once the soldier leaves the service.

What this article fails to mention (and I had to do some research to discover) is that the service member cannot use both REAP and the GI bill for the same period of service; an irrevocable election must be made between the two benefits. I completely agree that if they are entitled to the GI Bill, these soldiers should retain that entitlement so they may choose between their REAP benefits and the more generous GI Bill.

However, my guess is that what people are erroneously referring to as "the GI Bill" may in fact be the highest bracket of the REAP program (in other words, the only benefit these soldiers qualify for):

If you were on active service for:

< 90 Days Selected Reserves 40% benefits¹ only if released from AD due to injury or illness²
IRR/ING 40% benefits¹ only if released from AD due to injury or illness²
National Guard 40% benefits¹ only if released from AD due to injury or illness²

≥90-364 Days Selected Reserves 60% benefits¹
IRR/ING 60% benefits¹
National Guard 60% benefits¹

≥730 Days Selected Reserves 80% benefits¹
IRR/ING 80% benefits¹
National Guard 80% benefits¹

Note: If Member entered on active service from the Standby or Retired Reserve, this benefit does not apply. Also, once active service is completed, eligibility is contingent upon Guard or Reserve member status.

So rather than being "deprived" of a benefit, it may be they have been placed in a lower qualifying category.

Update: spoke too soon. I was wrong. The MGIB - Selected Reserve program applies to the National Guard.

Your benefit entitlement ends 14 years from the date of your eligibility for the program, or on the day you leave the Selected Reserve.

To sum up:

Nothing wrong with complaining.

When you look at the facts, the situation appears a tad more complex than 99% of the news coverage would lead one to believe.

So again the question arises -- why the necessity for an officer to publicly accuse fellow service members of wrongdoing?

On what evidence does he do so? Especially as, before the article in question was written, the Secretary of the Army was already doing what they asked him to do?

Geren told the senators he was recommending that the Army Board of Corrections, which has the authority to award the benefits, expedite the review process so the soldiers could get their benefits in time to enroll for spring semester. Usually, each soldier would each have to file a personal appeal, but Geren requested the Army review them as one group.

*** Widely reputed by unkind people to be the answer to that eternal question, "How do you keep a Jarhead in the shower for a week?"

Answer: "Hand him a bottle of shampoo that says...."

[drum roll]

It's that time of year again!

So let me toss out my annual wet blanket:

I've always been strongly opposed to "competitive milblogging." I'm never going to send a message to a troop in Iraq or Afghanistan that some guy blogging from his home office has a better blog than his, and I can't stomach the thought of folks at home voting for their favorite deployed blogger as if troops in Iraq are in some kind of effing beauty pageant.

Other folks can go at it all they want, It's just not how I roll.