Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamofascism
Government & Politics
National & Local
Progressivism
Culture Wars
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




Sen. John Kerry’s email did not make an argument against the OPSEC group’s concerns and did not include any evidence that Obama’s aides were not responsible for the release of the secrets to the media.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Obama Team Revives ‘Birther’ Claim
to Sabotage Veterans’ Criticism

The Daily Caller
President Barack Obama‘s aides and allies are trying to undermine an emerging campaign by former soldiers who are slamming the White House for what they see as a willingness to betray the nation’s secrets in exchange for publicity.

His aides released a plea from Sen. John Kerry late Friday, urging supporters to ignore the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund’s hard-hitting criticisms. OPSEC is military jargon for operational security.

The email from Kerry did not include any evidence that Obama’s aides were not responsible for the release of the secrets to the media.

Those secrets included the existence of a US spy in al-Qaeda, as well as secret details about the successful killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011. Those details included the existence of a US spy network in Pakistan.

The release of secrets has prompted bipartisan criticism from senators and representatives.

Kerry’s email was accompanied by a second message from Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

With the subject line “Forwarded Without Comment,” LaBolt’s message consisted of an article which said the head of a different group of veterans -- not the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund -- believes Obama was born outside the United States.

The article, published in Foreign Policy, quoted Larry Bailey, who founded the unrelated Special Operations Speaks organization, saying “I have to admit that I’m a Birther.”

LaBolt’s effort to associate the birther movement with the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund is likely intended to mute the impact of the group’s charges.

Democrats have chosen to be sensitive to criticism from veterans because they blame a veterans groups for derailing Sen. Kerry’s 2004 run for the presidency...

The OPSEC group’s mission statement, according to its website, is to “stop the politicians, President Obama and others, from politically capitalizing on US national security operations and secrets!”

The group also says it aims to “educate the public on the importance and necessity of Operational Security in today’s environment.”

Its 22-minute video, titled “Dishonorable Disclosures,” has been viewed nearly 1 million times on YouTube since its Aug. 15 launch.

Kerry’s email did not make an argument against the group’s concerns, but accused it of lying and smearing Obama unfairly.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE

Editor's Note: View the video, "Dishonorable Disclosures" on NMJ's main page in the "Video" section.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors. Please make a tax deductible donation today.


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2013    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server