Gen Cartwright: if he leaked, too, is he a traitor and/or criminal, or is he a good citizen?

[Andy9o8 0]

Andy9o8

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23094353

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57591472/james-cartwright-retired-marine-general-target-of-iran-leak-investigation/

James Cartwright, retired Marine general, target of Iran leak investigation

A retired high-ranking US general is under investigation for allegedly leaking classified information about a covert cyber attack on Iran's nuclear programme, US media report.

Retired Marine General James "Hoss" Cartwright has been informed by the Justice Department that he is a target in their inquiry, NBC News reports.

Gen Cartwright was vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007-11.

A target is a suspect in a criminal case who has not yet been formally charged but is expected to be, the Washington Post reports.

[turtlespeed 212]

Andy9o8

***http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23094353

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57591472/james-cartwright-retired-marine-general-target-of-iran-leak-investigation/

James Cartwright, retired Marine general, target of Iran leak investigation

A retired high-ranking US general is under investigation for allegedly leaking classified information about a covert cyber attack on Iran's nuclear programme, US media report.

Retired Marine General James "Hoss" Cartwright has been informed by the Justice Department that he is a target in their inquiry, NBC News reports.

Gen Cartwright was vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007-11.

A target is a suspect in a criminal case who has not yet been formally charged but is expected to be, the Washington Post reports.

Don't know yet.

Third option . . . Could it possibly be more on Obama's war on generals?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Could it possibly be more on Obama's war on generals?

...which doesn't exist any more than there's a "war on Christmas", except in the minds of the fiction-writers over at FoxNews.

But to answer your presumptuous question, No. Cartwright has been described as "Obama's favorite general", and he'd already ducked one bullet by being cleared of accusations of having an affair."

The slander that Democratic presidents are enemies of the military is just that: slander.

[Andy9o8 0]

So anyhow, getting back to the theme of the thread, should be interesting to see if he's treated differently than Snowden. Maybe Gen. Cartwright should be hopping a plane to Nepal or whatever.

[turtlespeed 212]

Andy9o8

So anyhow, getting back to the theme of the thread, should be interesting to see if he's treated differently than Snowden. Maybe Gen. Cartwright should be hopping a plane to Nepal or whatever.

Maybe Putin could use his insights.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

I'm voting traitor/criminal, but will qualify it a bit.

He could provide a defense that that it was already well established to be an US or Israeli origin. I was tracking the story for quite some time when it was so clearly targeted at the Iranian facilities and the forensics were narrowing down the suspect list rapidly. So the argument may be around whether or not we still had plausible deniability. The method was brilliant and despite Iran's claims otherwise, did deal a blow to their program. The confirmation that we definitely did it certainly hurt our interests. It's one thing to suffer a setback and not understand why, but knowing it was done to them lets them move forward, as well as showing up to be the jackass in the room.

[melch 0]

The real question that needs to be asked; Was it leaked with malicious intent or was it spillage? Also where in the timeline did the information provided by Gen Cartwright occur. If it was after the STUX was identified by foreign entities then it was probably spillage rather than malicious intent. Jury is still out for me. I will form an opinion after more research.

[Anvilbrother 0]

It's two different things. What did snowden leak? That governments have the ability and are spying on terrorists cell phones? They knew that shit probably before 1993 in Somalia, he didn't release any secrets to the "enemy". Snowden released info to law abiding citizens who are expecting reasonable privacy from their government and were being raped by them.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rickjump1 0]

Andy9o8

Quote

Could it possibly be more on Obama's war on generals?

...which doesn't exist any more than there's a "war on Christmas", except in the minds of the fiction-writers over at FoxNews.

But to answer your presumptuous question, No. Cartwright has been described as "Obama's favorite general", and he'd already ducked one bullet by being cleared of accusations of having an affair."

The slander that Democratic presidents are enemies of the military is just that: slander.

"The decision may have been rare, but it was not unexpected. General McKiernan was fired for the same offense that General McArthur had been targeted during the Korean War: He had demanded competency from an incompetent Democrat". http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-war-on-american-generals/ Slander and Fox News? There's a lot of information here that indicates your president indeed has a problem with his generals. What do you think Cartwright said to piss of Bo, or is it this president wants a uniform too with all the ribbons and medals.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Andy9o8 0]

More biased slander; and you need to learn some history from, shall we say, more reliable sources. MacArthur roundly deserved to be fired. He deserved to be court martialed for insubordination. Had he had his way and we attacked the Chinese mainland in order to overthrow the Chinese communist government, the Soviet Union would almost certainly have entered the war on behalf of China. That would have been just great. You will note, if you take the time to read about it, that Republican President Eisenhower also pursued and achieved an end to the Korean War by political armistice, and not by military triumph. It worked, and that's why the Korean peninsula has been more or less in a state of peace (even if a hostile cold peace) since 1953.

It's understood that most military brass tends to be politically conservative. It's only logical. But the 20th & 21st Century "tradition" of military brass kicking Democratic Presidents in the teeth behind their backs cannot be tolerated. There's no "war on generals", but there is a long-standing war by top military brass against Democratic Presidents, and that shit cannot be tolerated if democratic (small "d") rule by civilian government is to be maintained.

[rickjump1 0]

Andy9o8

More biased slander; and you need to learn some history from, shall we say, more reliable sources. MacArthur roundly deserved to be fired. He deserved to be court martialed for insubordination. Had he had his way and we attacked the Chinese mainland in order to overthrow the Chinese communist government, the Soviet Union would almost certainly have entered the war on behalf of China. That would have been just great. You will note, if you take the time to read about it, that Republican President Eisenhower also pursued and achieved an end to the Korean War by political armistice, and not by military triumph. It worked, and that's why the Korean peninsula has been more or less in a state of peace (even if a hostile cold peace) since 1953.

It's understood that most military brass tends to be politically conservative. It's only logical. But the 20th & 21st Century "tradition" of military brass kicking Democratic Presidents in the teeth behind their backs cannot be tolerated. There's no "war on generals", but there is a long-standing war by top military brass against Democratic Presidents, and that shit cannot be tolerated if democratic (small "d") rule by civilian government is to be maintained.

The biggest wars fought since WWII were started by democrats: Korea and Vietnam, but nobody has fired more generals than Barack Hussein Obama. Bush, who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan, fired two, but Barack leads the pack. The man is at war with the US Army General Officers Corps and the military in general. This is not just limited to the military, he is at war with anyone who does not agree with him or bow down to him. There's no "slander" here. That old draft dodger, Bill Clinton certainly fired his "Surgeon" General, but I don't believe he fired any general like his buddy, barack. Hard to say which of those two military haters hate the military the most. As for Korea, thanks for the history lesson.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[JerryBaumchen 1,060]

HI rick,

Quote

nobody has fired more generals than Barack Hussein Obama

That I seriously doubt. I read this earlier this year, you might consider reading it:

The generals : American military command from World War II to today

It tells about the generals who have been sacked; and there have been a lot of them.

JerryBaumchen

[rickjump1 0]

JerryBaumchen

HI rick,

Quote

nobody has fired more generals than Barack Hussein Obama

That I seriously doubt. I read this earlier this year, you might consider reading it:

The generals : American military command from World War II to today

It tells about the generals who have been sacked; and there have been a lot of them.

JerryBaumchen

No doubt more generals (and admirals) were sacked during World War II. Just look at the massive area of operations around the world and the command structure required. Today we have, "America's military at war while America is at the mall". This "miniature" Korea or Vietnam War (including the military itself) is more of a bother to this president. Regarding leaks, he should be charged for leaking the dates of withdrawal while announcing an increase in troops at the same time. No doubt the taliban loves barack obama.

I believe the sacking of his generals will continue. His "total transformation" includes the military and its demise as an effective fighting force.

I will look for the book, and thanks for the information. I just finished, A Higher Call by Adam Makos. It will change your view on the air war of WWII.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The biggest wars fought since WWII were started by democrats: Korea and Vietnam,

From a standpoint of sound historical/political analysis, that's just silly. Do you really think a President Eisenhower (R) or a hypothetical President Thomas E. Dewey (R) would not have intervened in Korea after the North attacked the South in 1950? I guarantee you they would have. By the way, that intervention was done not unilaterally by the US, but by the United Nations via resolution. At least 17 other countries plus the US were part of the UN Allied military forces fighting North Korea (and eventually China), and each one of those other nations suffered fatal casualties.

As for Vietnam, the intervention process there was started by Eisenhower in the late 50s-1960. Yes, LBJ expanded it massively, mainly as a strategic proxy counter to the USSR and China. From 1969 forward, Nixon (R), too, engaged in his own manner of escalation (research "Christmas Bombing", for example), again partly to strategically contain the USSR, and partly as a matter of "honor" (for which thousands more US troops died). But also consider: had Nixon won the 1960 election instead of JFK, and then been re-elected in 1964, do you really think he would not have eventually escalated US intervention in Vietnam the way LBJ did? Again, wearing my political scientist/historian hat, I maintain that he almost certainly would have.

[kallend 1,643]

rickjump1

The biggest wars fought since WWII were started by democrats: Korea and Vietnam, but nobody has fired more generals than Barack Hussein Obama.

Your knowledge of history is sadly deficient. The Korean war began in June, 1950 when North Korea, led by Kim Il Sung, invaded South Korea along the 38th parallel.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JerryBaumchen 1,060]

Hi rick,

Quote

A Higher Call by Adam Makos. It will change your view on the air war of WWII.

Thanks for the tip; I'll look for it.

I'm currently reading the trilogy of WW II by Rick Atkinson ( I'm now on his 2nd book 'The Day of Battle.' ).

JerryBaumchen

[tkhayes 140]

Generals don't 'leak'.....they 'disclose'

[rickjump1 0]

kallend

*** The biggest wars fought since WWII were started by democrats: Korea and Vietnam, but nobody has fired more generals than Barack Hussein Obama.

Your knowledge of history is sadly deficient. The Korean war began in June, 1950 when North Korea, led by Kim Il Sung, invaded South Korea along the 38th parallel. Professor, you got it right, I should have said the largest commitment of American troops by a democrat president in response to North Korean aggression. As for Vietnam, LBJ, another democrat, used the Gulf of Tonkin "Incident" to escalate what was a guerrilla "conflict" into a full scale war committing thousands of American troops. Attempting to run the war from the White House with a former Ford Motor executive, Robert McNamara (as his Secretary of Defense), 58,000 plus Americans died for nothing. Engaging in limited warfare, has cost this country the deaths of thousands of our youth in the prime of their life, and it has sent a signal to our opponents: Americans do not have the will to win wars they start; wait them out, and they will go home. The Korean conflict is far from over, and when we do leave, the South Koreans, will expect us to bail them out in any emergency, and we will respond. The only difference between this and corporate bailouts or public welfare, Americans will die. The US Government is the "sugar daddy of the world".

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[champu 1]

tkhayes

Generals don't 'leak'.....they 'disclose'

While you're probably being sarcastic, you're also almost correct.

Gen Cartwright was Vice Chairman of JCS and thus would have had original classification authority over a number of activities. That also translates to original declassification authority over those activities.[1] In other words, he would have had legal grounds to declassify and disclose information under his authority.

Now, would stuxnet have been classified under his authority? Probably not.[2] Does it appear that fact of or details of the program were formally declassified before information was shared? No. Given that, if Gen Cartwright spilled the beans, it's still a leak regardless of his rank/title.

[1] http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/oca-desktop-reference.pdf
[2] http://www.hawkclub.com/civics/targets/2-3a.h3.jpg