Cite for this dissemination, and that Rice had anything at all to do with it.
waht?
I’m not going to bother looking it up or arguing it because it’s not central to anything I’ve said here. If you prefer, strike the “etc.” from my prior comment.
You said (post #910) “But Rice was aware of the dissemination. She was a big part of it.”
Do you strike that comment too, or do you have a cite for it?
I do not concede the point that both DW and SR were in less than full command of the terms they were using in that interview. But let’s assume DW was not; that she mistakenly used the word “disclose” to mean “unmask”. That still leaves SR in the position of knowing exactly what “unmasking” and “disclosing” means. So I am not compelled to accept your argument that SR’s answer was in any way dishonest or that we are at liberty to redefine what was asked and what was answered because (you claim) those terms were less well defined/understood (by us) at the time of the interview.
I don’t concede your claim that the word “disclosed” is an incorrect term for use when discussing unmasking someone. Not then and not now. This is a completely specious argument, IMO.
Again, I was responding to your argument that the unmasking was so expected at the time of that interview that it would have been pointless to ask about it. This is also a meritless argument.
I have a cite but not such a good one. So hold off on that too for now, pending further evidence.
In which case, the person who should have “held off” would be you. But you didn’t, did you, buckaroo?
Bannon was removed from the NSC. The official explanation was that since his original role was to babysit Flynn, that he was no longer needed there.
Which doesn’t pass the smell test. First, if your NSC member requires babysitting, that’s probably a pretty good sign that he or she should not be there in the first place. And second, Flynn was fired months ago.
Expecting something to drop on the real story behind this.
I submit that whether or not you find these terms interchangeable, SR, given her position as NSA for many years, would not be so fast and loose with these terms in this context.
Again, I give DW more intellectual credit here than you are apparently willing to do.
“Disclose” means tell or inform or relay information – “unmask” means (in the context of intelligence) to be told or be informed. Saying they’re the same or interchangeable is like saying “kill” and “die” are the same.
The story might never drop, but I think the most likely explanation is that McMasters said he’d resign if Bannon wasn’t removed, and the WH didn’t think they could afford losing another National Security Advisor.
FBI is also investigating Breitbart though. Might be in a few days we will hear how Bannon was just a friend of a friend and had a minor role and nobody even knows who he is.
This was a PBS interview directed at a lay audience. The notion that in that context Rice assumed that disclose couldn’t mean unmask (despite this being a big focus of the Nunes announcement that she was asked about) because in technical intelligence terminology it has a different meaning is ridiculous (even if the “technical meaning” argument is true altogether).
I suspect that given the rising tension with NK, Bannon may have shot his drunken mouth off about turning NK into a glass parking lot and the adults in the room had to finally insist on getting rid of him.
Nat Sec adviser Rice couldn’t unmask anyone. She made requests to NSA for them to unmask individuals in their intel reports. NSA was free to refuse any or all of those requests. They should have complied, and did comply, with those requests that were appropriate according to their own regulations and practices. If they violated their own rules and protocols, well shame on them. (They would never do this, by the way. NSA guys lean right, and actively dislike Rice, and don’t much care for Obama either.)
Rice is true to her word. She didn’t leak names from the unmasking to anyone. She would be required to notify the president and members of his team if needed.
How about she might have legitimately (and reasonably) thought it meant “disseminate/leak” in this instance, especially since “disclose” is as close to “unmask” (in this context) as “kill” is to “die”? Why is this not credible?
I’d be more compelled to agree if this was a Fox interview. But it was PBS. Not known for talking down to its audience.
(Yeah, I know, bit of a cheap shot at Fox and audience. Sue me.)
Actually, your attempts to portray that you know what was going through Rice’s head, to the extent that her comments should be presumed to be evidence of dissembling rather than ambiguous, on the thin basis of what PBS’s audience is, are what is ridiculous.
Nunes is out! Do my ears deceive me?
As I understand it, he’s stepping aside from the investigation because the Ethics Committee is looking at whether he improperly released classified information… but he gets to remain the Intelligence Committee chairman while the Ethics Committee is looking at whether he improperly released classified information? Am I getting this right?