Also, no where does that article substantiate that claim, and calling a DIA report an internal administration report seems to indicate that they don't really know what they're talking about. The DIA has several congressional oversight committees, including the House Intelligence Committee, that would be seeking the same information as well and most likely would have requested and received the report independently of the administration.
Also, this is pretty breathless and baseless:
> "Rogers did not provide evidence for his claims. But the message was clear: The Obama administration has authorized leaks of its own internal reports about Snowden for political purposes, but any attempts by journalists to dig deeper would constitute a national security threat."
No, that's not clear at all. But it sure sounds good.
The Obama administration did authorize leaks relating to Snowden for political purposes, are you claiming that did not happen? But please do go on defending the fantastic, transparent, freedom loving US government which strives to weed out corruption, protect whistle-blowers, and zealously defends constitutional rights.
What leaks, again? That the US gov thinks he caused national security damage? Well, duh, senior. That's not a leak, that's common sense that they would think that.
I just like to look at things objectively, but you clearly appeal mainly to emotion. My viewpoint on this has nothing to do with my viewpoint on the government.
"A Pentagon review has concluded that the disclosure of classified documents taken by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden could "gravely impact" America’s national security and risk the lives of U.S. military personnel, and that leaks to journalists have already revealed sources and methods of intelligence operations to America’s adversaries. At least, that’s how two members of Congress who have read the classified report are characterizing its findings. But the lawmakers — who are working in coordination with the Obama administration and are trying to counter the narrative that Snowden is a heroic whistleblower — offered no specific examples to substantiate their claims."
So, to you, the leak is that the pentagon review thinks Snowden damaged the US's national security? That's not a leak.
The two members of congress had access to that report because of their position on the House Intelligence Committee. It was not leaked to them.
You've basically cited the same thing three times now, and it doesn't say what you think it apparently says. I understand you're deeply invested in this emotionally though. So I am done discussing this with you.
You are a fucking moron. The report was leaked to these two Republican lawmakers and these Republican lawmakers said the WH authorized the leak so they could "undercut" the Snowden narrative.
You need to do some serious reading comprehension. Seriously, you're a fucking idiot.
Also, no where does that article substantiate that claim, and calling a DIA report an internal administration report seems to indicate that they don't really know what they're talking about. The DIA has several congressional oversight committees, including the House Intelligence Committee, that would be seeking the same information as well and most likely would have requested and received the report independently of the administration.
Also, this is pretty breathless and baseless:
> "Rogers did not provide evidence for his claims. But the message was clear: The Obama administration has authorized leaks of its own internal reports about Snowden for political purposes, but any attempts by journalists to dig deeper would constitute a national security threat."
No, that's not clear at all. But it sure sounds good.