Republican National Security Debate

[Winehole23]

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann serves on the House Intelligence Committee, so her comments on Pakistan’s nuclear program represent either a news-making leak of previously unknown classified information or another in her recent series of seemingly-random, and highly inaccurate, public comments. During the CNN debate, Bachmann said that 15 Pakistani nuclear sites were vulnerable to jihadist attacks, and that six of the sites had previously come under some form of Islamist attack. U.S. intelligence and military officials believe that Pakistan has 15 nuclear sites, but no U.S. official has publicly said that all of the sites were vulnerable to militant attack or confirmed that any of them had previously come under any form of jihadist attack.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/fact-...gram--20111122

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Herman Cain's performance in a nuts :














Perfect summary IMO.

Perry strikes me as a Bush clone. As someone else said, he will do whatever is handlers tell him to. Scary. Romney still comes across that "The guy I'll vote for if there's no other clear leader.". Paul is a bit too honest for most peoples tastes. I think his message is a bit too edgy as well. I like most of his points tbh. Bachmann? lol

Newt has the inside track I think. I do think he will blow it though, much like I knew Cain would eventually. If he can avoid too many "WTF" moments, he might have a shot.

Newt Gingrich symbolizes political greed in my book. just looking at his track record during the early 1990s should be enough. He was constantly being brought up on ethics charges because he was constantly trying to implement the spoils system in the House. Him in the WH....

[Winehole23]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/fact-...gram--20111122

So the most logical explanation is that her staffers prepped her for the debate using language taken directly from the Goldberg/Ambinder article, whether or not she had been briefed on the threat to Pakistan’s nukes originally.


All that said, such an obvious explanation begs the question of why Ambinder’s colleague, Yochi Dreazen, had this to say in a fact check of Bachmann’s comment.

During the CNN debate, Bachmann said that 15 Pakistani nuclear sites were vulnerable to jihadist attacks, and that six of the sites had previously come under some form of Islamist attack. U.S. intelligence and military officials believe that Pakistan has 15 nuclear sites, but no U.S. official has publicly said that all of the sites were vulnerable to militant attack or confirmed that any of them had previously come under any form of jihadist attack.

Sure, no US official has publicly said that all the sites are vulnerable or that 6 had come under attack. But the National Journal (in partnership with the Atlantic) has said it, presumably based on the anonymous leaking of at least one US official. And why suggest Bachmann’s statement was inaccurate when NJ itself had first published the information?


Taking the NJ’s comments together, we ought to assume Bachmann’s comment was, generally, accurate, but the NJ doesn’t want to take responsibility for having published what Bachmann has now magnified by using it as a debate zinger.

http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/23...ft/#more-23214