Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Twitter Leaked Obama's Visit To Afghanistan

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the was-that-a-secret? dept.

Government 177

hypnosec writes "When you're the President of the United States, sometimes certain activities you're involved in can be hard to keep secret — and yesterday was no exception, after Twitter let it slip that Obama was secretly in Kabul. On Tuesday, the White House released a fabricated itinerary — consisting of all-day meetings in the Oval Office to cover up the fact that Obama was secretly flying to Afghanistan. Whilst only a few US journalists were aware of this event, by mid-morning, a lot more people were suddenly in on the revelation courtesy of Twitter. The first tweet to let the virtual cat out of the bag was Afghanistan news site TOLOnews which reported: 'United States President Barack Obama has arrived in Kabul to meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai.'"

cancel ×

177 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

headline incorrect (5, Insightful)

Klync (152475) | about 2 years ago | (#39870925)

I love to hate on twitter as much as the next slashdotter, but the summary makes it clear that the headline is incorrect and misleading, possibly to the point of damaging Twitter's reputation. What you *meant* to say was:

Afghanistan news site TOLOnews Leaked Obama's Visit To Afghanistan (via Twitter)

Re:headline incorrect (3, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about 2 years ago | (#39870977)

You'd think that'd be natively understood, but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.

Re:headline incorrect (4, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 2 years ago | (#39871125)

I wouldn't expect anyone to understand it without reading the article, the headline is just plain wrong.

Re:headline incorrect (2, Interesting)

cdrudge (68377) | about 2 years ago | (#39871185)

And most people here barely read the headline before posting as an expert on whatever article the summary might link to.

Re:headline incorrect (3, Funny)

krotkruton (967718) | about 2 years ago | (#39871683)

Why is everyone complaining so much about the headline when there is clearly a bigger issue at hand? We need to hunt down this mysterious Twitter (which I can only assume is a pseudo-name to hide his/her real identity) person immediately he/she is able to leak more information.

Re:headline incorrect (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871213)

You'd think that'd be natively understood, but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.

I blame the niggers for this.

Re:headline incorrect (2)

sootman (158191) | about 2 years ago | (#39871795)

Actually, it'll probably devolve into a thread about Obama. :-)

Back on topic, no-- the headline is HORRIBLE. There is a HUGE difference between "Twitter leaked..." and "... leaked on Twitter." When I first read it I thought it meant exactly what it says--that Twitter (the entity) somehow knew his location and accidentally published it--like, a tweet that was put in but set to be published later, or revealed by a geotag ("Posted by THE_REAL_BARACK via Mobile from Kabul") or something.)

Re:headline incorrect (1, Offtopic)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#39872069)

but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.

How about right now?

Twitter is bad, only because it sucks.

Seriously.. what is the point? Less space than a txt message on a cell phone. It practically begs to be used for the most boring, banal, and irrelevant crap in the Universe. It is the online version of tabloids, just with less content and less bat-children.

I'm not remotely interested in having a real time feed of "Ashton Kutcher" (if it really is him and not somebody working for him) and what color his last dump was, or that his oatmeal was lumpy, or Demmy was beating the shit of him. It is an uninteresting, wholly ineffective method of personal communication that drains everything positive such interaction was designed to provide. It's a way to have a relationship without actually having a relationship. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Kutcher might be a hell of guy. I've never met him, but if I did become friends with him, I would not follow him on Twatter either.

So.. yeah... Twitter blows on its own merits. They are not responsible for other people's tweets either and it would be ridiculous to make such a claim.

Their only redeeming value to society is their contribution towards the Arab Spring, and other such movements where even short messages could be valuable.

As it stands right now it Twitter only exists because it is propped up by marketing uses. Astroturfing and statistics gathering.

Here's the real story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39870997)

US president meets with Afgan president to decide how both governments can profit over the next 15 years -- by taking money from people who would never have voluntarily chosen to pay for such a scheme.

Re:Here's the real story (1)

CrzyP (830102) | about 2 years ago | (#39871211)

Chill out, Mel Gibson. He could have also been there to see how the country was doing.

Re:Here's the real story (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871321)

He could have also been there to remind them they owe us some money.

Did the president bring a baseball bat?

Re:Here's the real story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871735)

They would be happy to pay us the money if we would just let them sell the products from their poppy plantations. But we keep trying to stop them. So they have no money to pay us.

Re:headline incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871095)

This is still a bit concerning. If the media saw AF1 land, that's one thing. If the media got wind of the POTUS arriving from the current Afghan Administration or Intelligence agencies, they have some leaks that need fixing and US Security and Intel should take note.

As for Twitter? Their role here was the non-story. Sorry.

Re:headline incorrect (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#39871419)

This is still a bit concerning. If the media saw AF1 land, that's one thing. If the media got wind of the POTUS arriving from the current Afghan Administration or Intelligence agencies, they have some leaks that need fixing and US Security and Intel should take note.

As for Twitter? Their role here was the non-story. Sorry.

Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.

There is no route to Afghanistan that does not cross some other country's air space, and you can bet that not every single air traffic controller between here and Kabul keeps his mouth shut all the time. The miracle is that Obama could get from the Whitehouse to the airport with no one leaking that info on twitter.

In this world, expectations of surprise visits are all to be taken with a wink and an nod. Even when the press in in a feeding frenzy over the Secret Service's bimbo in Colombia [dailymail.co.uk] , this visit was well known in the US Press.

Its amazing that Twitter didn't break the news first. (It probably did, but nobody noticed).

Re:headline incorrect (3, Informative)

boaworm (180781) | about 2 years ago | (#39871629)

Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.

The flight plan that AF1 files is not always as AF1, sometimes they fly "incognito", under a different callsign and as a different aircraft type. There is a famous incident when a British Airways pilot accidentally does a visual identification of AF1 over the atlantic while Bush was flying to Bagdad, and is being told that the 747 is in fact a little Gulfstream by AF1 pilots.

BA Pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed.
AF1: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft.
BA: "Oh..."

So when ATC routes AF1 around the most common tracks it can stay "incognito".

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/01/bush.pilot.reut/index.html [cnn.com]

Re:headline incorrect (1)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#39871769)

The flight plan that AF1 files is not always as AF1, sometimes they fly "incognito", under a different callsign and as a different aircraft type. There is a famous incident when a British Airways pilot accidentally does a visual identification of AF1 over the atlantic while Bush was flying to Bagdad, and is being told that the 747 is in fact a little Gulfstream by AF1 pilots.

BA Pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed.
AF1: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft.
BA: "Oh..."

Yeah, professional courtesy.
Still every ATC on the circuit and every hobbiest with a scanner knew exactly what was going on.

Re:headline incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871849)

BA Pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed.
AF1: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft.
BA: "Oh..."

Not even a G6... So not fly.

Re:headline incorrect (1)

Sparticus789 (2625955) | about 2 years ago | (#39871633)

It isn't that hard for him to get to Andrews AFB. The Presidential helicopters are constantly flying, as any Washington DC Beltway commuter sees. When the same type of helicopter is flying in and out of the base every few hours, it makes it easy to cover his tracks.

Re:headline incorrect (2)

TWX (665546) | about 2 years ago | (#39871661)

On top of that, It's unlikely that an actual plan to threaten the President could be designed and implemented in such a short amount of time, especially with no other itinerary. It doesn't sound like this information was disseminated until he was already on the ground, and my guess is that he didn't remain in place for very long. He would have quickly headed to the first secure location, probably arrived unannounced to all but a handful of staff sworn to secrecy, and would have left equally unannounced to the next similar stop.

The hardest part would be the coordination of the meeting with Karzai, as that part can't be made random in location or time, but can still remain unannounced. All assassinations and nearly all assassination attempts against Presidents or Presidents-Elect happened during scheduled events- either the schedule was advertised or else the assassin managed to obtain the itinerary. The President is most at risk when people know where to expect him to be. He's probably safer showing up to a random college bar like he did last week in Colorado than he is when he's at home, or when he's attending a meeting or a fundraiser. Those that would seek to harm him simply do not have time to act when they only learn of his location because he's already arrived.

Re:headline incorrect (2)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#39871857)

Even the Taliban took several hours to mount an attack, but mount one they did - it was just too late.

You would have expected the Taliban to have an attack already in the can for the Bin Laden death anniversary. Maybe they just went ahead with that plan, realizing that an attack while Obama was there would be suicidal. (Not that they seem to have a problem with suicide) .

Re:headline incorrect (2)

TWX (665546) | about 2 years ago | (#39872079)

I have to wonder, in Afganistan, does the President's successful arrival and depart demonstrate that the US can operate with impunity and that the Taliban can only wreak havoc, or is some other conclusion drawn?

Re:headline incorrect (2)

gstrickler (920733) | about 2 years ago | (#39871899)

Valid point, but a minor correction. AF1 is not the plane. It's only AF1 when the Pres is on board. There are in fact at least two planes used as AF1.

Re:headline incorrect (1)

icebike (68054) | about 2 years ago | (#39871979)

Further point: Its call sign is never Air Force One. At times it used to be SAM 26000, but who knows what it is today, and it certainly wouldn't be using that on a surprise visit. Probably it flew the same route as daily Airforce C17 and C-5 Air Mobility Command flights and used one of their call signs.

Re:headline incorrect (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#39871989)

Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.

At night, that could be easily disguised as a couple of tankers dragging a flight of F-15s across the ocean.

Re:headline incorrect (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871997)

Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.

Yes, but that could easily be Michelle and 30 of her closest friends going to Monaco for a week of shopping.

Re:headline incorrect (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39872021)

The miracle is that Obama could get from the Whitehouse to the airport with no one leaking that info on twitter.

Anybody in his entourage or the press corps would be totally fired, and possibly convicted of something for leaking that. The coming and going of choppers that may or may not have the POTUS on board is routine. Somebody might see him walk to the chopper; but once it's in the air you don't know where it is going. It's even easier if they used a motorcade. Those go through the streets of DC all the time and you don't think twice about it. Motorcade to some secure field near the city, chopper to the airport, or direct chopper to airport. It's really not that hard.

During the GWB administration I once witnessed three choppers fly in. At the last minute, one pealed off and landed.

Re:headline incorrect (1)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#39871105)

Actually, they leaked it, but Twitter turned the leak into a collapsed dam releasing a wall of water down the valley.

Re:headline incorrect (1, Interesting)

Blue Stone (582566) | about 2 years ago | (#39871113)

An even more accurate way to look at it is "Obama's security team fails to do its job".

Re:headline incorrect (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#39871279)

An even more accurate way to look at it is "Obama's security team fails to do its job".

How the hell do you keep something like moving POTUS a secret? The convoy and Airforce One aren't exactly subtle.

Once this information is known by anybody, it can just as easily become public ... more so with things like Twitter.

Re:headline incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871545)

You can keep it a secret until somebody notices Air Force One sitting on the runway. It's surprisingly easy - fly at night and hope nobody notices that the Airbus is a whole lot bigger than it ought to be.

Re:headline incorrect (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#39871739)

well, you could throw the journalists you invite to cover the visit into gitmo(and well, confiscate all their phones and other stuff first too).

though, why fly with af1? so the russians know exactly where he is?

Re:headline incorrect (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | about 2 years ago | (#39871925)

I think you are arguing that it is a non-story.

The rational approach seems to say that it is either:
A) a non-story, or
B) a slow-news-day story about how Obama's security team tried and failed to keep secret the president's whereabouts.

I'm not convinced that the grandparent thinks that it is a news-worthy story. He/She's only saying that choice B is a "more accurate way to look at it" than the original headline. It's kind of like saying that a fern is "more human-like" than a sentence.

Re:headline incorrect (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#39872003)

B) a slow-news-day story about how Obama's security team tried and failed to keep secret the president's whereabouts.

Bah, they were too busy lining up the hookers. ;-)

He/She's only saying that choice B is a "more accurate way to look at it" than the original headline.

Well, the original headline was copied verbatim from the first linked Article.

Whining about Slashdot writing an inflammatory headline that they didn't write is kinda pointless. TFS is pretty much a cut and paste as well.

Lies, Damned Lies & Headlines That Sell Page V (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871131)

Does Rupert Murdoch own Slashdot now?

Re:headline incorrect (2)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#39871147)

What makes you think Slashdot's editors give two shits about the truth? This place is a tabloid with occasional interesting discussions.

Re:headline incorrect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871225)

It's not even a leak. The news agency reported that he landed. As in, he got there. The cat is already out of the bag at that point.

Now, if something had actually leaked *before* he got there, or enroute, then I can see some outrage, but this is no big deal.

Re:headline incorrect (1)

Imrik (148191) | about 2 years ago | (#39871495)

Read it again, as you said they reported that he landed, but they did so while he was still en route.

Who gives a shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871275)

I love to hate on twitter as much as the next slashdotter, but the summary makes it clear that the headline is incorrect and misleading, possibly to the point of damaging Twitter's reputation. What you *meant* to say was:

Afghanistan news site TOLOnews Leaked Obama's Visit To Afghanistan (via Twitter)

whatever.

"News"sites or channels or articles - doesn't mater. If you think that the media - ANY MEDIA - is telling the whole truth and nothing but the TRUTH - then you're a MORAN and you deserve to be misled. from a scale of worst to least - Fox News is the worst and NPR is the least.

Go ahead and label me "Liberal" - go ahead. And I'll point out your hypocrisy.

I really wish for a real unbiased news source - maybe we should have machine report the news.

Re:Who gives a shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871445)

I think everyone can see that you are, in fact, the MORON.

Re:Who gives a shit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39872015)

Bazinga!

Re:headline incorrect (5, Insightful)

petersam (754644) | about 2 years ago | (#39871477)

I'm not even sure that "leaked" is the correct word to use. He was in Afghanistan. It's hard to hide Air Force One, the motorcade, etc. They were reporting the news, i.e. what they're expected to do.

Re:headline incorrect (1)

TigerTime (626140) | about 2 years ago | (#39871529)

People don't rat people out. Twitter rats people out. Eliminating Twitter eliminates the problem (sarcasm)

Twitter owns the tweets. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#39871699)

Twitter owns the tweets, tough luck, making twitter the publisher of a national secret. not that it matters..

besides, pretty much all tweets are user generated.. "via twitter" doesn't really add much info as long as twitter is mentioned.

Seriously? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39870929)

Just because someone used Twiiter to post something, doesn't make Twitter responsible for that post. Geez...how stupid to say that Twiiter leaked it.

Re:Seriously? (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 2 years ago | (#39871329)

Just because someone used Twiiter to post something, doesn't make Twitter responsible for that post. Geez...how stupid to say that Twiiter leaked it.

I'm sorry Mr. AC. This is /. and the title clearly states that Twitter is the culprit in this case. And don't start in on what the summary or TFA states. On /. we only need to read the title, we're all too smart for summaries and such.

Re:Seriously? (1)

godrik (1287354) | about 2 years ago | (#39871413)

Actually provided the COWA (Cover Obama's Whereabout Act) that was secretly acknowledged by all the countries of the world and some extraterrestrial lifeform, it is the responsability of Twiter to make sure no secret information are leaked.
The decision of not-a-court-they-are-for-the-others includes a 3 day-2night stay in a Guantanamo Bay hotel for debriefing.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39872065)

Actually provided the COWA (Cover Obama's Whereabout Act) that was secretly acknowledged by all the countries of the world and some extraterrestrial lifeform, it is the responsibility of Twitter to make sure no secret information are leaked.

Don't you mean COWARD ? (Cover Obama's Whereabout Acts of Rhetorical Discourse) :D

Re:Seriously? (1)

boaworm (180781) | about 2 years ago | (#39871667)

Isn't this just grammar?

The company is called Twitter, so if the company would have released the info, the statement would have been "Twitter leaked Obamas visit..."

But, a single message posted on twitter is also referred to as a twitter, or tweet.

So the headline could likewise mean "A Twitter leaked Obamas visit..."

Re:Seriously? (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 2 years ago | (#39871931)

I've never heard messages on Twitter called "twitters", they are called "tweets". Either way, if the entire meaning of a sentence is changed then it can't be considered "just" a grammar error. That would only apply if the intended meaning was obvious despite the mistake.

TOLOnews, the new Wikileaks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39870931)

And, US Govt had no idea...

Twitter? (1)

dlsmith (993896) | about 2 years ago | (#39870959)

Not sure what Twitter has to do with it. Presumably TOLOnews has a Web site they could have leaked the news on if they hadn't used Twitter?

So? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39870961)

I would think it'd be more interesting that Afghanistan's supposed "saviour" has to fly into the country in secret to avoid having his plane shot down. They must really love all that democracy and freedom the americans are spreading over there.

Re:So? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39870991)

Troll

Re:So? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871129)

Hes tring to pull troops out and he needs to fly in in secret I dont agree with the war but to make the lives count we need to finish it

Re:So? (4, Informative)

schwit1 (797399) | about 2 years ago | (#39871713)

President Obama made an unannounced trip to Afghanistan on the first anniversary of the the killing of Osama bin Laden and signed a security agreement that pledges U.S. support through 2024

Re:So? (2)

bbecker23 (1917560) | about 2 years ago | (#39871993)

And that, my friend, is called the sunk cost fallacy.

Re:So? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871365)

Ignorant fucking american. Next time someone crashes a plane into a building over there try standing a little closer.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871067)

Careful now. They might come and "Liberate" yours.

Give it up. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871001)

You can no longer have things public in one part of the world and secret in another. Whether it's making different (politically convenient) statements at home and abroad, or opsec for something like this -- it doesn't work. You gotta keep it secret everywhere, or count on it being public everywhere. Maybe you'll get lucky and it won't come out, but you can't count on that anymore.

That said -- I'm not sure it was a "leak" in any opsec sense, or at least not the twitter part. If the local press were talking about it (on twitter or not), then it was (whether intended or not) public info in Afghanistan, which is the place you'd want it locked down. Maybe the press was supposed to be sitting on it for opsec reasons (protip: if you don't want the press talking about it, the only reliable solution is not telling them), but the fact that the world outside Afghanistan knows is immaterial.

Visibility (2)

maz2331 (1104901) | about 2 years ago | (#39871455)

Air Force One has to be the most uniquely recognizable aircraft on the planet. It's kind of hard to keep quiet when it flies into someplace, unless they flew in on a nondescript plane.

Re:Visibility (1)

isorox (205688) | about 2 years ago | (#39871883)

Air Force One has to be the most uniquely recognizable aircraft on the planet. It's kind of hard to keep quiet when it flies into someplace, unless they flew in on a nondescript plane.

They have more than 1 plane that looks like airforce 1. Get half a dozen of them, and fly one to Singapore, one to South Africa, one to Baghdad, one to Rio, one to Tokyo, and one to Kabul.

Correction (-1, Troll)

Cosgrach (1737088) | about 2 years ago | (#39871003)

It should have read that 'Obama is a twit"...

They just got it wrong.

Twitter is a communication medium (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871005)

Substitute another (imagine "Telephone leaked Obama's Visit to Afghanistan") to see how truly silly your headline is.

Oh snap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871013)

And watch the reporter from TOLOnews who did the tweet will quietly "disappear" never to be heard from again.

Workaround is obvious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871017)

Leak nonexistent trips of Obama and other brass on a semi-regular basis, until the enemy tires of responding to cries of wolf.

Darn that internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871041)

Strange how in the world of nigh-instantaneous global communication, extraordinarily public figures trying to arrange secret meetings become significantly more difficult. Wonder how he'll backpedal about this when he people assumingly start asking questions as to why he wanted it to be a secret meeting.

Also: summary title is idiotic. It makes about as much sense as saying "Comcast sending billions of spam emails to users!!!!" But like all stories now on Slashdot, they've gotta use a horrendously inaccurate headline to draw as many ad-views as possible *sigh*.

Re:Darn that internet (1)

Imrik (148191) | about 2 years ago | (#39871523)

The explanation has already been given, he wanted the meetings to be secret so he wouldn't be killed while he was there.

Twitter is clearly a danger to American Freedom &# (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871045)

How long until the government starts censoring Twitter for "national security" reasons?

Re:Twitter is clearly a danger to American Freedom (1)

raind (174356) | about 2 years ago | (#39871389)

Like it's not done already?

Worst headline.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871049)

Of the last few hours.

Memes (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#39871085)

More like TROLOLOLONews, amirite?

(crickets)

Ah, the hell with ya.

Anyway, it wasn't leaked until he was on the ground in Kabul? Is that so bad?

Re:Memes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871115)

Well, there WAS a 4 hour battle in a the capital not long afterward.....

Re:Memes (-1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 2 years ago | (#39871207)

So what your asking is : is it bad that the president of the United States of America is lying to his own country and the whole world to meet Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai ?

That's the whole question behind the article. Why does he need to keep it a secret in the first place ? I could go on with conspiracy theories but I don't like posting without hard fact or proof. All I have to say is it's not all the time that he keeps a secret when he goes out of his country so why is this one secret ? The tension is so strong in the middle-east that this visit, that is suppose to be a secret, is very odd if you ask me.

Re:Memes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871263)

because he does not want to get blown up?

Re:Memes (3, Informative)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 2 years ago | (#39871343)

Presidential visits to Iraq and Afghanistan have been unannounced for as long as I can remember, this is not unusual.

Re:Memes (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#39871369)

That's the whole question behind the article. Why does he need to keep it a secret in the first place ?

Because it is an active warzone, perhaps? And that there are many, many people right outside the wire with the motive and means to try to take down AF1?

Re:Memes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871387)

If you can't understand the security concerns and the difference between flying to Paris or Kabul, you should lurk more and post less.

Re:Memes (1)

asylumx (881307) | about 2 years ago | (#39871509)

I was coming here to post a question about how long it would be before someone made this President Obama's fault, but I see you've already taken care of it. Congrats on your trolling efficiency!

Re:Memes (2)

TJ_Phazerhacki (520002) | about 2 years ago | (#39871611)

The president's specific travel itinerary has been considered a matter of secrecy for years. When the specific route of travel is generally known, bad things can happen (just ask Mr. Kennedy, oh, wait...) This is not odd at all. The tension in the middle east has been high for the last two thousand years, and does not dictate whether we know when our country's leader is flying or not. I actually find it reasonably comforting that this managed to stay "secret" for as long as it did.

Re:Memes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871399)

Before he had landed, actually. That's why the press secretary's statement that he wasn't in Kabul was factually true, while still not being honest. Sure, he wasn't /in/ Kabul, he was in a plane on its way /to/ Kabul.

That could have potentially led to a SAM strike by the forces fighting nearby.

Why fabricate this? (1)

djbckr (673156) | about 2 years ago | (#39871169)

Is there something so special about going to Afganistan that required a fabricated story about Obama being here? Why would the government do this? I would really like to know.

Re:Why fabricate this? (4, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 years ago | (#39871267)

The president flying into an active warzone is usually kept secret.
As would be for any head of state flying into a warzone.

You don't really want to give some nutjob with a Stinger the landing time and flightpath, do you?

Gotta love that... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871171)

...openness he was preaching about.

Hypocrite.
He is just like any other leader now, a corrupt liar.
Being on top has crushed his soul enough for him to outright lie to those he is representing.

Why is such a stupidly common thing covered up?
Big deal, he is going to meet some dude from another country, leaders do that all the damn time, why the cover-up?

I honestly don't know anymore. Such minor things being treated as if it is the meeting that determines the future of human history or other such nonsense. Who knows.
Let the conspiracy theories flow!

Re:Gotta love that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871675)

You can't think of a non-corruption-based theory for why the President of the United States wouldn't want to announce that he's going to be landing in Kabul, Afghanistan? Are you, you know, an idiot?

You're the kind of moron who would have called your dad a hypocrite for spanking you for lying to him, but then he himself lying to the S.S. about being a Jew.

Internet leaked Obama's Visit To Afghanistan (1)

microbee (682094) | about 2 years ago | (#39871195)

Enough said.

Re:Internet leaked Obama's Visit To Afghanistan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871593)

ARPA ultimately responsible for threatening POTUS security - now, that's a headline!

Locked down even tighter (1)

jweller13 (1148823) | about 2 years ago | (#39871289)

What this means is info on a presidents trips will be locked down even further. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

Re:Locked down even tighter (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#39871867)

What this means is info on a presidents trips will be locked down even further. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing.

Did you know about Presidential trips, including flight plans, before any sort of lockdown?

Will you know about Presidential trips, including flight plans, after any sort of lockdown?

If the answer is the same for both of these questions, then why exactly do you care if it's a good or bad thing.

Counter-Intelligence (1)

code_08 (1203684) | about 2 years ago | (#39871293)

Couldn't the white house just as easily fabricated a few twitter stories that would correlate with that fabricated agenda? It wouldn't even need to be a very good story - just good enough to cause confusion as to where Obama actually was.

tisk tisk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871309)

I *still* can't believe they're letting a chimpanzee aboard Air Force One....

Re:tisk tisk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871439)

I *still* can't believe they're letting a chimpanzee aboard Air Force One....

I *still* can't believe that there's one woman out there who, even after reading your post, would still consider you her pride and joy.

Re:tisk tisk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871715)

They're not. Bush only gets on board Air Force One if the President invites him along to some international event like a funeral or something.

(For those not getting the joke, google "Bush Chimp", and you'll see a whole lot of funny pics)

Re:tisk tisk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871815)

Really?? How funny is it that Bush is the one being called a chimp when, in fact, Obama is closer to the chimpanzee in the evolutionary chain!

Metaphors (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 2 years ago | (#39871447)

The first tweet to let the virtual cat out of the bag...

When is the physical cat ever let out of the bag?

Re:Metaphors (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 2 years ago | (#39872039)

Well if you don't ever let the physical cat out of the bag, then you'll just end up with a bag with a dead cat in it. And that's no fun for anyone.

This is a Boring Story without Prostitutes (1)

WarpedCore (1255156) | about 2 years ago | (#39871487)

Was this a controlled leak? The entire article that was linked paints such a negative view on Twitter. The White House, in conjunction with the DoD, makes such a charade out of the "journalists" travelling with him, fake itineraries, and outright denial he's actually in Afghanistan.

Really? This is a Slashdot story? (1)

triceice (1046486) | about 2 years ago | (#39871705)

Leaks about Presidential itineraries are not really big news. Thanks for keeping us losers abreast. Even adding in the Twitter reference this is really hardly worth our time.

Re:Really? This is a Slashdot story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871907)

I guess the only reason why is because Twitter was involved lol

Secret Visit Underscores Failed Mission (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39871851)

Twitted or not, when a President can't openly visit a place it has spent 10 years trying to tame, it shows how hopeless things are.

VIOLATION (1)

glorybe (946151) | about 2 years ago | (#39871967)

This really did endanger the President as well as national security. I assume that arrests will be involved.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>