To me, there was no indication in the article any of this was leaked. The information seemed way too detailed and extensive. What makes everyone think it was a leak?Why not? Sometimes if you do, the punch never has to be delivered. If a general "leaked" the info, IMO it's because they wanted to send NK a message.You don't warn some body that you are going to punch them before you do.The way I read it, it just means we're ready if necessary. Did I miss something?
There are three possibilities
a) It was public testimony in the House
b) The article is wrong (Wash Free has been wrong before)
c) It was a leak of confidential testimony- and unlikely the general would leak it- it would be the White House leaking confidential information- which of course the White House can just declare as non-confidential.