Monday, July 7, 2008

An Outing at the NYT

Against his and the CIA's wishes, The NYT outs the operative who interrogated Khalid Shaikh Mohommad.

Let's see, when the Bush Administration supposedly "outed" CIA bureaucrat Valerie Plame the NYT wanted a full criminal investigation.

But there is nothing wrong with THEIR doing it. The shameful hypocrisy continues.

24 Comments:

Anonymous r said...

We need to get back to shooting Lib traitors who aid our enemies.
When our Military is done in Iraq, they should then bomb the NYT building.
No, I'm not kidding.

July 7, 2008 at 8:59 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 7, 2008 at 10:46 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Dave's recounting of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle is at odds with the facts and history.

This addresses it pretty well.

The Washington Post summed it up in a editorial dated Sept. 1, 2006, this way:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

July 8, 2008 at 7:43 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

While Ms. Plame's outing "ended her" time in the CIA it began her new career as a darling of the fruitcake left and a faux victim of right-wing thuggery.

She wrote a book. Posed for photos with her husband while still supposedly a "covert" agent in Vanity Fair and milked the controversy for all it was worth.

In so far as she participated in her own outing, encouraging her husband, meeting clandestinely with a NYT columnist, etc. only a sucker with a hard-left political agenda would feel sorry for her.

July 8, 2008 at 7:52 AM 
Blogger Franny Ward said...

Hey "r"? You really shouldn't post threats or promises like bombing the NYT building and shooting Americans.

In reality, the CIA and NSA most likely visit this blog, as they do my own. They may be paying you a visit in the next few days.

Lighten up, We're all in this together, right?

Cheers

July 8, 2008 at 10:06 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Spencerblog

Gil, I can't believe you continue to let R post on this site. I was chastised for using profanity (rightfully so), but it's OK for this guy to encourage violence?

July 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 8, 2008 at 10:39 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 8, 2008 at 10:40 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Dave

Maybe Spencer is RR. LOL

July 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

(sigh) Nice try, Libs. But I didn’t personally threaten anyone. As you well know, since you read my post, I advocated that “we” –meaning us as a society/country get back to shooting traitors, as we well should, and that the U.S. “Military” bomb the NYT -since they are treasonous enemies of America in our midst who regularly provide direct aid to our sworn enemies by revealing State secrets in our war on terror.

I’ve got nothing to hide anyway. They can snoop my emails and tap my phone calls and come check my harddrive all they want. Actually, if the SS did come that might be good. I might make the papers and my expressed views about Lib traitors and what we should do about them would get broader exposure. Maybe even national exposure!

Besides, isn’t killing our enemies better than, say, Dave Diano saying how he’d like to see company executives killed just because he personally doesn’t like their legal products? I don’t recall any of you Lib weepers jumping him for that. Not to mention how he regularly mentions violence against others here for merely disagreeing with his warped Lib views. Maybe that’s why Dave didn’t join in too much with the dishonest Lib piling on here.

I’ve been at this awhile. I’ve been through it all before. Libs are so predictable. They lose on the blog battlefield so they resort to other underhanded ways in attempting to silence their opponents. Next up… Cue the weeping Lib email to Mr. Heron complaining about my “threat” here.

I would expect such from that coward Boring Bob, since I’ve hurt his fragile feminine feelings so many times here. Go stab your soldier son in the back some more, BB, and get off my leg.


Back to the topic…

darling of the fruitcake left and a faux victim of right-wing thuggery.
milked the controversy for all it was worth.
only a sucker with a hard-left political agenda would feel sorry for her.


Indeed! You sure have Dave down to a T, G! Lol…

July 8, 2008 at 11:09 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

RR

Oh yes- the Chicken Hawk Randal referring to someone who holds an honorable discharge for service to his country, as a coward. The same Randal that say's he wants to spit in the faces of mothers who have lost their sons in Iraq, who says we (meaning Randal)aren't personally affected by the war, refered to slavery as being "cool",now wants to shoot people who exercise their right to disent, and calls for the bombing to the NYT building. Randal, everytime you post, you stab everyone who has ever fought for our rights as Americans in the back. You are by far the most anti American poster on this blog.

Yea. Get off your leg so you can make room for Larry Craig?

July 8, 2008 at 12:34 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

David,

That's pretty funny.

"Nobody associated Joe Wilson with his wife until the White House orchestrated the leak that connected them."

You don't think NYT's Nicholas Kristof "associated" Joe Wilson with his wife when they met secretly to discuss the Niger mission?

By the way do you think she had the permission of the CIA to meet with a NYT columnist to discuss classified material? Do you think there is any chance she was committing a felony in doing so?

Nevermind. The point is -- if you read a little history -- you'll understand that a lot of Washington knew that Wilson was sent on his excursion to Niger at the recommendation of his wife, not the office of the Vice President as Wilson claimed.

That it wasn't Bush insiders that were gossiping about the connection but Dick Armitage over in the State Department. He was Novak's source.

But the left has its goofball conspiracy narrative and likes it.
At least some fair-minded liberals like those at the Post saw Joe Wilson for what he was, a self-promoting liar and fraud.

July 8, 2008 at 4:50 PM 
Anonymous r said...

How about that 550 metric tons of yellow cake they removed from Iraq and sent to Canada. Turns out that there WERE Weapons of Mass Destruction in Saddam’s Iraq after all! I guess all that weeping about how “Bush lied!” was, well, crap.

Saddam removed, WMDs found and removed, democracy in place, violence down, terrorists on the run… and all for the cost of 4000 soldiers over the span of five years… It’s looking like the Iraq war wasn’t such a bad thing after all. Bush is looking pretty darn good right about now. Suck it, Libs.

July 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 8, 2008 at 6:34 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

kinda makes you wonder what side the NYT is on? Rather disappointing. The information age is going too far.

July 8, 2008 at 9:06 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Lib “free speech” and “dissent” go too far …all the way to treason.

July 8, 2008 at 9:26 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

randal, i don't believe the bush administration is alone in many of their dealings. the info age has made just about everything public. There are certain things we really don't need to bring to the public forum, we're attempting to cripple ourselves. And certain media sources like the NYT are out for their own personal gains.

And I thought the over-abundance of the Clinton affairs in the 90s were bad...

July 8, 2008 at 9:46 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Davey,
Covert CIA operatives are not legally allowed to meet with the press unless they are so authorized by the agency.

That Plame used her husband as a cut-out to pass information to the press, (including her own identity as an agent, though it was not revealed by Kristof) is no legal defense.

That she was not charged with a crime was a political decision not a legal one. She could have been charged, prosecuted and summarily fired for her conduct.

July 8, 2008 at 11:48 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 9, 2008 at 11:12 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Dave/Gil

An interesting take on this. When this all started, I watched an interview with a retired CIA employee. His main concern was that the outing of Plame would make it easier for foreign intel agencies to figure out who other operatives were. A piece in the puzzle revealed.

Gil- Using Wilson wouldn't have had anything to do with the fact that he served as a diplomat to both Iraq and several Africa nations, along with working for the National Security Council under Clinton would it?

July 9, 2008 at 6:01 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Like most journalists, Kristof protects his sources. But it is bizarre to think he didn't know Plame was a CIA agent when he spoke to her and husband at that breakfast meeting. Any journalist of Kristof's stature and experience would know that, take my word for it. If not mine, ask some left-wing journo and he or she will tell you.

Meeting and conspiring with a NYT columnist to leak classified (mis)information is against the law for CIA operatives. If you don't think that's what Plame did you really don't understand the dangerous game she and her husband were playing.

Wilson misrepresented (apparently for political purposes) what he reported to back to the CIA after his wife proposed him for the mission to Niger. Two CIA agents testified to that before a Senate Select Committee.

Government officials, including CIA agents, frequently break the law by leaking technically classified info to favored journalists.

Generally, it isn't made into a huge deal. But after Valerie Plame's name found its way into a Bob Novak column (his source was not a Bush confidante, it was Asst. Sec. of State Richard Armitage), the NYT demanded an independent counsel because it was more important to them that the Bush Administration be embarrassed than it was to protect press sources.

As the Washington Post explained the whole investigatory enterprise was a wrong-headed waste of time. No one was ever charged or convicted of violating the Intelligence Identities act.

WaPo blamed the narcissistic Joe Wilson. But the whole thing wouldn't have happened without his wife's heavy involvement.

In the meantime and more recently, the NYT reveals the name of the CIA agent who interrogated Khalid Shaikh Mohommed.

This after a congressional hearing featuring Ms. Plame's testimony about the near sanctity of protecting the names of CIA agents and personnel.

Beautiful.

July 9, 2008 at 11:37 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 10, 2008 at 1:38 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Diano would make a lousy journalist. He can't even quote someone correctly when the quote is staring him right in the face.

I didn't write it is "bizarre that he (Kristof) didn't figure it out".

I wrote "...it is bizarre to think he (Kristof) didn't know Plame was a CIA agent when he spoke to her and husband at that breakfast meeting. Any journalist of Kristof's stature and experience would know that, take my word for it."

That's what I wrote.

In Diano's bizarro world, NYT columnists are such idiots they don't even know who they're speaking with.

Any competent journalist writing such a story would pump a CIA analyst for all the info he could get. How much that analyst would talk would depend on how seriously she takes her oath and how much she trusted the journalist. It's certainly easier and safer to use a spouse to pass the sort of disinformation she apparently wanted conveyed about the Bush Administration.

The story being peddled by Wilson and Plame was that the Bush administration ignored his report that (he claimed) debunked Saddam's efforts to acquire yellowcake from Niger.

That report which was verbally provided by Wilson to two CIA analysts did NO SUCH THING, according the agents who debriefed him.

A Senate Intelligence Committee hearing proved as much and that is why the Washington Post finally dismissed Wilson as a self-promoting liar.

If Kristof doesn't feel badly used by Wilson and Plame, he should. So should the Times.

Wilson pretended to know more than he did and misrepresented the little he did find out on his trip to Niger.

For not discouraging her husband from sharing classified information with the NYT, and for being present when those discussions were taking place, Plame is as responsible as anyone for her "cover" being blown.

Only left-wing fruitcakes have been duped into feeling sorry for her. No one has more cynically used their position or her gender to make it appear as if she were a victim.

July 10, 2008 at 9:31 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

July 11, 2008 at 2:18 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home