BushCo outs our al-Qaeda infiltrator?! (Incompetent, malevolent, who gives a flip??)

As we went over in the Palme case, there is no “cat out of the bag” clause in either common sense nor security policy. The cat is never really out of the bag until it’s officially confirmed. Indeed, the actions of the White House appears to have actually worked to CALL ATTENTION to the outing. Otherwise it might even have gone unnoticed.

And given Rice’s admission, the NYT angle may be moot anyway.

I’m not so much concerned about who specifically outed Khan - what really distesses me is this incident no doubt has pissed-off the Brit and Pakistani intelligence personnel who were working with him (the Brits were forced to hurriedly wrap-up an ongoing investigation; word is, one of the twelve that was rounded up was let go and its been suggested that the others may be released as well). The negative repersussions with the Brits and Pakistani intel folks will impact our (US) effort in dealing effectively with Al Qaeda.

Truly, a terrible blow to our intelligence efforts in combating terrorism.

Your haiku is obviously superior to my kung-fu.

I shall retreat and post some other day.

The Art of War is very clear on this circumstance.

PS: How did you make that crazy haiku with all of those extra syllables?

I don’t understand. Why would it be moot? Someone leaked the name to the NYT. Someone leaked the name to the someone who leaked the name to the NYT. Who knew the name in the first place?

I’ll just bet that Sibel Edmonds has been tearing out her hair this past week. She tried to blow the whistle on FBI translators who could be double-agents 2 years ago. In her letter to the 9/11 Commission where she takes them to task for practically ignoring her important and explosive testimony, testimony that has been confirmed by others, she warned us that there were huge holes in the system.

I’d love to hear what she thinks. There was a 60 Minutes feature on her last night, but it was pre-recorded and dates from before Ronald Reagan died, which is when it was first supposed to air.

And as Josh Marshall reminds us, “on background” simply means the reporter can’t identify his/her source; the content is for public consumption, unless other ground rules have been specified.

Marshall quotes the following exchange (and here’s the full transcript from CNN):

Here’s a coupla quick links: , CNN has finally weighed in, The Scotsman has a followup story, and the British Home Secretary is pretty upset with the U.S..

I’d stay and give quotes from those, but I’m chasing down something else. Later.

British Home Secretary David Blunkett is furious:

I can’t recall a senior spokesman for one of our major allies unloading on us like this, ever.

And somebody tell me AGAIN, because it just keeps slipping away from me, why Bush is the guy to vote for if your issue is terrorism?

Anyone?

Now I am getting confused. Perhaps one of you kindly Moore-ons could explain things for me…

The first screechings from you folks were that the terror alert was based on nothing; Mere politics and smoke and mirrors. Where is the information to backup the ludicrous claims of attacks in NY and DC?!? DAMN THAT BUSH FOR NOT TELLING US! But now, the screechings have taken an interesting turn: DAMN THAT BUSH FOR TELLING US! Now that you know that yes indeed, this is some potentially serious shit, you are still getting your panties in a bunch.

Which is it? Would you have been better served as citizens having a terror alert with no data to back it up, or having a terror alert with data to back it up? Which would be taken more seriously?

Of course, your babblings look like blatant fucking hypocrisy; But I know better! I know that under all those hysterics and melodrama, you folks have a logically consistant position on the matter. Right?

Mr. Moto should be along shortly to say that Kerry outed two moles.

These people should be in Gitmo. Or worse.

Actually, I’m the one who’s confused. What does any of this have to do with the rightness or wrongness of revealing the identity of an important mole in Al Queda? Are you saying that you don’t mind having undercover operatives revealed, against the wishes of important allies, in order to reassure the American public?

Actually, I’m the one who’s confused. What does any of this have to do with the rightness or wrongness of revealing the identity of an important mole in Al Queda? Are you saying that you don’t mind having undercover operatives revealed, against the wishes of important allies, in order to reassure the American public?

Actually, I’m the one who’s confused. What does any of this have to do with the rightness or wrongness of revealing the identity of an important mole in Al Queda? Are you saying that you don’t mind having undercover operatives revealed, against the wishes of important allies, in order to reassure the American public?

Arrgh, stupid lag. Mods, could you delete the copies?

Brutus, first of all, if you think that wanting evidence of things like weapons of mass destruction is the same as demanding publishing the names of undercover agents, you’re a complete moron. Second of all, this has nothing to do with partisan politics. Allowing the names of valuable intelligence assets to become public knowledge is a grave, grave mistake. Are you so blinded by fear of a non-Republican president that you will defend anything? Do you not care at all how the president does his job, as long as it says (Republican) after his name?

I really am shocked by this. Classified material is taken so incredibly seriously at the lowest levels (including stuff so boring and unimportant you couldn’t pay someone to read it), that to have something of this magnitude casually allowed to be made public blows me away.

Here’s how I see it.

This threat level bullshit should only be given to law enforcement, don’t tell the general public about a plot to blow such and such up. That way, when a plot gets thwarted, it’s not on the fucking front page and the people involved can skip the plan and get away. The people are actually caught because they didn’t know they were being watched.

There’s a wrench in the plan though. If they* don’t warn us and something happens, then they’re fucked one way (they didn’t do enough), and if they do tell us something is going to happen, they they’re fucked the other way (they are scare mongers). We (not me though) brought this on ourselves because we’re a bunch a little whiny assholes, so enjoy the problem you created.

*they = a dem admin or a repub admin

You know, when an administration bases it’s policies on secret or classified information, that for some reason the public shouldn’t know the details of, they take shit for it. This is right and proper as it keeps the administration, any administration, from just making stuff up so it can do as it damned well pleases without worrying about accountability. Administrations from time immemorial have faced this quandary; release too much, and burn someone, or not release enough, and be accused of making shit up. Most administrations do the right thing, and when it’s necessary, protect their sources, and take a little heat for it. If their actions turn out to be correct, they are quickly forgiven.
But here we have an administration that has not only proven itself to make tragically incorrect judgments based on intelligence (WMD’s anyone?), but they lack the balls to take the political fallout for using good intelligence when they need to. Instead, they leak like Olestra fried potato chips through a fatman. This is not good for the country.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the stars but in ourselves that we are underlings. -William Shakespeare

It is words like the ones you typed here, that show what a inferior, subordinate minion you are.

No matter if the criticisms to Clinton were warranted or not, during the attacks he made to other nations as president; never he made the blunder or decided it was ok to then expose our classified material, or thought it was necessary to uncover spy activities to cover his butt like the current POTUS. That old chestnut is valid here:

“If it is too hot, stay out of the kitchen” since this administration is so obtuse to recognize this, we have to get rid of it in November.

If not sooner, how come there are no quick and swift investigations of the administration like in the Clinton era? Yes, I know, I think having all branches of power under the control of one party is idiotic.

These administration of yahoos are not the people I want controlling the power of America. Heck, when even a spy like Chalabi can get next to the president, why should I trust these idiots to take care of the secrets of America?

Vote these rascals out!

Blogger Steven C. Clemons says one of his sources tells him that the World Trade Centers were among the buildings that Khan’s discs had surveillance info on.

Like the title says, this is rumor and hearsay, so don’t tell me I said otherwise. I’d ask if the press has bothered to ask Ridge whether this is so, but the American press has gone so totally AWOL on this story that the answer is clearly No, they haven’t.

But I’d sure like to know - because if it were true, what it would indicate is that the operation they were doing surveillance for, had already taken place 35 months ago, and this current alert is known BS.

Now (back to solid fact) it was heartwarming to see Laura Bush and the Bush twins share the risk of being blown up by al-Qaeda. I’m trying to get my head around how the Secret Service would have let them knowingly go to a site staked out by terrorists for imminent attack, but I’ll let others wrestle with that.

Nah, I think it’s more about the imaginary taxes Brutus won’t have to pay when he gets rich.

(This is actually why so many middle class and poor people support policies favoring the rich, by the way. Just in case they ever get rich themselves…)

I’d agree that there’s a certain level of hypocracy in complaining that terror alert levels are issued without any information about the specific threat, and also complaining when information about the threats are leaked. This is the reason terror alerts are so undetailed - to do otherwise compromises our sources of information. Sure, conspiracy theories abound about politics and conventions and stuff, but assuming an honest administration (hypothetically!), how much better could one perform this balancing act?

That sounds good until the first cop with loose lips starts telling his friends that ‘something’s up but I can’t tell you what it is’. Then people will start complaining that “our law enforcment agencies and the government are keeping the public in the dark about possible threats.” Besides, it’s a lot easier for Ridge to get up on a podium and say “orange” then it is to quietly get the information to every affected agency.