I doubt that anyone would even attempt this.
Surely, there is some way of exonerating the Admin w/o having to account for this. We shall see soon.
Yes, yes it is. There’s quite a lot of blame to go around. This includes the “anonymous on background senior official white house aide person” and, by extention, the Bush administration as a whole. But we shouldn’t forget the reporter.
The White House press corp has become so hungry for any kernel of information they’ll write first and ask questions later. When they grow some balls and stop acting like court stenographers and start becoming what their profession and this country demands of them - investigative journalists - we’ll have a better sense of accountability within this administration.
Enderw24, I may have been whooshed, but I think that lissener is being sarcastic.
I’d thank you not to put words in my mouth, chowderhead. In fact, I take lapses in security mighty seriously.
Let’s just see who’s responsible for this, find out the implications, and deal with the consequences. It’s hardly the first time something like this has happened.
You might recall that Aldrich Ames spied for the Russians under three administrations. I don’t remember that Reagan, Bush I or Clinton were ever tainted by the scandal.
When was the last time that the WH provided the name of a mole to the press?
Refresh me on this one. I’m drawing a blank here.
Oh yes, I know lissener was being sarcastic. My point was that he needent be. It is indeed the reporter’s fault. It’s a lot of people’s fault and blaming one doesn’t mitigate the culpability of the others. But we should certainly blame the reporter, his editor, and the NYT in general because they should have known better than to print this without questioning the wisdom behind doing so.
You are assuming that they would know that the WH would knowingly provide highly sensitive info inappropriate for publication to them to publish, yes?
The WH told them that the info was fit to print.
Who is in a better position to judge what is and is not fit to print- the WH with the backing of more than a dozen intelligence agencies and access to classified information from around the world, or the NYT? I think it’s utterly reasonable fo rthe NYT to take the WH’s word on what info is and is not appropriate to be made public.
I think it’s just silly to expect the NYT to second guess the WH as to what information is safe to release to reporters.
If the WH releases the info for publication, then the NYT has every reason to expect that the info is safe for publication.
The WH are the ones with an obligation not to reveal state secrets to reporters.
And exactly how were they to know that Khan had been not just captured, but ‘flipped’, and was acting on our behalf as a double agent?
I mean, “ask good questions” is practically a mantra with me, and I’m right with you on the failure of the WH press corps to do much of that, but why would a reporter think to ask about a thing like that? Surely the White House doesn’t name its double agents to reporters under any circumstances, is what a rational reporter would assume.
Now if they’d just join the army…
There were major SCIF violations during the Clinton administration at the White House. They involved loading classified disks onto unclassified laptops, and hooking those laptops up to classified networks.
John Deutch, the head of the CIA, was fired in this era for improper computer security.
Not as sexy as a revealed name, I know. But this sort of thing is every bit as dangerous in its potential to deliver information to the enemy. Please recall that we know a lot about al-Qaida because some discarded laptops of theirs were discovered by an American journalist in a market in Afghanistan.
All this is not to excuse present behavior in the slightest. But in a government this big, incidents will happen. They should be punished when they are discovered, but wishing them away is unrealistic.
Well, there was Valerie Plame, but I suppose some would argue what the definition of “mole” is there. I doubt that’s the precedent Mr. Moto wanted to bring up as an excuse, so I too would like to see him document his claim.
Okay. Lemme see if I got this right:
Chances of the identity of a “secret agent” being revealed by the present administration: a damn sight worse than they should be.
Chances of the identity of someone in the awl bidness who dictates government energy policy being revealed by the present administration: fewer than zilch.
Nor should they have been. But their aides, as far as I remember, didn’t hand out the names of agents to the press, did they?
I take this very seriously. But for someone who supposedly posted the thing about Kerry as a joke, you’re a bit tetchy.
So, you are equating inappropriately risky behavior (improper computer security) with the deliberate act of informing the world of a mole’s identity, are you?
Interesting. On one hand is an inappropriate activity that may lead to the exposure of a mole’s identity (but presumably not intended to do so). On the other hand is a deliberate act guaranteed to reveal a mole’s identity.
These are equivalent in the minds of some. Curioser and curioser.
Not even close. If you’re going to go digging for security breaches like that, you could at least stick to cases where secrets have actually gone missing:
UK scientists linked to missing top-secret atomic data It’d be nice if they’d get Los Alamos re-opened sometime this year, so that they can finish the power reactor for the pluto express mission.
So, who do you think should be fired for revealing the identity of our operative within al-Qaeda? Who do you think will be?
[Blowin’ in the wind]
How many fuckups can one Administration have,
without anybody being fired?
[/Blowin’ in the wind]
Funny how a President who routinely preaches personal accountability never fires anyone for fucking up, no matter how big the fuckup.
Valerie P… Wait, she wasn’t a mole, just an undercover agent.
I heard this morning that the UK may not even have enough evidence to hold the AQ operatives they picked up.
Pretty much sums up what’s important to these people, doesn’t it?
I agree with you, but think that your example highlights the remarkable nature of this situation. Errors in security protocol do happen, and are usually punished severely. The example you gave illustrates how seriously classification is taken, since there were severe consequences solely based on the possibility that important information was compromised. The one level at which the protocol breaks down is at the top, where the executive branch has the access to everything but without the oversight at the lower levels. Moreover, it wasn’t an issue of the administration not following protocols (i.e. leaving classified information in an unsecured area) but directly making critical security information public. That’s not a mistake due to the complexity associated with a large bureacracy. That’s criminal incompetence.
Again the WH defense is incompetence.
Mendacity or incompetence in this exposure of a high level mole inside of al Qaeda?
Did the WH know that his guy had flipped? The CIA did, so, the WH could have know if they’d engaged in due diligence.
Did the WH realize that telling the info to the NYT would result in it being read around the world? Many Americans realize that the NYT is read around the world. All that the WH would’ve had to do is ask someone. This is also lack of due diligence.
Unless, this was not a case of incompetence, but instead a case of ‘bad actors’ in the WH. You know that kinds of guys who’d fund the international terrorists that hussein used to support. Character counts. The WH is full of bad characters. It shows all over.
I’m not sure of how much more obvious this must be before some people are willing to admit it.