IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Hey Marlowe, a question for ya
[link|http://antiwar.com/justin/|http://antiwar.com/justin/]
Khan, dubbed a "computer geek" on account of his technical prowess, functioned as a one-man information hub for Al Qaeda, coordinating and forwarding messages between the top leadership and Bin Laden's foot-soldiers worldwide. Once captured, Khan "flipped" and agreed to cooperate. CIA interrogators had him sending emails to his former confederates all day Sunday and Monday of last week, and getting back encrypted replies. On Monday morning, however, the Times came out with its story, naming Khan and reporting his disclosures as the real basis of the code orange security alerts issued by Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge. The Times cited both Pakistani and U.S. government officials.

It is hard to know what to make of this. Either these unidentified officials had certain knowledge that Bin Laden's New York Times subscription had run out, or else someone deliberately sabotaged a top secret anti-terrorist operation while it was in progress.

As is so often the case with this administration, one is faced with the question: is it incompetence, or is it treason?
so which is it? Knowing of course the leak could have come from a Dem on the intel boards, or does it depend on who leaked it? :-)
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New It certainly does matter who leaked it.
If it was a US official, it's treason.

Perhaps Dubya's single biggest mistake was keeping on all those Clinton holdovers in State and the CIA. The kind of experience and expertise they brought to the table were the kind we're better off without.

Witness Joe Wilson.

Say, I wonder if Senator Kerry was in the loop on this one? Did he decide to attend a briefing?

But let's calm down for a moment and reflect. Antiwar.com is not the most trustworthy source, and the New York Times is going through some troubled, er, times.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"All the news you wish would go away"
Iraq is free, and there's nothing you can do about it. DEAL WITH IT.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
New actually it was Condi Rice
[link|http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5913350|http://www.reuters.c...s&storyID=5913350]
Asked about the release of Khan's name, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said it was a hard line to draw between giving the public too much or too little information about terrorist threats.

"We did not, of course, publicly disclose his name," Rice said, adding that it had been given "on background." She did not say when or by whom the name was first revealed.
yes I know reuters is foreign but somewhat reliable

I dont beleive she is a Clintonian holdover, I rather like Justin's take, America the best Ally Al Quida can have. It certainly appears that way on the surface.
thanx,
bill
"delayed incessantly by people whose prevalent qualification was an excess of free-time" Philip Atkinson
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
     Hey Marlowe, a question for ya - (boxley) - (2)
         It certainly does matter who leaked it. - (marlowe) - (1)
             actually it was Condi Rice - (boxley)

Bad command or filename.
115 ms