Comments on: CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: WALKING BACK SLOWLY

By: hindi polyphonic ringtone

hindi polyphonic ringtone — Sun, 18 Jun 2006 05:49:30 +0000

hindi polyphonic ringtone

hindi polyphonic ringtone
You may be recognized soon. Hide.

By: Orion

Orion — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:32:58 +0000

My suspicion is that Priest got the story wrong, she blew it out of proportion, and there really were no “secret CIA prisons” but instead an informal network where al Qaeda terrorists were “remanded” to the CIA for interrogation by the host countries. They question someone who was identified to them as al Qaeda, if they feel the story checks out they send him on to Guantanamo where they have extensive resources for completing the interrogation.

Remember a month ago when the US announced an “air assault” campaign against insurgent strongholds North of Baghdad? The Lame Stream Media interpreted this as bombing strikes and went into hysterical tirades against the US, claiming this meant the US had lost the war in Iraq because they were reduced to “carpet bombing” neighborhoods. Well, “air assault” actually meant, “flying troops by helicopter to hot zones” and there were very few, if any air strikes called agianst insurgent positions.

In the same sense Priest interpreted CIA interrogation programs as “secret CIA prisons” instead of what these really were.

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » CIA Leak: A Blog Primer

Hot Air » Blog Archive » CIA Leak: A Blog Primer — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 02:59:11 +0000

[...] So extensive is the crackdown on leaks, and so adamant has Goss been about plugging them since becoming DCI in 2004 (and with good reason), that some bloggers wondered whether the story about secret prisons might have been floated to McCarthy intentionally as part of a sting. The sting theory stems from the fact that a recent EU probe into the prisons uncovered no evidence of illegal CIA activity there â€“ which some took to mean that the prisons were fictional, and Priestâ€™s story bogus. Not so; as Rick Moran explains, Priest had multiple sources for her report. What’s more, it simply beggars belief to think that CIA higher-ups would have concocted a story as incendiary as one involving secret prisons in the expectation that it might end up in the Washington Post. In all likelihood, it was the fact that she worked in the rarefied air of the IG’s office that led investigators to her. Quoth WaPo: “[Some intelligence officials] pointed out that the information in question was known by so few people that the number of suspected leakers was fairly small, enabling investigators to work swiftly.” (emphasis mine) There was no sting; McCarthy simply got caught. [...]

By: Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:00:32 +0000

“However, Priest is a top notch reporter, one of the most insightful national security writers out there and I find it difficult to believe she would simply lie outright in fabricating a story that would have such enormous consequences.”

Like Dan Rather and Mary Mapes?

You really need to grasp the “Will to Power”.

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Mon, 24 Apr 2006 02:23:16 +0000

Andrew,

The best way to do what was done is to “blow” a false story.

If the story is false you can control the leaks and very few are in a need to know position.

In this case the fact that the story is false directly plays into the “harming American interests” claim. No whistle blowing possible.

I have more to say here.

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:11:58 +0000

If you want to make a false story stick even for a while it has to have multiple sources.

Read “Bodyguard of Lies” about WW2 deception.

Nothing has been changed except the names.

By: walt

walt — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:14:21 +0000

Strange that the Priest has multiple sources and the European commission can’t find any.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 04:41:21 +0000

As part of the intelligence community, I very seriously doubt this was any kind of sting operation. The CIA would never compromise an actual operation, especially a controversial and politically sensitive one such as this.

And one thing to note - people are assuming that McCarthy, on her own volition, told the reporter about this program. A perfectly reasonable scenario is that the reporter learned of the prisons from another source and McCarthy verified the information. I haven’t read anything that indicates McCarthy was the original source of the leak. If I’ve missed it, please let me know.

By: steve sturm

steve sturm — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:14:27 +0000

Great minds must think alike, as I too was just re-reading Dana Priest’s story and being reminded that she had more than one source - at least four by my count. If it were a sting, it was very well orchestrated.

By: The American Princess

The American Princess — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:03:16 +0000

Plugging The Pulitzer Leaks

Reporters often cite "the public’s right to know" as the catch all auspice under which they publish classified information from government officials. There are others: "whistleblowing," "voicing concerns," "hol…