Big Journalism SOS
[Guest post by DRJ]
Big Journalism warns about treason at the New York Times:
“I have just received word that the New York Times is preparing to go public with a list of names of Americans covertly working in Afghanistan providing force protection for our troops, as well as the rest of our Coalition Forces. If the Times actually sees this through, the red ink they are drowning in will be nothing compared to the blood their entire organization will be covered with. Make no mistake, the Times is about to cause casualty rates in Afghanistan to skyrocket. Each and every American should be outraged.”
— DRJ
They must have appointed Phillip Agee as Editor-in-Chief!
AD - RtR/OS! (4a0d27) — 4/14/2010 @ 2:13 pmEven the NY Times would not stoop this low, would they?
JD (18e145) — 4/14/2010 @ 2:33 pmI agree with JD. Sounds overblown. The CIA connection sounds nuts.
nk (db4a41) — 4/14/2010 @ 2:42 pmWould the NY Times stoop this low?
Yes, in a New York second, then send a reporter out to interview the grieving widows and get pictures of the children with tears running down their cheeks after being asked if they miss their daddy.
ropelight (c09f11) — 4/14/2010 @ 2:49 pmWhy do people continue to pay for Anti-american propaganda in the NYSlimes. I wouldn’t pay a penny for a copy, unless I was housebreaking a dog.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 4/14/2010 @ 3:08 pmWhy does the NYSlimes have one subscriber left? Guess the anti-american liberal democrats believe anything they read from what was once (years ago) an honest news outlet. Cancel your subscriptions and laugh as they go bankrupt.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 4/14/2010 @ 3:14 pmIf the NYT goes ahead and posts these names, it would only be appropriate for some organization to post the names, pictures, and home addresses of NYT journalists and editors.
AD - RtR/OS! (4a0d27) — 4/14/2010 @ 3:31 pmWhat could go wrong, none of them live in a war zone.
Tough question for the NYT. Materially damage Obama’s credibility in return for a body blow against the USA and the Defense Dept.
Decisions, decisions. Which would be worse for the USA…it was so much easier when Bush was POTUS.
iconoclast (09be6f) — 4/14/2010 @ 3:37 pmDon’t they have better things to do, like publishing a story about a fictitious affair between a lobbyist and a prominent GOP politico, all based on “unnamed sources?” Unmitigated arseholes.
Dmac (21311c) — 4/14/2010 @ 3:40 pmI still remember watching those two weasely NYT reporters on Lehrer’s PBS show, attempting to justify their treasonous actions. Not that anyone on the show was holding them accountable, of course.
Dmac (21311c) — 4/14/2010 @ 3:42 pmI don’t think they want to do this. Hmmm, Michael Yon was just recently suddenly dis-embedded. Connection?
htom (412a17) — 4/14/2010 @ 4:17 pm“While I have been adverse to mentioning Kappes by name, when I was informed last night that the CIA had leaked to the New York Times the names of Americans covertly providing Force Protection to our troops in Afghanistan and that the Times was going to run with those names, I couldn’t hold back any longer.”
Brad Thor, bigjournalism.com/bthor/2010/04/14/update-cias-deputy-director-suddenly-decides-to-retire
This is going to be an interesting interagency fiasco, or a bigjournalism.com reporting fiasco.
Cyrus Sanai (311cd8) — 4/14/2010 @ 4:43 pmOutrage doesn’t seem to stop the Times.
kansas (cd022b) — 4/14/2010 @ 5:07 pmSo the NYT is the leader of the Fifth Column and the surprise is what, exactly?
GeneralMalaise (51dd09) — 4/14/2010 @ 5:14 pmRupert Murdoch was wrong when he described Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger as a poofter, a girly man.
Arthur is a treasonous poofter/girly man.
GeneralMalaise (51dd09) — 4/14/2010 @ 5:18 pmThis does sound so disgusting that I would need more than 1 source. This is simply an act of war against our country if it’s accurate.
But the 2007 NIE proves to me that the CIA is willing to do terrible things to win political battles. They knew they were lying, and they know the consequences of their lie if very serious. Bush was completely hampered from any kind of last minute airstrike.
Further, the NYT has exposed legal methods of fighting terrorists in our constant and deadly war with them. they did adjust their tactics, and there’s no way them learning of the program from the NYT didn’t save some terrorists from capture or death. Therefore, the NYT already has blood on her hands.
But this is going quite a bit further than that. It’s going to take some more evidence, and I’ll just wait and see.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/14/2010 @ 5:34 pmThis is Brad Thor’s third or fourth article about the turf war between the DOD and the CIA on this issue. He hasn’t been smacked down on it yet. Why would he with this latest post?
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/14/2010 @ 5:50 pmdaley, no doubt Brad Thor has more credibility than, say, the NYT. But it’s a serious accusation and it requires multiple confirmation or some serious proof.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/14/2010 @ 6:07 pmI’m shocked.
Maybe they are trying to beat wikileaks to the punch
Steve G (7d4c78) — 4/14/2010 @ 6:15 pmcomment self moderated
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/14/2010 @ 6:20 pmits telling that the NYT hasn’t denied it. that’s an indicator right there. my guess is they are out trying to buy black market testosterone so they have the stones to publish.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/14/2010 @ 6:22 pmThey’re trying to hire security, without telling them the reason that they need to hire security.
AD - RtR/OS! (4a0d27) — 4/14/2010 @ 6:28 pmIf true, Patrick Fitzgerald (that’s the name, right?) ought to be assigned as a special prosecutor. If he can’t do an adequate job getting at true “leakers” after his harrassment of Libby, then he should be put on trial for treason as well.
All that fuss about the non-exposure of a non-covert agent driving into Langley and then turn around and give up the identity of true coverts in a theatre of battle?
Whoever in the CIA or DOD is causing the mischief needs to be arrested, tried, convicted, and put to death for treason. Otherwise, let those who play the games raise the stakes and take care of each other.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/14/2010 @ 6:29 pmScrapiron : I have been reading the NYT since the mid-forties. When was it an “honest news outlet?” It was just as slanted in the forties just as it is today. The only difference was that, in the forties, they were slightly better at hiding things. No internet, you see!
Longwalker (996c34) — 4/14/2010 @ 6:31 pmOnly tangentially related, but I love Brad Thor’s books. And he is a Park City guy, which makes him even cooler.
JD (18e145) — 4/14/2010 @ 6:45 pmIf true, Patrick Fitzgerald (that’s the name, right?) ought to be assigned as a special prosecutor. If he can’t do an adequate job getting at true “leakers” after his harassment of Libby, then he should be put on trial for treason as well.
Spot on, MD! Not too late to have “Fitzmas, 2010”.
GeneralMalaise (d23929) — 4/14/2010 @ 6:46 pmActually, Mr. Fitz is rather tied up in Chicago these days with respect to the soon to begin Blago trial. Some more of the government’s documents and wire tap transcrips were released today. They are amazing reading. Blago will be Fitzmas 2010 for all the Republicans running in IL this fall. Sweet.
elissa (2a68aa) — 4/14/2010 @ 6:57 pmI am not going to believe that the CIA is looking to out DOD (DIA?) personnel and maybe get them killed. I am not. I think this story is paranoia from people with Ayn Rand’s picture on the crotch of their pajamas.
nk (db4a41) — 4/14/2010 @ 7:49 pmnk, for all we know, if this story is at all real, the CIA leaked the story to Thor when it was clear the NYT was getting out of hand with releasing too much detail.
But there’s no doubt whatsoever that the Times is willing to help kill US Troops by leaking embarrassing information. To many, damaging the war effort will end the war, so the ends justify the means. They CIA claims the greatest threat in the world is nukes in the wrong hands, and yet some at the CIA played games with that issue, lying about Iran’s efforts in order to play a very serious political game. If Iran gets nukes, the CIA deserves some blame for the potential catastrophe.
I realize this report is taking that kind of game to an entirely less sane level. You could be right… this story could be a complete myth. Sure hope so.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:05 pmWhere are the apoplectic masses who wanted Scooter Libby and Karl Rove shot dead for having nothing to do with outing a spy who was already outed in the DC High Society rags?
HeavenSent (a9126d) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:13 pmI’m not sure what to worry about more:
1. People who think people actually wear Ayn Rand underwear.
2. People who actually wear Obama underwear:
http://www.irregularnews.com/politicalthongshop.html
3. Or the New York Times.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:25 pmWearing Barcky underwear is far less offensive than the supplicant role taken on by the media, Ag80.
JD (18e145) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:29 pmRe: post #27… that is suhhhweeeeet, elissa!
GeneralMalaise (d23929) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:32 pmThat underwear makes for a good souvenir…
Steve G (7d4c78) — 4/14/2010 @ 8:39 pmIf this is true, nothing will happen. It’s a clear violation of the laws of the United States, but do you think Sulzberger gives a damn about that? And do you think Barack Obama is going to fulfill his duties and prosecute the laws of the United States when the target is the New York Times?
If they do this, it would be at least two and a half to three years before we could get people in authority who would bring charges, and by then it would be a case of “too much time has passed” to make it worth the political conflagration.
Which is why Bush should have said damn the torpedoes and gone after the NYT with everything he had when they revealed the Terrorist Surveillance Program and then the SWIFT terrorist finances tracking program. Particularly the latter. That was pretty cut-and-dried illegal and Bush didn’t do anything about it.
skwiself (63b7ff) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:32 pmEveryone knows, of course, we’re arguing as if the New York Times really matters anymore.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/14/2010 @ 9:38 pmdustin – If you have not read Thor’s earlier posts on the subject, they are worth the time. My point is that this feud has been simmering for a while. If there were any denials to be made about the infighting, it seems like they would have surfaced by now. With respect to the NYT, that’s tougher to prove. They can always spike the story and say they never had anything.
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/14/2010 @ 10:15 pmthe past is prologue, they leaked the location of several safehouses, not so long ago, the CIA status of Karzai’s brother, the name of one of the key interrogators of KSM, data on the rendition flights, of course the SWIFT terrorist finance tracking, that’s just off the top of my head
ian cormac (022264) — 4/14/2010 @ 10:45 pmdaleyrocks:
True, but if they do have a story like this, could they bring themselves to spike it?
DRJ (daa62a) — 4/14/2010 @ 11:06 pmDRJ – If they run it, is Thor proved correct? Conversely, if nothing runs, is he wrong?
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/14/2010 @ 11:46 pmA certain M.Jobert from Alsace could handle this matter quite well.
AD - RtR/OS! (4a0d27) — 4/14/2010 @ 11:58 pmdaleyrocks,
I don’t know if we’ll ever know the full story, whether they run it or not. My point was simply that most journalists would be hard-pressed not to publish if they have a big story.
DRJ (09fa6c) — 4/15/2010 @ 12:29 amOddly, they are going to prosecute the guy that (reading between the lines) leaked the NSA wiretap info to the NYT.
Kevin Murphy (5ae73e) — 4/15/2010 @ 9:14 amComment by Kevin Murphy — 4/15/2010 @ 9:14 am
Notice that the guy they’re going to prosecute works for that evil agency that doesn’t exist…
AD - RtR/OS! (7055a4) — 4/15/2010 @ 9:56 amnot for the Crappy Ingrates of America.
They’ll cut a deal with him where he’ll get a slap on the wrist and a good chewing out – so as not to involve the dear Gray Lady.
skwiself (63b7ff) — 4/15/2010 @ 10:09 amskwiself, you’re right to hold Bush responsible. He was the President and the CIA should have served him rather than undermined him. I am sure it would have been plain hell to enforce the law on the leakers, but that was the job Bush swore to do. I’d hold Obama responsible too, but what’s the point of that?
I don’t think the entire CIA is responsible for the kind of attitude (whether this story is true or not, there has been a long running problem). I think they should be shut down completely. The military is simply better equipped to command loyalty. They have their share of jerks and traitors from time to time, but they are still better equipped for this kind of mission.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/15/2010 @ 11:09 amTo complete my thought: whatever assets the CIA has that are needed can simply be transferred to the Army and Air Force (depending on what kind of asset it is).
It wouldn’t be the worst idea for each branch to separately pursue intelligence missions, either.
I remember attending a CIA recruitment pitch (this isn’t as sexy as it sounds) and them rattling on and on and on and on about how they are liberal. I think the recruiter was just an idiot, frankly, attempting to play to the politics of UT Law students (who aren’t even that liberal… maybe 50/50). I mentioned I was a Republican, just as a joke, and while the students chuckled, she rolled her eyes.
My impression was that politics mattered a little too much for these public servants. They have a fascinating, cool job, and you’d think the kind of talent they were after (I’m pretty sure anyone at my school who would get a job with the CIA could also have a very lucrative legal career, clerkships, etc) would be turned off by the ‘we’re pretty damn liberal’ strategy.
I also attended a Delta Force recruitment briefing (this is also not quite as sexy as it sounds… it’s automatic for anyone reaching E-5 in the Army). The idea that those professionals would mention politics at all was completely ridiculous. They made clear they had some ridiculously tough requirements for a tough mission, and went over the basics of what they do (which wasn’t that different from the CIA’s mission… it wasn’t just rescues and blowing up bad guys and commando adventures).
It is just plain obvious to me that the CIA is a military organization without military training or military discipline being well mixed into the agency. Sure, the pilots and some of the spies probably are veterans, but a huge segment of the CIA population has the same kind of training an elite journalist or lawyer has. It’s obviously not a very successful organization, either, in performance terms.
So just kill it off, and let the defense agencies pick the people they want to absorb.
dustin (b54cdc) — 4/15/2010 @ 11:23 am