clearvision Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 FOX News: The Associated Press is suggesting that the reason the agency’s reporters and lawyers were the targets of a sweeping records seizure by the Department of Justice is not that national security was at risk, but rather the publicity the administration was seeking. In a move familiar to reporters covering covert operations, the CIA had asked the AP to hold off on the May 2012 scoop about a foiled effort by Islamist militants in Yemen to try another underwear bomb, like the one a militant botched in 2009. Convincing reporters and voters to take it easy on something that happened in Libya and is bound to be confusing and secretive is a lot easier than doing so on more straightforward stories about corruption in the IRS and bullying the press. The Washington Post reports today that after sitting on the story for five days, AP got the all clear from the CIA on national security on May 7, 2012. But there was a still a problem: the White House was planning to announce the operation the next day and the AP story would step on the big announcement. ----------- So punishment for AP not playing along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rheo Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Related info snips: Why the underwear-bomber leak infuriated the Obama administration The Obama administration has already used the Espionage Act to prosecute more government officials for leaking than all of his predecessors put together, but we shouldn’t automatically lump its pursuit of the underwear-bomb leaker in with those cases. Perhaps this investigation is chasing an extra-extraordinary leak, and the underwear-bomber leak is but one of the drops. The AP story that has so infuriated the government described the breakup of an al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula plot to place an underwear bomber on board a U.S.-bound airliner. Published on the afternoon of May 7, 2012, the story patted itself on the back for having heeded the White House and CIA requests to not publish the previous week, when the AP first learned of the operation. The AP states in the article that it published only after being told by “officials” that the original “concerns were allayed.” In a chronology published in today’s Washington Post, we’re told that the CIA was no longer resisting publication of the AP story on the day it hit the wire (Monday) and that the White House was planning to “announce the successful counterterrorism operation that Tuesday.” That may be the case, but the government was still incensed by the leak. In fact, it appears that officials were livid. As my Reuters colleagues Mark Hosenball and Tabassum Zakaria reported last night, the government found the leak so threatening that it opened a leak investigation before the AP ran its story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggingtree Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Updated May 17, 2013, 6:43 p.m. ET This Is No Ordinary Scandal Political abuse of the IRS threatens the basic integrity of our government. By PEGGY NOONAN We are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate. The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous. No one likes what they're seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration's credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don't look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone. Something big has shifted. The standing of the administration has changed. As always it comes down to trust. Do you trust the president's answers when he's pressed on an uncomfortable story? Do you trust his people to be sober and fair-minded as they go about their work? Do you trust the IRS and the Justice Department? You do not. But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323582904578487460479247792.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draggingtree Posted May 18, 2013 Share Posted May 18, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted July 26, 2014 Share Posted July 26, 2014 “Degraded,” fortunatelyScott Johnson7/26/14 Islamic toilet etiquette specifies an elaborate protocol that goes well beyond our immediate need to know. (Warning: You also really don’t want to know.) Fortunately, however, it seems not to require clean underwear, at least not directly. In an update on the failure of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to detonate the bomb concealed in his underwear as he attempted to bring down Northwest Airlines Flight 235 back in 2009, the Daily Mail reports: (Snip) http://youtu.be/bCj1PMMfZVo __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Remember what your mother said...."Always Wear Clean Underwear." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now