Pakistan: U.S. blew undercover operation (NY Times blew double agent cover)

MSNBC ^ | 8/6/04 | MSNBC

[jimbo123]

Al-Qaida suspect was secretly cooperating with counterrorist sting

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The al-Qaida suspect named by U.S. officials as the source of information that led to this week’s terrorist alerts was working undercover, Pakistani intelligence sources said Friday, putting an end to the sting operation and forcing Pakistan to hide the man in a secret location.

advertisement

Under pressure to justify the alerts in three Northeastern cities, U.S. officials confirmed a report by The New York Times that the man, Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, was the source of the intelligence that led to the decision.

A Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters on Friday that Khan, who was arrested in Lahore secretly last month, had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers.

[jmtasu]

They may be morons, but that's not the point, I am afraid people who voted for Bush may be more willing to throw away their vote then people who voted for Gore/Nader last time...

I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of Nader votes switch from Nader to Kerry near election time, while the Bush people stay...

And actually my friends have a point, they believe a government split with a Dem pres and Rep house will spend less money, though they are not actually willing to vote for Nader.

[rb22982]

disgraceful

[dr_who_2]

If he gets killed, his blood will be on their hands. Assholes.

[knarf]

Bingo.

Just the other day I was meditating on the concept of "My right to know" as it seems I must.

It's the socialists that push that 'all the people ... ' crap.

How many times in FreeRepublic have we seen or writtten ourselves ...

"Oh great, why not let the (fill in your favorite terrorist/enemy/democrat organization here) know what we're going to do?"

History will have to be the open door on this one, I think.

God, how I wish we could get it into our skulls the concept of posterity.

[rightwingextremist1776]

Guess his last name didn't end in Wilson. I wonder when the investigation into the slimes will start?

[WOSG]

I am sorry but this makes little sense.

This man was ARRESTED LAST MONTH. Of COURSE Al Qaeda would know that his information would be compromised.

Note that it says "A Pakistani intelligence source" - same 'source' that fed us disinfo for the past 3 years.

[hermgem]

Quite likely, one of our Government officials, a Bush opponent, turned into leaker to the N.Y.Times.
At what price? to embarrass Bush and keep in favor with the NYT.
Never mind the security implications.

[Cableguy]

I don't often defend NYT, but this leak is the fault of the Bush administration. They started this train with the terror alert. They could have shut their mouth up until most of the guys have been caught. But no, they leaked it not just to NYT, but everyone else to trumpet up the catches.

[WOSG]

VOTE BUSH IF YOU WANT AMERICA TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR.

Vote Kerry if you want a UN-led fight that is more 'sensitive' to our enemies and if you think the terror threat is 'exagerrated'. Yes, Kerry really said that. He'll say anything in front of an audience, but can he really *do* what it takes, like Bush has done? NO!

People's blindness and giving in to liberal media bias is maddening. We scored a huge victory against Al Qaeda, grabbing several big fish and unrolling a few networks this past month. HUGE POSITIVE MOMENTUM. The information was getting back to Al Qaeda anyway, since we were making other arrests and they were in the news. 2/3rds of top Al Qaeda is gone now ... this story that publicizing what we know is irrelevent at best, and likely false. Why? This man was in custody and our enemies after some time knew it.
We are kicking butt big-time against Al Qaeda and the best the media can do is to keep finding problems to carp about, whether true or false, while ignoring the reality of the threat and appreciating the seriousness of our response. Their BIAS IS SICKENING.

A VOTE FOR ANYONE BUT BUSH is a VOTE FOR KERRY
AND A VOTE FOR KERRY IS A VOTE FOR DEFEATISM AND INDECISION IN THE WAR ON TERROR. Kerry has made it clear: He's a say-anything do-nothing senator who is WRONG to fight this war.

BUSH IS RIGHT FOR OUR TIMES.

Ask your friends this: Given Kerry's votes for cutbacks to intelligence and votes against practically every useful defense system in the past 20 years, Given Kerry big-spending and high-taxes liberalism,
Given Kerry's waffling on Iraq and other issues, his vote against Gulf War I ... WOULD YOU HAVE WANTED KERRY PRESIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 11TH?

Tell your friends to wake up and get educated.
This is BS: "they believe a government split with a Dem pres and Rep house will spend less money," ... time and again, it's the Democrats demanding more money, as Pres Clinton did it, in the Congress, they do it too. Fact is: A Conservative Majority will spend less money and be better for America. VOTE FOR CONSERVATIVES AND REPUBLICANS ALL THE WAY DOWN THE BALLOT!

[WOSG]

The New York Times has done their best to damage the Bush administration.

Things like intelligence capability, and national security are considered 'collateral damage' in the virtuous struggle to defeat the Bush administration.

[WOSG]

"They started this train with the terror alert. "

Announcing the terror alert was the responsible thing to do.
It would be irresponsible of them not to mention it.

"They could have shut their mouth up until most of the guys have been caught."

Many guys HAVE BEEN caught. That is the point. The guy was caught in mid-July and over a dozen terrorists were caught, while others started fleeing from safe houses to other locations.

We DID NOT tell Al Qaeda anything they dont already know.

[Dog Gone]

I don't often defend NYT, but this leak is the fault of the Bush administration.

Not everyone in the Bush Administration is a political appointee. Only a minute number of them are. There is a huge percentage in the Administration who actively oppose it.

The enemy within.

[jmtasu]

hehe, that was actually a wrong post meant for someone else, but if you wanna compare spending under Bush, vs. Clinton with a Rep congress here's some good info...

http://www.cato.org/current/federalspending/index.html

Most are acrobat files so I won't link directly... My conclusion in this is either Presidents spend less in their second terms, or a split government is best for less spending. -The gridlock reasons of course.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

Imagine if Bob Novak had done this.

Why, there would be Congressional investigations out the wazoo.
A special counsel appointed to investigate.
And a grand jury impaneled.
Subpoenas issued.
60 Minute Specials.
Hysteria by the left.
Vanity Fair cover stories.
Accusations thrown at Karl Rove and Scooter Libbey by Chris Matthews on a nightly basis.
Whew..
Thank goodness this was only a breach of national security of epic proportions,
I was worried someone had mentioned Valerie Pflame.

[Cableguy]

Bush administration clearly briefed all the media involved, especially NYT and Wash Post. These guys had way too many details, which they got from off-the-record briefings from CIA/Homeland/FBI, etc.

I agree that Homeland had to raise the alert. But they gave out way too many details, which helped to cement their credibility. But the flipside, the cost of that is that many of the potential operations were comprimised.

[okie01]

'collateral damage'

The exact expression I had in mind.

[WOSG]

Sorry that misses the POINT entirely. there are many reasons and circumstance, such as 9/11 and beefed up 'homeland security' and other things, that have caused spending increases.

GOP laxity is one of those problems, but I can tell you this: EVERY TIME these past 4 years it was a bigger v smaller govt vote, who was pushing for bigger spending? Democrats. who passed the Farm Bill? Democrats. Who complained that even generated Dept of Ed spending increases wasnt enough? Democrats. Who OPPOSED the tax cuts that Bush passed? in 2001? Democrats. in 2002? Democrats. In 2003? Democrats. Against Tax Cuts. For Higher Spending, again and again and again.

Now it's also the case that, completely out of power, the Democrats have become more irresponsible and may be 'pulling the Republicans their way'. Well even if so, it is lunacy to give Democrats MORE POWER when you oppose their higher taxes and bigger spending agenda. Lunacy! get 55 GOP senators and Bush in the white house and a bigger House majority and then *demand* they live up to their promises on fiscal prudence.

Bush is demanding rigid spending constraints going forward. he proposed them in the FY2005 budget. Kerry is proposing $1 trillion in new spending giveaways.

Bush is insisting we make the tax cuts permanent. Kerry is insisting we repeal them, and then add new taxes on business ('close loopholes' aka closing needed tax relief efforts).

JOHN KERRY HAS A VERY LIBERAL, TAX-N-SPEND RECORD IN THE SENATE ... the basic reality is that Conservatives would have much less power than they have today to stop the Federal spending steamroller.

Bush is by far the more fiscally responsible of the two choices.


Enclosed - Kerry's abysmal records on Budget and Taxes, horrible ratings from NTU and Americans for Tax Reform and other groups:

---

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103

Budget, Spending and Taxes
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the American Shareholders Association considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2003 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2003 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 14 percent of the time.

2003 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 22 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 10 percent of the time.

2002 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2002 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 18 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 13 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 45 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Tax Limitation Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 3 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2001-2002, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 65 percent.

2001 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

2001 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2001 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 7 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 5 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 27 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the American Shareholders Association considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Americans for Tax Reform considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 15 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 2000, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 33 percent.

2000 On the votes that the Taxpayers for Common Sense considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 59 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the Citizens Against Government Waste considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 28 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Tax Limitation Committee considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 3 percent of the time.

1999 According to the National Taxpayers Union, in 1999 Senator Kerry, on ALL votes dealing with spending, voted to reduce or not increase spending 11 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes used to calculate its ratings, the Concord Coalition attaches more value to those votes it considers more important. For 1999, the Concord Coalition gave Senator Kerry a rating of 45 percent.

---

[WOSG]

Too many details? Depends. ... The claim that "many of the potential operations were comprimised" is IMHO pure and unsubstantiated speculation.

[Just mythoughts]

"Quite likely, one of our Government officials, a Bush opponent, turned into leaker to the N.Y.Times.
At what price? to embarrass Bush and keep in favor with the NYT.
Never mind the security implications"


Note the article conveniently does not make it more specific than U.S. officials..... this would include ever liberal dim that got the "INTEL" in Congress.

[RightWhale]

How did the press, the NYT, get into this operation in the first place?