Harry Potter and the Deadly Intelligence Leakers

National Review ^ | 8/6/2007 | Pete Hoekstra

[70times7]

Read the start and finish of the article again - I do not believe that this author actually dug into this to determine that the carrier thought his job was at risk. I think it is much more likely that he took an existing story and “revised” it a bit to provide a springboard to his story.

[70times7]

Good try, though woefully ignorant of the facts.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in saying that I was on a tangent. The CIA leak information may be solid, but the author detracts credibility for the sake of an interresting, but argueably incorrect lead in. Now then, what facts about the USPS am I woefully ignorant about? (btw - you woe way too easily if this is all it takes)

[SeafoodGumbo]

It's hard to tell if he's gilding the lily of a story that doesn't need a "hook," or not. I wouldn't be pleased if he was stretching the truth on the postman angle, but, honestly, I don't really care that much because the real story here is the CIA's rogue elements who have not been punished for their traitorous activity.

Like you, I value honesty and feel that when people lie about even small things, it can be an indication to make their views on other things suspect. Even if Hoekstra (sp?) is playing loose with the mailman thing (maybe, maybe not), that's inconsequential compared to the larger point -- that CIA leakers face less punishment than people who get caught downloading music, littering, or driving 72 in a 65 zone.

[weegee]

If you truly believe the author lied, write to him about it and report his reply on FR.

[70times7]

True enough - I would have preferred the opportunity to slam some liberal tripe article, but this was an easy example for me. There are readers who absorb information without ever considering what the writer’s approach to the article was. I think the writer threw together a hook - entertaining, but errant. In other cases writers warp whatever is necessary to crank out entire articles. There are plenty of instances where the goal is to produce clever writing that gets in by deadline. In other instances the object is to produce an interesting story that gets the president scrutinized (or would that be screwtinized? - How is Dan Rather doing these days?).

[70times7]

That's a good suggestion, so I looked into it. The National Review, unfortunately, doesn't provide his email address. I then looked under the "contact us" link but there is no category there that I could expect would provide contact with him. I then performed a search for him. He accepts email, but will not respond unless I am part of the second congressional district in MI (I'm not).

Soooo, I went another route – I figured if he made statements with specific references they must have come from somewhere. I found the article. He didn’t lie; the people at the USPS did, at least that is the most logical conclusion I can draw. The company that mailed the books sent them too early, and the boxes were not marked so that it was obvious what they were (as were the boxes from Amazon). No one in the USPS was going to loose their job over it, but those involved said they may in order to get the books back and execute a cya on behalf of the book seller (it was their error).

I sit corrected. Had I only done my fact checking before I published…

[David Isaac]

“Bush’s refusal to pursue the Clintons’ traitorous actions is a mystery to me.”

I would say it was much more of a clue than a mystery. If anyone could point out to me how one of our political parties could survive without the cooperation of the other, I would be will to listen and be amazed. The things that have come out of Washington in the last 40 years, would totally eliminate the party that was resonsible, if the other party could, and would, be willing to assign them the blame, AMEN.