Thursday, March 15, 2007


The Los Angeles Times'Josh Meyer came to print with another story, like the one from the Voice of America, suggesting -- gosh (!) -- that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (or Mohammad, depending on the publication) might be confabulating.

And then the newspaper produced anonymoids to say the same.

Why anonymoids from the intelligence apparatus?

Because if you sign your name to even the most obvious statements, ones that people in the street might furnish for free given a fair shake, you'll be fired and forever banished from the security apparatus that mints your paycheck.

" 'Clearly [KSM] is responsible for some of the attacks. But I believe he is taking credit for things he did not have direct involvement in,' said one recently retired senior FBI counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity."

What insight.

" 'In my opinion, it's excellent,' the former official said of Mohammed's occasionally rambling statement. 'It proves the point that these people are not stable or predictable, but that they are lethal.' "

But would you still volunteer the opinion if your name had to go with it?

"[Another unnamed] U.S. counterterrorism official agreed that Mohammed probably was using the hearing, even though it was held behind closed doors, to exaggerate his role in Al Qaeda plots and attacks."

KSM is, of course, a piece of human excrement to be scraped off the bottom of the shoe and the sooner we are rid of this garbage, the better. Idiotic bullshit about being like George Washington only goes to show that even though he went to college in the US, he hardly understands any of my countrymen.

"At other times, [KSM] appeared contrite about ... killings, and at moments seemed downright folksy," wrote Meyer for the Times.

This slip of writerly judgment is akin to a New York Times nitwit's description of Alfredo Stroessner as a colorful dictator in 2006.

KSM may be many things. "Folksy" isn't one of them. Your editors should have been a safety net for you there, Josh Meyer. Shame on them and on you. The Times' reader's rep is going to hear about that from many, I think.

The original.

And why the same old beat-up-slumlord years-old photo of KSM? A current photo is too sensitive for the US government to allow? What's up with that?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I was in the IC for about 15 years. Back in the mid-1990's the fact we had imaging reconnaissance satellites was still code-word material, even though everyone on the planet knew what they are and that we had them.

Sadly, this kind of stuff continues today and what it does is makes leaks of REAL classified information more likely. People in the IC aren't even supposed to have a personal blog without it being subject to review and scrutiny that would negatively affect one's career.

7:47 AM  
Blogger P. Curtin said...

I'm waiting for him to take responsibility for those Super Bowls...
Then Buffalo will believe,
only then...

9:36 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home