Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (11154)	10/7/2003 9:32:50 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793772

Excerpt from article in the "Wall Street Journals" Business section: _____________________________________ L.A. Times's Articles On Groping Spark Outcry ....The issue emphasizes how carefully the Times is scrutinized for its reporting on California, particularly politics. In fact, last year, the paper's own media critic wrote an article in which he criticized the Times for inadequately covering a movement among San Fernando Valley residents to secede from Los Angeles City. Since he joined the Times from the Baltimore Sun, also a Tribune paper, Mr. Carroll has focused on improving the newspaper's reporting on its own backyard. Under his leadership the newspaper has won six Pulitzer Prizes. The Times's three Pulitzers this year constituted the highest-ever annual tally for the paper. Mr. Carroll has recruited heavily from the New York Times, hiring as his managing editor Dean Baquet, who shares Mr. Carroll's passion for investigative reporting. Mr. Carroll particularly emphasized overhauling the newspaper's thin and unfocused metro section. He also initiated a redesign of the features sections to emphasize topics he believed define Southern California, such as popular entertainment and the outdoors. But the Times's Schwarzenegger coverage has renewed longstanding complaints from some media critics that the paper is too liberal. Earlier this year, Mr. Carroll himself sent a memo to some of his editors, which was widely published outside the paper, warning them to work hard to avoid the criticism that the newspaper has a liberal leaning. Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, praises his rival's coverage. He says typically publishing stories so close to election day calls for greater-than-usual caution, given that candidates need adequate time to respond to a paper's allegations. "One reason you are extra careful in the final week is because the reputation of the paper is at stake, too," Mr. Keller says. "You don't want people to think you're pulling out a last-minute bomb to tarnish the campaign." online.wsj.com

To: Ilaine who wrote (11154)	10/7/2003 9:45:45 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 793772

More questions on Wilson. An excerpt from a longer column in WSJ.com ___________________________ Everyone who works for the CIA in everything having to do with intelligence or foreign governments is required to sign a secrecy agreement that provides the Agency the right to approve and censor what the employee may wish to say or write for public consumption. In Wilson's famous July 6, 2003 NYT op-ed, he said, "The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the CIA paid my expenses, (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government." It is unheard of for anyone to not be required to sign a secrecy agreement. So did Wilson get that article approved by the CIA? I asked the CIA, and a very testy spokesperson refused to answer. I asked if Wilson ever signed a security agreement, and she sounded about to burst from stress, but she'd give no answer to that question either. Maybe she was just having a bad hair day. Or maybe the CIA is feeling some well-earned heat. A senior intelligence-community source told me that no one as vocal as Wilson could possibly be bound to the usual security agreement. So Wilson wasn't required to sign one. Why? The fact that he was paid only his expenses is no explanation. That's Anomaly Number 1. Why was Joe Wilson chosen for the Niger mission? A career foreign-service officer, he's no intelligence pro. He's not an expert on nuclear weapons, and he's sure no expert on covert purchase of WMD-related materials. He served as an "Africa expert" in the second Clinton administration, but hadn't been in Niger since he served as a flunky in our embassy there in the early '80s. He did serve — with courage — as acting ambassador in Baghdad in 1990. He had no unique or current knowledge of Niger, but he does have deeply felt political views which cannot have resulted from some recent epiphany. Wilson worked for Al Gore as a congressional fellow in the mid-Eighties, has given money to John Kerry's presidential campaign, and believes his mission in life is to "destroy" both "neoconservatives and religious conservatives." Anyone political — which means everyone in the White House and the CIA hierarchy — must have understood the risk the president took in stating WMD as the casus belli against Saddam. Though the nuclear part of the WMD equation was never a principal part of the case for war, it was part of it. Anomaly Number 2: Why was Wilson — uncredentialed in the critical areas, and devoted to a political agenda antithetical to the president's policy — chosen for such an apparently controversial mission? Wilson's "investigation" was patently inadequate. According to his op-ed, he made no effort to talk to the IAEA, Niger military or intelligence authorities. Dr. Hamza told me in considerable detail about a highly organized and well-financed black-market operation by Saddam's regime to buy every sort of nuclear weapons-related equipment and materials. It's not hard to suborn people with enough money, or to buy uranium and smuggle it out of places such as Niger. Over time, any amount could be smuggled out to Iraq. Anomaly Number 3: Why was Wilson's verbal report apparently taken at face value? No intelligence professional should have relied on it. Although it's not an anomaly, no one seems to know who hired Joe Wilson for the Niger job. Reports and sources all say George Tenet didn't, and that someone well below him did. One report says that Plame recommended him. To whom, we don't know. Who chose Wilson, and why? It's possible that Wilson's trip and report were a put-up job, intended to embarrass the president sooner or later. But that analysis overlooks Wilson's persona, his political loyalties, and his actions. I don't believe in conspiracies. But I don't believe in coincidences, either. If I were the president, I'd unambiguously support the leak investigation, and prosecute the leaker if he can be found. With equal urgency, I'd be working hard to find out why these anomalies exist. And wondering what other disagreeable surprises may be coming my way from the CIA in the next twelve months. nationalreview.com