To: be-baw
The New York Times obtained Khan's name independently, and U.S. officials confirmed it when it appeared in the paper the next morning.Once the Times let the cat out of the bag then it was pointless for the U.S. to deny the identity, as Al Qaeda's people were perfectly capable of reading the Times. The Times and whoever leaked to the Times are the culprits here.
To: Numbers Guy
Well put. This bears repeating:
Once the Times let the cat out of the bag then it was pointless for the U.S. to deny the identity, as Al Qaeda's people were perfectly capable of reading the Times. The Times and whoever leaked to the Times are the culprits here.
14 posted on
08/07/2004 12:30:45 PM PDT by
Nexus
To: Numbers Guy
The left will always be more outraged over Joe Wilson's wife.
70 posted on
08/08/2004 6:03:30 AM PDT by
weegee
(YOU could have been aborted, and you wouldn't have had a CHOICE about it.)
To: Numbers Guy
I read elsewhere that the name was given "off the record" so someone broke the trust. It's also a display of national differences; in UK people seem to be happy trucking along assuming the gov't is in control, over here people want to know the detail so they can make their own decisions. It's a very tricky game to play for the administration.
It would be helpful if every self-styled expert and publicity hound politician would just shut up but that's too much to hope for I guess.
81 posted on
08/09/2004 10:17:59 AM PDT by
1066AD
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson