Leak Allowed al-Qaida Suspects to Escape

Yahoo! News ^ | Tue Aug 10, 2004 | MUNIR AHMAD

[The Scourge of Yazid]

I Got My Job From The New York Times:

1. Fidel Castro

2. Daniel Ortega

3. Ayatollah Khomeini

4. Kim Jong-il

5. Jiang Zemin

6. Jean Bertrand-Aristide

7. Charles Taylor

8. Robert Mugabe

9. Salvador Allende

10. Maurice Bishop

[conservative in nyc]

Read the Boston Globe article at Post 49:

Senior intelligence officials gave a background briefing to reporters Aug. 1 after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced an orange alert for sites in New York, Washington, and Newark. Khan's name does not appear in the transcript.

We have a partial transcript of the background briefing from Drudge posted here. It confirms the Boston Globe's statement.

Continuing:

The day of Ridge's press conference, an intelligence official told the Globe that the information came from an unannounced arrest in Pakistan, but declined to provide the identity of the detained person for fear of revealing a CIA operation. That official, reached again yesterday, said he was referring to Khan at the time.

This comports with what the Slimes said on August 2: the U.S. officials refused to name Noor as the source. Pakistani intelligence officials did.

Upchuck Schumer is grandstanding as usual. Trust me, my Senior Senator never met a television camera he didn't like.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

'The "leak" came from a government source.'

This article states that a US official "leaked" the name and Pakistani officials later confirmed it. Another article that I read Monday said that a Pakistani leaked the name and that after the article was published US officials confirmed it. I would like to know which is the truth and which is not.

[SunkenCiv]

:')

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"If you read the posted article, you will see that you have it backwards, according to Condoleeza Rice."

Condoleeza Rice did not confirm when the name of Kahn was released by a US official, only that the name had been released. She confirmed this on Sunday 8-8. The original article came out on 8-2. Other accounts indicate that US officials verified the name after the 8-2 article came out, but that the NY Times got the information for the article from Pakistan earlier than that so that they could publish the article on the morning of 8-2.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"The NYTimes can't be faulted for reporting. The problem on this one is the government, not the NYTimes.

His arrest was first reported in American newspapers on Aug. 2 after it was disclosed to reporters by U.S. officials in Washington.

Some 'U.S. officials' should be held accountable for this blab."

Please see post 18 on this thread. It completely contradicts what the article at the top of this thread states. It states that a Pakistani was the person that told of the capture of Kahn and that after the first article was published a US official verified it.

[jnlabrk6]

It's almost as if the leftist media is doing everything they can to cause another attack. I mean, wouldn't any sane person say to themselves, "If I publish this, every piece of Al Qaeda Islamotrash that's plotting against us will be tipped off and make the necessary adjustments." Hey media, how bout havin' some common sense, you sh**bags. Why don't we just publish all of our classified information on the frontpage of the NYT. I mean, since the mediots are already aiding and abetting the enemy anyways, might as well be upfront about it, eh? It's time the media realize the Political Uncertainty Principal, which states that the Observer DOES effect the observation. In other words, the mediots need to realize that they are not a benign presence and the terror war is not happening in an isolated chamber that we are all looking in on from the outside. I mean, I can't even count the number of times I've been reading the news and thinking, "Man, if I were a terrorist, this info sure would come in handy." I saw an interactive USA Today thingy that allowed you to press buttons and show detailed information about every single high value target in the United States. I mean, WOW! Of no newsworthiness whatsoever, but very valuable to terrorists. I can just see the terrorists looking at it going, "Wow, how come we didn't think of that." Gimme a break.

[Common Tator]

So the administration purposefully released Khan's name to the press.

As usual the press Lies and you swear to it.

Rice released the information on "Deep Background" That is informatin that is not to be published now, but can be publised later.

"Deep Backrounds" are given to reporters so they will know what is going on as it happens. That way they have a story in real time that cannot be published until later.

The media dopped the word "Deep" to mislead and confuse the reader.

But you knew that already ... didn't you?

[drjimmy]

Rice released the information on "Deep Background" That is informatin that is not to be published now, but can be publised later. The media dopped the word "Deep" to mislead and confuse the reader.

Thanks for correcting me. Can you show me the press release or transcript or wherever it was you found out that Rice gave the info on "deep background," so I can correct anyone else who makes the same error?