 |
|
||
|
|
|
 Bush on Bin Laden’s Satellite Phone: Wrong AgainPosted on Jan 10, 2006By Jon Wiener During his Dec. 19 press conference, President Bush rolled out an old canard to buttress his claim that America needs tighter restrictions on media coverage of national security issues: Osama Bin Laden, according to Bush, slipped away in 1998 because a newspaper printed that U.S. forces were tracking him via his satellite phone—which Osama stopped using the next day. The implication was clear: American intelligence might have been able to prevent the 9/11 attacks, but news leaks tipped off Bin Laden and made that impossible. There was one problem with Bush’s statement: It’s not true. Not that you would know that from reading The New York Times or the Los Angeles Times. The former ran a follow-up story supporting the president’s version of the facts, while the latter let it go unchecked. In fact, The Washington Post was the only major newspaper to set the story straight (in addition to Slate’s Jack Shafer). A Nexis search showed that the rest of the media did no follow-up at all. At his press conference, Bush was asked about reports that the National Security Agency had conducted electronic surveillance of American citizens without the required court permission. Bush replied: “Let me give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy know what may or may not be happening. In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what happened? Saddam —Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated.” Advertisement  Thus, according to Kessler, Bush’s claim that it was a 1998 news story that caused Bin Laden to turn off his phone was, unequivocally, “wrong.” As Kessler reported: In August 1998 President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on Bin Laden’s training camps in Afghanistan in retaliation for the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Bin Laden survived, and he stopped using his satellite phone the next day. The newspaper that Bush blamed for the tipoff was, surprisingly, the right-wing Washington Times. On Aug. 21, 1998, the day after the missile attacks, the Times ran a story that said Bin Laden “keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones.” But as early as 1996, Time magazine had reported that Bin Laden “uses satellite phones to contact fellow Islamic militants.” Time gave its source as Taliban officials, not U.S. intelligence—giving the lie to Bush’s assertion that government leaks were to blame for the outing of that piece of information. Time repeated the information after the African embassy bombings, reporting in its Aug. 24, 1998, issue—on newsstands a week before the cover date—that Bin Laden “keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones.” (Careful readers will note that the Washington Times story contained the exact same language as the earlier Time article.) CNN broadcast a report by Peter Bergen the day of the cruise missile attacks in which Bergen said he had interviewed Bin Laden in Afghanistan in March 1997 and that “he communicates by satellite phone.” The same information appeared in newspapers in Japan, Germany, Pakistan and Philadelphia. (Jack Shafer’s article has a good rundown.) So the facts are these: It was common knowledge years before the bombing that Bin Laden communicated via a satellite phone. The source of this information was not a leak from the U.S. government. Rather, it came first from the Taliban, and then from Bin Laden himself. So why did Bin Laden stop using his sat phone after the attacks? It’s possible that he read The Washington Times the day after the attack on his Afghan base. But the most likely scenario is that the attack itself provided a compelling reason for him to “change his behavior,” in Bush’s words. Or, as Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, put it to the Washington Post, “Cruise missiles concentrate the mind a lot more than news clips do.” The question, then, is how The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and so much of the rest of the traditional media missed such an easy fact-check. (All due credit to Kessler and Shafer, but all it took was a quick Nexis search to cast doubt on the president’s assertion.) Well, first of all, Bush wasn’t the only one who was pushing this tall tale. The 9/11 Commission told the same story in its report. As did two former Clinton administration officials, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, in their 2002 book “The Age of Sacred Terror.” In it, they claimed the Washington Times article cost the United States its “best chance to find [Bin Laden].” Benjamin, a staff member on Clinton’s National Security Council, also repeated that myth in a story for Slate in the wake of Bush’s recent press conference. Republicans other than Bush also have sought to make hay of the Washington Times myth. Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, gave a speech in July titled “Secrets and Leaks: the Costs and Consequences for National Security.” “Were it not for the leak,” he said, “there is a chance we could have brought Osama bin Laden to justice by now.” For whatever reason, The New York Times did not do the simple Nexis search that would have turned up the Time article, the CNN report or any other number of pieces in the international news media. The New York Times did do some checking on Bush’s claims about Bin Laden’s sat phone—and, to its shame, published a story headlined “Bush’s Account of a Leak’s Impact Has Support.” The piece, by David E. Rosenbaum, cited the 9/11 Commission report and the book by Simon and Benjamin. And even after the Kessler and Shafer stories appeared in their respective publications, the Times did not revisit the issue. In fact, according to a search through media databases, the only newspaper that reported on the Washington Post’s findings was the one perhaps least likely to do so: the New York Post (whose politics are roughly akin to those of The Washington Times). Under a headline that read, “Bush’s ‘Bogus’ ‘98 Leak Claim,” the Post wrote, “President Bush’s claim this week that the US government leaked information about Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone appears not to have been true, it was reported.” The story was only 228 words long and was buried on page 16 of the “Sports Extra” section. What’s important to remember here is that this is not just another quasi-adorable instance of Bush mistaking the difference between, say, Medicare and Medicaid. This particular erroneous report is being used by the White House and its allies as a major example of why we need tougher restrictions on media reporting on national security issues. According to Kessler, James B. Bruce, vice chairman of the CIA’s Foreign Denial and Deception Committee (no kidding), said in 2002, “We’ve got to do whatever it takes—if it takes sending SWAT teams into journalists’ homes—to stop these leaks.” Paul Wolfowitz, Bush’s former deputy defense secretary, cited the Osama sat phone story as one example of how “our intelligence sources and methods have also been devaluated by a pattern of leaks.” Blanton of the National Security Archive said, “The whole sat phone story is the creation of a handful of intel pros who want an official secrets act in this country.” If the American news media are going to prevent that, they’re going to have to do a better job than they did with this story: First they need to check claims made by the president, rather than reporting them as uncontested facts; and then they need to follow the example of Glenn Kessler at The Washington Post—and avoid at all costs the route taken by The New York Times. Previous item: Bush on Bin Laden’s Satellite Phone: Wrong Again Next item: Bush on Bin Laden’s Satellite Phone: Wrong Again Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Age Trumps Youth in UC Tuition Dispute
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
By bonnie, February 24, 2007 at 12:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
BUSH HAS A BIG PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH HE KNOWS WHY HE WENT AFTER SADAM HOW EVER WHERE IS BEN LADIN THEY DID THE TWIN towers did they not
Report thisBy bonnie, February 24, 2007 at 12:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
BUSH HAS A BIG PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH HE KNOWS WHY HE WENT AFTER SADAM HOW EVER WHERE IS BEN LADIN THEY DID THE TWIM TOWERS
Report thisBy Eleanore Kjellberg, January 18, 2006 at 12:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Many are not aware that during the 1980s the U.S. encouraged the Saudis to cough-up billions of Petrol dollars to finance Osama bin Ladens Afghan war against the Sovietsas well as financing the jihad movement.
If the U.S. had a choice between COMMUNISM and Islamic Fundamentalismthey found Islam to be a nice alternative. Any ideology that would avoid nationalizing oil wells looked pretty good.
Isnt it interesting that shortly after 9/11 members of the bin Laden family were quickly ensconced onto private jets; not questioned and secretly allowed to leave the USA.
Im sure that the bin Laden family are NOT novices when it comes to matters of U.S. intelligence; besides it would be too anti-climatic if Osama was captured—hes become a poster child representing Bushs axis of evil.
Report thisRegarding the recent Pakistan attack—Hundreds of residents chanted anti-American slogans Saturday near the targeted village of Damadola.
The attack killed eight men, five women and five children; three homes were specifically targeted.
By roger muldavin, January 15, 2006 at 11:41 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks for the comments on failures to find, capture, or “take out” Ben Ladin.
I’ll try to find the details of the killing of his second in command recently.
Still this current war on the Middle East is tragic for it’s careless disregard for innocents, for example how many innocents were killed and injuried in trying to “take out” the second in command?
Remember the “Nuke’m” calls during the Korean and Veitnam “Wars”. When I hear such crass statements by others at times made around here (Michigan) I challenge the person for such, trying to impress the alienation of feeling, the insensitivity and disregard to what modern warefare means. While trying understand why they fell this way.
I was talking with my mid thirties son yesterday, he mentioned that an intelligent friend of his was a fundamentalist Christian who felt the mid east war was important to continue because it was a battle between the Christian and Islamic notions of the future.
The discussion turned to how to commuicate with people that appear to have strong notions of the necessity of deadly battle, War, and that one must try to understand the underlying reasons for their strong beliefs.
This may be part of the Bhudist notion of tring to become the other person (a presumption notion, but useful). It is also an method of emmersion acting.
As a public atheist (First Admendment type) I find that USA international behaviors over the many decades would justify deep seated anger by many people all over the world that can be exploited into organized acts of terror to “bring the Giant down”.
South American is clearly turning to the left, and this to me is good news if we can reach to understand that movement’s necessity in throwing off foreign domination and cruelity as well as the reminets of imperialism’s local domination through those benefiting from the exploitation.
Ok, you may not “buy” into this analysis, but Peace requires a skill in peacefull methods.
Why were both Sadam’s two son killed? An accident? At times I feel we (USA) does not want a discussion in detail about why the “terrorists” are spending their resoures and lives on waging this “WAR”.
But being constuctive, it seems International Law is one way, the bringing to trial, the honest attempt to capture alive those engaging in directing “illegal” rules of war (and this is a complex subject, remember the Church’s efforts and justifiable war). This means not focusing only on the persons at the bottom of the heap.
What is or are the answers to reducing, stopping organized warfare?
One answer I find helpful is that of the nave, addmitting I don’t know the answer, and therefore assume for each “duality” posed, say war or peace, that it is fifty-fifty.
So, spend as many resourses on war weapons as on peace “wapons” (medical and educational cures and the like). At least as a start, actually or analytically.
The nave’s approach works well when trying to solve other problems, it is the basis of a powerful analytical methods (computers for one).
Then we can graduate to an even more powerful analytical method: triplets.
Yes Spinoza this this, the Church did it, and I like to think that any duality, those two words paired as opposities, when adding a third, can form a triplet.
The added word is “me”, “you”, and “others”.
For those who like the saying of Jesus, this was was left out of the Saint James Versions (see Gospel According to Thomas [Jesus’s Twin Brother]):
“Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars, and unto God that which is God’s, and render unto me that which is mine”.
You might now understand why the “me” was left out.
Organize for peace.
Best, rm
Report thisBy Frank Thomas, January 15, 2006 at 1:09 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
After watching various news accounts (including non-American sources, such as the BBC), it appears to be the case that (chances are), we have NOT killed Al Queda’s second in command, Al-Zawahiri, in the attack in Pakistan; if true, that is of course bad news.
Report thisMany Pakistans are upset and angry that we bombed inside Pakistani territory. There are violent demonstrations denouncing America. The Pakistani govt itself is quite upset about it as well. This touches on my previous post, when I stated that part of the reason we cannot capture or kill Bin Laden is that many people (particularly Pakistanis, even including some elements of their military and govt) are sheltering him, are helping him hide. Certainly many Pakistani citizens are on Bin Laden’s side. If they got THIS angry and upset at ONE bombing, then how would they react to any full-scale or regular incursions into Pakistani territory by American forces? Think of the pressure that would put on President Musharraf! On the one hand, he is on “our side” in the search for Bin Laden and in the general fight against Al Queda (he has cooperated in many ways). On the other hand, significant segments of his own population openly support Bin Laden and Al Queda! He cannot anger those militant Pakistanis TOO much (for fear of insureection or civil war) which is what would happen if he allowed regular American operations inside Pakistani territory. (Don’t forget also, Pakistan has the bomb; if Musharraf lost control, and Islamic radicals in Pakistan came to power, they would have their hands on their long sought after, ultimate weapon.) So Musharraf has to walk a tightrope between helping us, but at the same time, not helping us TOO MUCH (such as by allowing American operations on Pakistani soil). This situation is of couse to Bin Laden’s advantage. This is why he is almost surely on the Pakistani side of the border in that mountainous border region; because he knows that unlike Afghanistan, in Pakistan, American forces do not have free reign to look for him. This is a big part of the reason we cannot catch him, and, may never catch him. To Musharraf’s credit, he did recently launch a Pakistani military operation into a region suspected of harboring Al Queda (and possibly Bin Laden himself); they encountered fierce resistance, and killed many Taliban and Al Queda, but Bin Laden was not one of those killed. But just imagine if we could unleash American special ops teams and military might INSIDE Pakistan; if we could roam freely and unfettered (as we can in Afghanistan), to where we suspected Bin Laden was, without having to worry about political repercussions in Pakistan. Then we might finally, at long last, be able to get the evil bastard behind the September 11th attacks that killed 3000 of our countrymen. One final thought: if we see Bin Laden one day, walking outside a cave in the mountains in Pakistan, and we know that we have a chance to kill him, and that it may be our ONLY chance to kill him, by bombing him with a missile from one of those pilot-less drones or whatever, I say, kill him; at that point, political considerations be damned. I want to get that bastard.
By Frank Thomas, January 14, 2006 at 1:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
For what it’s worth, there are news reports that we may have just killed Al Queda’s Second in Command (Al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian doctor), in the remote region of the Afghani-Pakistani border. If true, that is obviously good news. (Though an argument could be made that capturing him alive would be better, as we could then mine the information and evil plans inside his head). But in any case, if we can kill him (we don’t know yet if that is true), it does suggest that the chances of capturing or killing Bin Laden himself may not be as low as some of us have feared. Keep your fingers crossed.
Report thisOf course, even if we catch or kill Bin Laden himself, won’t mean that the threat from extremist Islamic anti-Western terrorists is over, far from it; that threat will continue to exist. In fact, even if we manage to capture or wipe out the entire Al Queda leadership, and Al Queda itself is effectively destroyed, the remnants will simply reorganize and reemerge in some other form, due to the significant reservoir of radical Islamic, anti-Western thought and feeling. (Which, I believe, was bolstered by the unnecessary war in Iraq.) We cannot destroy thought and feeling; and many many Muslims hate our guts, and some of them subsequently want to kill and destroy us (even if it means killing themselves in the process, so they can get their reward in heaven). That is the harsh reality. I don’t know what the answer is, but in the meantime, killing or capturing Bin Laden would make me feel a bit safer.
By liz, January 14, 2006 at 8:55 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“”” They never stop trying to think of ways to harm the American people AND NEITHER DO WE”....Bush.
People should stop listening to and reading American media.It is in its most corrupt bought out form at present.The only news comes from blogs and outside of the country! Stop all subscriptions. And remember the American people have NO definition of 1.terrorist,2.enemy combatant,3.disruptor. Ask alot of questions people…. Bush is a dangerous liar.
Report thisBy Spiro, January 14, 2006 at 5:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
May be missing bin Laden in the first place is the problem. Near misses don’t count in this case. You have to wait for the right chance to take out the target.
Also look at how bin Laden communites with video tapes. Where’s the proof that bin Laden always has a satellite phone all the time? May be a bodyguard was carrying the phone the day we missed bin Laden.
I’m also guessing that bin Laden may be a few weeks behind but eventually he can get a copy of newspapers and read them.
Report thisBy JoePa, January 14, 2006 at 2:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Is this actully AMERICA??
DUMB-DUMB is the first idiot-in-charge not elected by the American people. I know this is old news but if he hadn’t been so busy snorting coke @ SHANGRILLA ( Camp David for those not in the know)when Daddy was in office, not hiding from his duties as an AMERICAN soldier and actually fighting in Vietnam (like the Man who should be in charge of this great nation) he might have developed a CLUE on how to track the most wanted person ever. You know, we have his sat phone, we can pinpoint him w-in 3 feet, lets not tell anyone & go get him??? Oops, I’m a cokehead alcoholic, I’ll just tell the press & give him a headstart,,, you know like hide-n-seek back in Crawford…
Can we just stop the madness????
GOD BLESS THE USA
P.S. I’m not going to GITMO for this am I??
Report thisBy Frank Thomas, January 13, 2006 at 8:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I do not believe that we have purposely “not caught” Bin Laden, aspart of an effort to justify/rationalize the war in Iraq and the huge military build-up. That is the sort of conspiratorial left-wing paranoia that I used to hear my neo-Marxist Professors say at school. I believe rather that the reason we cannot catch him is simple: he has too many followers and sympathizers (fellow travelors, if you will) in Afghanistan, and particularly, in Pakistan, including elements of the Pakistani government itself, ostensibly our allies. Furthermore, as we know, the Pakistani government will not allow American forces and/or special ops troops into Pakistani territory. (Why? Because if they did, it might mean civil war in Pakistan.) Finally, there is the terrain of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area itself; it is rugged, isolated, and contains countless caves and hiding places. Mostly, we cannot catch Bin Laden because he is being helped by many people, people who are, to varying degrees, on his side.
Report thisBy Joey Kahn, January 13, 2006 at 2:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Maybe Bin’s phone was destroyed _in_ the attack?
Report thisBy roger muldavin, January 12, 2006 at 7:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Glad to see this posting opportunity by a truely talented journalist.
Bin Laden’s continued avoidance of detection and capture, assuming he is still alive, makes me wonder why all our military power cannot locate him.
Does anyone posting have ideas about this?
Given the performance of the Press Bush Mis-administration, almost any statements it releases have no credibility with me.
Add to this that Ben Laden’s capture or even death solves nothing, only adds to the problem of a saddly tragic chapter in United States History to which we all are likely to have to pay a price beyond comprehension.
It’s not the American Eagle that soars so high, but the ego of it’s corrupted corporate guys.
Report thisBy Pierce R. Butler, January 12, 2006 at 6:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Quite possibly Wiener’s first suggestion is correct.
Report thisTherefore, the way to track Bin Laden’s whereabouts is to start by seizing the subscribers’ list from the Washington Times. (This being a Homeland Security crisis, there’s no time to bother with that sissy subpoena business - just kick down the door and take it!)
If the Rev. Moon or any of his readers are unpatriotic and pro-terroristic enough to complain about this, kick down their doors and take them away too!
By Brant Lamb, January 12, 2006 at 2:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Osama Bin Ladin would have to be the world’s largest screw up not to know that cell phone transmissions can be tracked.
Report thisBy Antoinette, January 12, 2006 at 6:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
One would think that the term ‘Investigative Reporter’ meant that all aspects Pros & cons are covered. (pun intended) Considering this Presidents panchant for the L word. Amusing nor adorable…it is NOT.
Report thisPeoples lives, liberty and freedoms are hinged on a Presidents decisions. Attention is imperative when quoting this President, his words should be gone over with a fine tooth comb, prior to publishing. Lest we forget that laws already thought to have been passed by congress were overturned at the Presidents bidding. ( ie; Patriot Act vs NSA Wire Taps - McCaine Torture Bill)
By ricky, January 12, 2006 at 3:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
i am not usually a conspiracy theorist, but author rosenbaum was killed by a mugging listed as a robbery.
it happened in DC.
anybody that falls for pres bush lines by now is foolish, but i am worried about the safety of journalists in this day and age.
my daughter is a journalist.
ricky from omaha
Report thisBy Skeptical Cynic, January 11, 2006 at 8:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
While America’s hoi polloi were/are probably not aware of the ease with which and the extent to which the government monitors microwave/satellite, i.e. cell phone communications, it is not some highly kept secret that was leaked, resulting in bin Laden changing his means of communicating with his co-conspirators. Anyone with the means of a bin Laden would certainly have been aware. James Bamford’s book, The Puzzle Palace, A Report on America’s Most Secret Agency (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982 465, pages - see http://www.namebase.org/sources/By.htm) goes into great detail about what our monitoring capabilities are, or were, even 20 years ago… and as the book was was a national best seller and I believe went into a second printing, there must be a large number of people out there that have knowledge of this government’s spying capability.
Bush’s assertion that secret information was “leaked” concerning the government’s ability to track bin Laden resulted in his “changing his method of communication” is just continued mendacity concerning anything remotely connected to the tragedy (treasonous treachery, perhaps?) of 9/11. There even appears to be evidence that a delay in laying seige on Tora Bora, in order to allow Pakistani ISI agents to flee, also permitted a large number of al Qaida as well as bin Laden to do the same. (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/IND206A.htm).
There is no limit to the lying that the Bush Administration will engage to avoid a thorough investigation into this act of treachery. The capture of bin Laden would have seriously eroded the propaganda scheme to whip up popular enthusiasm for invading Iraq which was being planned well in advance of 9/11.
Report thisBy Bob Clawson, January 11, 2006 at 8:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This all begs the question of why, if journalists have interviewed Osama, our CIA can’t catch him. It would appear that we don’t want to. He remains a great bogey man, a very useful tool in a campaign of fear.
We can’t depend upon journalists to ask the best questions. For instance, if we can protect Iraqi citizens for an election, why can’t we protect them on a daily basis? It appears that we don’t want to.
Why do we need new “legislation” on torture, if there are national and international laws already on the books? It appears that we think the new law will be obeyed.
The press needs new blood with healthy skepticism. Let’s hope the students at Columbia and Missouri understand their mission: to hold authority accountable.
Bob
Bob
Report thisBy peter@aristarealty.com, January 11, 2006 at 5:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Steve Black has a good point about the problem being the revelation that we were tracking him through his sat phone usage as opposed to leaking that we knew about his phone. What about that?
Report thisBy James Tugend, January 11, 2006 at 4:59 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The real news ‘leak’ that aided Al Qaida performed by the Bush administration, much to then dismay of America’s allies. On the opening night of the last Democratic Presidential Convention the Pentagon was allowed to release the fact that one of Al Qaeda’s chief liutenants had been captured in Pakistan. U.S. and allied intelligence agencies were still using his cell phone, and effectively spying on the Al Qaeda network. Bush and Rove considered it more important to release good news and blot out the Democratic Convention than to effectively roll up Al Qaeda agents throughout the world. This allowed the Lnodon subway bombings to go forth.
Report thisBy Larry Ruff, January 11, 2006 at 4:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Steve Black made the comment that jumped immediately into my mind as I was reading your story: The relevant information was that the US was TRACKING Bin Laden’s satellite phone, not that he was USING one. The fact that Bin Laden kept using the phone while telling people he was doing so clearly indicates that he did not know he could be tracked that way, so learning that he could be would surely change his behavior. I am by no means a defender of Bush or his strategically idiotic and tactically incompetent war, and I have no idea why Bin Laden does what he does, but logic is logic.
Report thisBy Bill Riley, January 11, 2006 at 12:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Rosenbaum was killed two or three days ago by a blow to the head (delivered by a mugger . . .)
Report thishttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/09/national/09rosenbaum.html
By Steve Black, January 11, 2006 at 10:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Good story but you missed the point the opposition is making. The defenders of secrecy maintain it was not revealing the use of the sat phone that was the problem—it was revealing our ability to track him from that usage that was the alleged national secret revealed. I am not sure of how accurate that is but a discussion of this issue should be included in finding the facts.
Report thisBy Jo Murphy, January 11, 2006 at 9:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
So, the President is a liar (old news) and the U.S. main stream media is the World’s Greatest Enabler. Got it. There’s only one remedy. Cancel subscriptions. Only a hit to the pocketbook will have any effect.
Report thisBy Carmen Bonilla-Jones, January 11, 2006 at 8:41 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thank you for reporting the facts as oppose to your private opinions.
When did the majority of the media (written and televised press) decide to roll over and play dead? When did the investigative reporters and their championship of the truth disappear? Where have all the independent newspapers gone? How has this been allowed to happen?
There are very few of you left. Please keep up the good work.
Report this