This guy puts politics above National Security.

''U.S. leak 'harms al Qaeda sting'
Monday, August 9, 2004 Posted: 6:24 AM EDT (1024 GMT)




ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- The effort by U.S. officials to justify
raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an
important source of information that has already led to a series of al
Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said.

Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan to
reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track
down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said.

In background briefings with journalists last week, unnamed U.S.
government officials said it was the capture of Khan that provided the
information that led Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to announce
a higher terror alert level.

Khan is a computer expert who officials said helped Osama bin Laden
communicate with his terror network.

Investigators found detailed surveillance information on certain
targets in the United States, apparently conducted by al Qaeda
operatives, on Khan's computer disks.

The unnamed U.S. officials leaked Khan's name along with confirmation
that most of the surveillance data was three or four years old,
arguing that its age was irrelevant because al Qaeda planned attacks
so far in advance.

Law enforcement sources said some of the intelligence gleaned from the
arrests of Khan and others gave phone numbers and e-mail addresses
that the FBI and other agencies were using to try to track down any al
Qaeda operatives in the United States.

Then on Friday, after Khan's name was revealed, government sources
told CNN that counterterrorism officials had seen a drop in
intercepted communications among suspected terrorists.

Officials used Sunday's talk shows to defend last week's heightened
alerts, amid widespread claims the White House disclosed Khan's arrest
to justify raising its terror alert level. (Full story)

But some observers have said that Islamabad should not have been
compromised by political considerations in Washington.

One senator told CNN that U.S. officials should have kept Khan's role
quiet.

"You always want to know the evidence," said Sen. George Allen.

"In this situation, in my view, they should have kept their mouth shut
and just said, 'We have information, trust us.' "

Sen. Charles Schumer said he was "troubled" by the decision to
identify Khan.

He said the public learned little from reports of Khan's role, "and it
seems to me they shouldn't have put this name out."

"The Pakistani interior minister, Faisal Hayat, as well as the British
home secretary, David Blunkett, have expressed displeasure in fairly
severe terms that Khan's name was released, because they were trying
to track down other contacts of his," Schumer told CNN.

Looking forward
But Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad downplayed the
effect of the U.S. "outing" of Khan, saying Islamabad is looking
forward and not back.

"We are moving towards the positive side," he said. "We've got
positive information and we believe there will be positive results."

Pakistan continued its crackdown over the weekend, going after
multiple al Qaeda cells around the world.

They are on the manhunt for two North African al Qaeda operatives --
Abu Farj of Libya and an Egyptian named Hamza -- who are connected to
Ahman Khalfan Ghailani, who was arrested in late July.

Meanwhile, an al Qaeda operative believed to have been close to bin
Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar was flown home to
Pakistan after he was arrested in Dubai, intelligence sources said.
(Senior figure arrested)

Pakistani intelligence officials said information provided by Khan not
only contributed to the rise in the U.S. terror alert level but also
led to 13 arrests on terrorism charges in Britain.

Four of the 13 have since been released, but British police have been
given until Tuesday to question the remaining nine. (Full story)

British officials declined to comment.

CNN Correspondent Maria Ressa contributed to this report''

"David" wrote in message
...
This guy puts politics above National Security.


This may require a bit of thought, but try hard. Where did the
impetus come from in the first place leading "U.S. officials" to feel
that they had to "justify" the terror alert at all? Once you figure
that out, you may some clue as to who is placing politics above
national security by questioning the bona fides of the alerts.

And BTW, what does the "again" refer to? Certainly not to the spouse
of the completely discredited Joe Wilson who was instrumental in
getting him the job to go to Niger where he could misrepresent his
"information." Needless to say, there's no indication that Bush had
had anything to do with that whole thing. But acknowledging that
would require some concern for facts, I guess.



''U.S. leak 'harms al Qaeda sting'
Monday, August 9, 2004 Posted: 6:24 AM EDT (1024 GMT)




ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- The effort by U.S. officials to justify
raising the terror alert level last week may have shut down an
important source of information that has already led to a series of
al
Qaeda arrests, Pakistani intelligence sources have said.

Until U.S. officials leaked the arrest of Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan
to
reporters, Pakistan had been using him in a sting operation to track
down al Qaeda operatives around the world, the sources said.

In background briefings with journalists last week, unnamed U.S.
government officials said it was the capture of Khan that provided
the
information that led Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to
announce
a higher terror alert level.

Khan is a computer expert who officials said helped Osama bin Laden
communicate with his terror network.

Investigators found detailed surveillance information on certain
targets in the United States, apparently conducted by al Qaeda
operatives, on Khan's computer disks.

The unnamed U.S. officials leaked Khan's name along with
confirmation
that most of the surveillance data was three or four years old,
arguing that its age was irrelevant because al Qaeda planned attacks
so far in advance.

Law enforcement sources said some of the intelligence gleaned from
the
arrests of Khan and others gave phone numbers and e-mail addresses
that the FBI and other agencies were using to try to track down any
al
Qaeda operatives in the United States.

Then on Friday, after Khan's name was revealed, government sources
told CNN that counterterrorism officials had seen a drop in
intercepted communications among suspected terrorists.

Officials used Sunday's talk shows to defend last week's heightened
alerts, amid widespread claims the White House disclosed Khan's
arrest
to justify raising its terror alert level. (Full story)

But some observers have said that Islamabad should not have been
compromised by political considerations in Washington.

One senator told CNN that U.S. officials should have kept Khan's
role
quiet.

"You always want to know the evidence," said Sen. George Allen.

"In this situation, in my view, they should have kept their mouth
shut
and just said, 'We have information, trust us.' "

Sen. Charles Schumer said he was "troubled" by the decision to
identify Khan.

He said the public learned little from reports of Khan's role, "and
it
seems to me they shouldn't have put this name out."

"The Pakistani interior minister, Faisal Hayat, as well as the
British
home secretary, David Blunkett, have expressed displeasure in fairly
severe terms that Khan's name was released, because they were trying
to track down other contacts of his," Schumer told CNN.

Looking forward
But Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad downplayed
the
effect of the U.S. "outing" of Khan, saying Islamabad is looking
forward and not back.

"We are moving towards the positive side," he said. "We've got
positive information and we believe there will be positive results."

Pakistan continued its crackdown over the weekend, going after
multiple al Qaeda cells around the world.

They are on the manhunt for two North African al Qaeda operatives --
Abu Farj of Libya and an Egyptian named Hamza -- who are connected
to
Ahman Khalfan Ghailani, who was arrested in late July.

Meanwhile, an al Qaeda operative believed to have been close to bin
Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar was flown home to
Pakistan after he was arrested in Dubai, intelligence sources said.
(Senior figure arrested)

Pakistani intelligence officials said information provided by Khan
not
only contributed to the rise in the U.S. terror alert level but also
led to 13 arrests on terrorism charges in Britain.

Four of the 13 have since been released, but British police have
been
given until Tuesday to question the remaining nine. (Full story)

British officials declined to comment.

CNN Correspondent Maria Ressa contributed to this report''

T. Early wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...


David wrote:


This guy puts politics above National Security.

Please tell us how it is that you *know* that Bush leaked the info?

Is this just more wishful left-leaning Liberal thinking?

dxAce



Also note that, despite continuous discussion of this issue in the
thread, none of the "let's blame Bush regardless of the facts" crowd
has responded to my original point that the questioning of the bona
fides of these alerts by Democrats -led- to this disclosure by
creating an atmosphere where credibility had to be bolstered .
Homeland Security puts out these alerts and the immediate knee-jerk
reaction of the left is to question the validity of each and every one
of them. Then, hilariously BTW, they accuse -others- of playing
politics. Can this be sad and funny at the same time?



How quickly they forget....The mob has a history of leaking names for
political gain.

http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/144817
http://slate.msn.com/id/2089017
http://www.thedailytimes.com/sited/story/html/144730



mike

Ross Archer wrote:

You'd think one act of treason would be enough, wouldn't you?

Yes, but Kerry has obviously committed several. ;-)

dxAce

Steve Lare, the I'm only for freedom of the press if it has a GOP
spin, wrote...

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:49:02 -0400, dxAce wrote:

Yes, if the New York times would have kept their Liberal mouths shut... but, heck,
that's to much to ask.

Evrhrt wrote:

Steve Lare, the I'm only for freedom of the press if it has a GOP
spin, wrote...

Simply another fabrication on your part Mikey... er... Billy!

Come on back when you can come up with something remotely resembling the truth.

dxAce



On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:49:02 -0400, dxAce wrote:

Yes, if the New York times would have kept their Liberal mouths shut... but, heck,
that's to much to ask.

"Ross Archer" wrote in message
om...

Of course, this is a very close analogy of what Bush, Ashcroft, and
Cheney did, but with respect to 9/11 and its investigation, and the
Patriot Act, and the 9/11 dead. They resisted learning the facts (or
resisted letting us learn the facts, at any rate), and offered a
blatantly unconstitutional assault on our basic liberties as the
solution to a problem that they hopefuly simply did not understand.
(The alternative is altogether more sinister.)

Since we're so fond of the phrase "of course," let's point out, of
course, that this entire scenario is only a "very close analogy" to
the extent it's concocted in your own eyes (or possibly copted from
some other source). Of course, your allegation of a "blatantly
unconstitutional assault on our basic liberties" is also pure
unsupported supposition and reflects your political perspective more
than anything else.






The fact that this Administration was for quite some time more
interested in blaming the intelligence community than actually
finding
out what happened, should be adequate to make a Prima Facie case to
suspect wrongdoing (negligence) by this Administration, with respect
to exercising their duty to protect the American people. What are
they
hiding?

Isn't it also interesting that a "truth-teller" such as yourself
refuses to recognize that the intelligence community has been "blamed"
in every post-9/11 report by bodies other than the Administration
(e.g., the Senate report and the 9/11 report)? But, of course, those
are facts inconvenient to your scenario, so why mention them. Of
course, it's also fascinating that, being such a student of history,
you are far more concerned with the firast nine months of a Bush
Administration as opposed to the eight years of a Clinton
Administration when it comes to negligence. But then, why substitute
logic for political rhetoric?


Get your news from generally-respected wide-circulation *newspaper*
sources. Not Washington Times (the "Moonie" cult-owned newspaper),
however. Include at least one foreign news source in your daily
reading routine. Prepare to be horrified at what the Canadians or
British are saying about us. Become informed. And then do your duty
and vote. For anybody but George W. Bush, because four years of an
outlaw regime is four years too many.

That would, no doubt, mean "generally respected" in -your-
circles--perhaps the disgraced New York Times? Or bastions of
objectivity like the LA Times that propagate your party line to those
consumed by hatred for Bush.

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:45:05 -0400, dxAce wrote:



David wrote:

This guy puts politics above National Security.

Please tell us how it is that you *know* that Bush leaked the info?

Is this just more wishful left-leaning Liberal thinking?

Because the National Security Advisor admitted it on national TV.

David wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:45:05 -0400, dxAce wrote:



David wrote:

This guy puts politics above National Security.

Please tell us how it is that you *know* that Bush leaked the info?

Is this just more wishful left-leaning Liberal thinking?

Because the National Security Advisor admitted it on national TV.

She said Bush leaked it? I sure don't recall her stating that.

You're full of ****... as usual.

Actually it was the New York Times publishing the info that caused other
things to come into play.

dxAce

Steve, I just listen to Fox News all day long and to hell with basic
American freedoms wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 08:39:10 -0400, dxAce wrote:



Evrhrt wrote:

Steve Lare, the I'm only for freedom of the press if it has a GOP
spin, wrote...

Simply another fabrication on your part Mikey... er... Billy!

Come on back when you can come up with something remotely resembling the truth.

dxAce



On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:49:02 -0400, dxAce wrote:

Yes, if the New York times would have kept their Liberal mouths shut... but, heck,
that's to much to ask.


The damn press should keep it's nose out of stuff. Right Steve? Mr.
Red, White and Blue... muhahahahahah... what a joke you are. Claiming
to be such a true patriot but nothing but a commie. Hang your head
fat stuff - you're the definition of un-American.