Okay, maybe it’s just me, but this guy needs to be taken care of ‘Family style’, see also ‘Soprano style’.
Why does it seem that American journalists, and their ‘sources’, are the only ones that feel it is their business to give away secret missions?
Please, shed some light on this. Maybe I am being ignorant, it wouldn’t be the first time; it wouldn’t even be the first time today.
Take heart, at least one pundit agrees: Tony Blankley: Espionage by any other name.
1 comment:
I agree with Marine II's comments on Seymour Hersh, but one could also look at another recent issue similar to Hersh's. Namely, where was/is the outrage over Robert Novak's publishing the identity of Valerie Plame? She was a CIA agent who operated undercover and whose identity was published by Novak when he attacked the credibility of her husband Joseph Wilson. Even putting aside the partisan issue of Novak's column, this seems to be a very clear cut case of a violation of the law protecting undercover CIA operatives. Even his "liberal" colleagues defend Novak's right to protect his sources. Is it okay to protect sources if the possibility exists that someone's life could be in danger because of the information you publish? Methinks Novak could stand to be taken care of "family style" as well. Whatever one thinks of the CIA, many of the people there are honest and hardworking and they (and the Special Forces operating in Iran)deserve better than to have their lives placed in danger for some politcal gain or sensational news story. Perhaps that is the nature of news and politcs where the lives of people are sacrificed on the altar "gotcha" journalism and sensationalism without thinking of the consequences of what is being reported. To quote Dennis Miller "That's my opinion, but I could be wrong."
Rich McGaha "A slightly left of center follower of the Big Tent"
Post a Comment