Monday, June 30, 2008

NY Times and Not So Secret Operation Cannonball


The New York Times has printed a story today that reportedly has infuriated the Bush Administration. Many have relabelled the NYT as traitors for publishing the story, but I have read the story and find little, if anything, that is new and isn't already known on the Internet.

In a story entitled "Follow Bin Laden and Destroy Him", I published much of the same information on Sept. 17, 2006. In an earlier post, June 9, 2006, "The Secret Operation to Kill Zarqawi" , I reported on the Special Operations group led by Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, that killed Zarqawi which is also briefly mentioned in the NYT story.

Many blogs and independent news sites report the on-going war in the smallest detail everyday. One of the finest is The Long War Journal published by Bill Roggio. Two years ago, he posted The Fall of Northwestern Pakistan: An Online History , detailing AQs growing involvement in Pakistan and their cross-border reach into Afghanistan.

The New York Times story begins:

June 30, 2008
Amid Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan

By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID ROHDE

WASHINGTON — Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to make it easer for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.

Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden’s terrorism network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.

The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was intended to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave a smoother path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington’s risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Mr. bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive.

But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay.

[...]


Read the rest of the lengthy story in the NY Times or the International Herald Tribune.

Be as angry as you want with the New York Times, but the information in the piece is neither new nor unknown. And in this case, the Times was just doing its job. It is history and well known at that.

All too often our own biases about the War on Terror get in the way of remembering there is a war going on. We should all do better to keep up with the news the MSM is not reporting. Whether or not Barack Obama's birth certificate is real is a fun little story, but in the grand scheme of the real world struggle such stories are just stupid, a distraction, and they don't mean nothin'.



The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

4 comments:

Gayle said...

You're right in saying this is old news, Indigo. Is it possible the president doesn't realize it's been on the internet for quite some time? That seems a bit hard to believe.

Perhaps he's angry that too many times the NYT's has put out disinformation, and also information that can be harmful, like disclosing an undercover CIA interrogator's name when they were asked by the CIA's director not to because it might put the man's life in danger. The NYT's did so anyway and it was completely uneccessary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html?ref=todayspaper
We computer politico's do our best to keep up with the news the MSM doesn't report but it's nearly impossible because there's so much of it!

Indigo Red said...

That "there's so much of it" is not only a problam for the computer poiticos like us, Gayle. It's also a problem for the MSM who must fit an explosion of worldwide information into 22 TV minutes and 30 seconds of radio time. The print media, and I include the Internet here, have limited space to present the story and a very limited time to capture attention.

I think Bush is just as angry with the NYT editorial staff as they are with him. The mutual animosity makes two organs that do not play well together.

The story you linked to has been corrected by WaPo, but the story should not have been such a surprise, either. We were already told how the interrogations work when 60 Minutes interveiwed the FBI interrogator, George Piro in January 2008 - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

"The truth is out there" read the poster behind Fox Mulder's desk. It sure is out there and that's the best place to hide it.

suek said...

Re: Obama's birth certificate...

Agreed that the issue is probably minor. Focus should probably be on whether he is a "natural born" citizen or not. Check here:
http://tinyurl.com/4qb892 (findlaw site on immigration and naturalization.) An entry on page 2 deals specifically with the time frame of 1952 to 1986. Obama was born in 1961, his mother was 18 at the time. If she didn't meet the requirements of having lived in the US for 5 years after age 16 (which she could not have done) then he isn't a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution in order to be President. Question 2 is who is supposed to make this determination? Why has his status not been challenged? Will it be after he is actually nominated? Who has to challenge it? Where? How? If he's challenged and found ineligible, who becomes Dem nominee? I've been looking for answers, and having no luck.

I do agree, though, that he was born...!

Indigo Red said...

Barry Goldwater ran for the Presidency as a Republican even though he was born in Arizona 2 yrs before the territory became a state.

The overriding part of the fine print is that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America and no matter where his parents claimed citizenship, their child is and always has been a US citizen. Rightly or wrongly, that has been the interpretation of the 16th Amendment since its passage.

Goldwater, born in a US territory, McCain, born on a US military inside a foreign nation, and Obama, born in the US to a citizen mother and non-citizen father, are all citizens of the United States.