ABC exposes Bush’s secret order to CIA to destabilize Iranian regime
posted at 10:04 pm on May 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
It’s not a secret anymore. Some righty media outlet must have already linked it, too, because Brian Ross and company are getting reamed in the comments over there for revealing it.
I assumed we’ve been doing covert ops over there all along so I don’t know how much of the cat was still in the bag, but whoever’s trying to undermine it at the CIA clearly wants to make sure it’s well and fully out before things get going.
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a “nonlethal presidential finding” that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran’s currency and international financial transactions…
Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran.
“Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike,” said former CIA official Riedel, “but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides.”…
[Former CIA agent Bruce] Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program.
Makes sense given reports that gas rationing is expected to begin on June 5th.
Neither the fact that we’ve eschewed the military option for now nor the fact that the order is “nonlethal” will satisfy the left, who see in any U.S. action against Iran a casus belli justifying any action Iran might take. Whether it’s something highly lethal like a raid on the reactors, minimally lethal like assassinations of Iranian officials, or nonlethal like economic warfare, not only are they against it but they’ll treat it as a provocation by Bush instead of as a response to the provocations of Iran’s Bomb-seeking and lethal meddling with men and materiel in Iraq. The only “responsible” solution is to give them what they want and hope that the resulting goodwill solves the problem, just like the Times says in its editorial from this morning:
Given the urgency and ambition of Iran’s nuclear program, what is needed is a more urgent and ambitious international response. Let us be clear, this is not a call for more White House saber rattling and certainly not for military planning. There is no military solution. But unless Iran’s leaders are offered far more attractive rewards — yes, we’re talking about a grand bargain — and threatened with far more painful punishments — yes, that could mean another spike in world oil prices — there is no chance of changing their behavior.
That means that President Bush is going to have to put a lot more on the table, including a clear offer of full diplomatic relations and security guarantees should Iran agree to verifiably contain its nuclear ambitions. And it also means that the Europeans, Russians and Chinese are going to have to take a lot more off the table, cutting back diplomatic and trade relations if Tehran continues to push its nuclear program ahead.
The part about Russia and China is window dressing. Those countries aren’t going to vote for harsh sanctions on Iran given their oil interests; if they were, they’d have already done it by now. That’s why, as you’ll note, the Times isn’t insisting that the U.S. refrain from offering full diplomatic relations until Russia and China act. They won’t act and the Times knows it, but they’d rather have us “lead by example” by rewarding Iran for its years of sabotage in hopes that the friendly gesture will buy us cooperation, which it won’t. But how nice that our intentions will have been so good.
Meanwhile, plans for “blowback” might already be afoot in Europe:
Iran is attempting to draw up plans to strike targets in Europe and has reconnoitered European nuclear power stations, a security analyst told a meeting at Britain’s parliament.
Claude Moniquet, president of the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Centre, a private think-tank in Brussels, said his organisation also had evidence Tehran has increased the number of its intelligence agents across Europe.
“We have serious signals that something is under preparation in Europe,” Moniquet said. “Iranian intelligence is working extremely hard to prepare its people and to prepare actions.”
The centre, which he said deals directly with European intelligence agencies, believes Iranian operatives have carried out “reconnaissance of targets in European cities, including nuclear power stations,” Moniquet said. He mentioned no other specific targets.
Exit question: “European” nuclear power stations usually means French nuclear power stations. Is this Sarkozy’s first test?
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Or was this “secret” plan leaked to throw Iran off the real plan to strike militarily at their nuclear facilities?
profitsbeard on May 22, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Or was the secret plan leaked to throw Iran off the real plan of not really having a plan?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
SouthernGent on May 22, 2007 at 10:14 PM
WHAT IS THE FRIGGIN DEAL!?!?
This is a serious, SERIOUS violation of US National Security. Whomever leaked this should be up against a firing squad. ABC news should be seriously censured for this if not have their broadcast license pulled altogether!
People are going to DIE becase of this leak.
What was ABC even thinking?!? Wait, what am I saying? They’re the protectors of the free world!
Skywise on May 22, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Or is it just more traitors in the CIA and the MSM that will do anything at all to make America look bad?
bbz123 on May 22, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Wait isnt this the same thing Clinton did to Iraq that we are arguing in the Chris Matthews thread ?
William Amos on May 22, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Tehran Bob, I presume?
“I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran,” said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow,” Nasr said.
Buy Danish on May 22, 2007 at 10:32 PM
…but don’t question their patriotism
lsutiger on May 22, 2007 at 10:39 PM
We need black ops to destablize ABC and NYT . . . or have they already started. Make you think.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 22, 2007 at 10:40 PM
and will the real Jack Bauer please stand up
lsutiger on May 22, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Man … they are getting reamed!
darwin on May 22, 2007 at 10:42 PM
I don’t see what the hullabaloo is. We’ve worked to “destabilize” Iran through “nonlethal” means since the Shah was deposed. We’ve also previously used some lethal means.
I don’t hold out much hope for success. Iran is more stable than the Administration seems to realize.
NPP on May 22, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Or is it just more traitors in the CIA and the MSM that will do anything at all to make Bush/Cheney/America look bad?
that is more like it.
pabo on May 22, 2007 at 10:44 PM
I see the French have been busy little bee’s within the aviation industry.Is this the basis for their interest in the region and their opposition to the U.S. and Israel. Now that they are in the cross hairs they are whistling a different tune. All that opposition is comming back to bite them square in their ass! So much for competing world powers. Don’t mess with the U.S.
sonnyspats1 on May 22, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Wow, spin like you read about. Here’s your choices:
1. Reward the craven killers if they agree not to do what we know they will do anyway.
2. Punish
themourselves at the pump through military action.Freelancer on May 22, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Little bit of difference between the late 70s and now. Then, we had virtually zero ability to operate undetected inside their society. No more than a handful of operatives who could speak local dialects, etc. Our only attack points were international economic ones. Just sayin’.
Freelancer on May 22, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Late 70’s? No. Since the mid-80’s? Yes.
The more I think about it the more I think the leak may originate with the pro-war crowd. It doesn’t make sense for the anti-Bush CIA faction to out this program since it supports their goals. No, I’m going to guess the leak originated from the VP’s office.
NPP on May 22, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Breathing living body inside cold steel bars. Rep or Dem, I don’t care. Ind or Nutroot, I don’t care. Black or White, Green or Yellow, I don’t care. Newsman or Congressman, I don’t care. I weld ok. It will be a ‘community service’. I’d be glad to do it.
Limerick on May 22, 2007 at 11:18 PM
There is only one solution to this kind of ILLEGAL conduct by the mainstream media. You have to PROSECUTE the violations of the law. Not to do so undermines the integrity of the law and sends a message to the media that it really is O.K. to endanger national security at their whim. The New York Times should have been prosecuted with respect to the financial tracking program. Let’s not make the same mistake with respect to ABC and the order to destabilize the Iranian mullah regime.
And no, the people at ABC and the New York Times are NOT patriots.
Phil Byler on May 22, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Nice, that’s about par for the course with the American media, if true. Oh, and how Chamberlain-esque of the Times to put stock in a “grand bargain”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall Iran requesting full diplomatic relations and security guarantees from us? That’s North Korea. Iran’s the one with the death wish.
CP on May 22, 2007 at 11:24 PM
skywise
ZOMG!!1! LOL… chill a little, man.
First of all, this is probably an intentional leak… think of it as our “game face”.
Second of all, regardless of the nature of the leak, the information is ultimately no more informative for the Iranians than the “August 6th PDB” was for the US before September 11th… in other words, they already know that we are trying to do things to them and rougly what those things are.
For all we know, ABC printed this at the implied request of the administration, on the implied condition that it be attributed to an anonymous source.
Also, did you get your name from the old Elfquest comics?
DaveS on May 22, 2007 at 11:27 PM
sorry dave but I don’t buy it…..I saw the report as it was broadcast……’current and former employees of the CIA’ was the source of confirmation by ABC.
Gitmo needs a twin brother in the Ozarks.
Limerick on May 22, 2007 at 11:49 PM
huh? I am not following you and I live in the Ozarks.
kahall on May 22, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Time for the “Jamma’ in the Slamma”” for some present and past spooks.
Mojave Mark on May 22, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Just my way of saying….one for the terrorists…one for the traitors.
Limerick on May 22, 2007 at 11:59 PM
Now I am starting to really wonder about you. :
kahall on May 23, 2007 at 12:02 AM
If it was an intentional leak than it would’ve been sourced from the White House. Not the CIA. Either way, you never drop your game face. Maybe the Iranian’s suspected we were interfering with them, maybe not. There’s more power in leaving them guessing than in leaking that we’re doing it. The only reason you leak something like this is if you’re NOT doing it and then it’s a REALLY STUPID thing to try to bluff on. Because if we’re not, then Iran will certainly take action on it anyway and then WE’D be liable for it. (Unless the whole plan is to push Iran to fire the first shot… ala Japan and Pearl Harbor)
And the answer is yes. Been my handle for a loong time.
Skywise on May 23, 2007 at 12:07 AM
As for being an intentional leak… I find it interesting that Drudge hasn’t posted this info yet… If Drudge aint posting it he’s gotta know it’s really confidential.
Skywise on May 23, 2007 at 12:11 AM
We like the Romans will fall to groups of Barbarians because we have become fat, dumb, and happy. Such a dovish nation can not exist for long in the harsh environment that gave us the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Gorbachev, Bin Laden, and countless other Brutal leaders in the last century alone. What a vastly different nation than the one that stood proudly behind its fighting force in WW2. Shame on America for its weakening fortitude and lack of self sacrifice.
Psycotte on May 23, 2007 at 12:14 AM
Limerick on May 22, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I’ll hold them for you, while you weld.
Entelechy on May 23, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Thanks E……..so POd over this story. I wrote ABC news and told them if they wanted to ‘expose’ something to start with their boardroom meeting minutes.
Limerick on May 23, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Neh… he probably just realizes that, like I said, there isn’t anything interesting in the story. They don’t actually say anything.
He’ll get to it eventually, I’m sure.
Eh… I think you’re assuming a lot of things. The CIA works for the White House (ostensibly, at least)… the WH could leak things through the CIA. And what do you mean “drop the game face”… this could be the game face.
DaveS on May 23, 2007 at 12:31 AM
Rats.
Any way you want to take it, that one word just about explains this whole debacle, one way or another.
LegendHasIt on May 23, 2007 at 12:33 AM
and the face they put up to back up Brian Ross……none other then Richard Clark. Mr-Get-Me-Some-Of-Osama himself.
Yeah…..leaked alright, but not by the WH or with their consent.
Limerick on May 23, 2007 at 12:34 AM
ABC News deleted my comment>
‘What possible purpose does this serve to ‘expose’ this story. What possible ‘need to know excuse’ could you come up with? None that holds water.’
‘If ABC wants to expose something they can start with exposing the conversations of ABC boardroom and news room meetings.’
‘Looks like ABC earns a V-chip block.’
I am sure it was the last line that got me axed.
Limerick on May 23, 2007 at 12:48 AM
I have reposted it 12:07am CST
Limerick on May 23, 2007 at 1:07 AM
Whatever happens…Rove is behind it
Ropera on May 23, 2007 at 1:07 AM
I would so love it if the admin. would throw out something plausibly serious, just to test the ‘traitors’ in our midst.
Entelechy on May 23, 2007 at 1:12 AM
I am sure it was the last line that got me axed.
I doubt they intentionally deleted your comment. Your comment sounds, roughly, like any one of the hundreds that are there.
DaveS on May 23, 2007 at 1:41 AM
I’ve been saving these quotes for about 2 years:
Commandant of Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, said on state television. “God willing, the 21st century will see the defeat of the U.S. and the Zionists, and the victory of freedom-seeking nations of the world. The final goal of the [1979] revolution is to create global Islamic rule and a regime of law to be led by the Imam Mahdi”.
The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”
The IRGC chief warned that Iran was seeing through “critical days” and “fate-determining years”. He described the purpose of Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution as the “Salvation of Muslims” from the hands of the “oppressive U.S. and Israel”.
VinceP1974 on May 23, 2007 at 1:54 AM
I think the reasons for spilling classifed info can be found on this Simpsons Clip.
Krydor on May 23, 2007 at 1:57 AM
This is not the first time that Brian Ross has exposed (blown) a national security secret.
Personally, I think it’s time that Brian Ross be sent to the wall and face a firing squad for treason.
Leaking national security secrets: Enough is enough!
georgej on May 23, 2007 at 3:52 AM
The management of ABC News live by the good grace of every American.
Kralizec on May 23, 2007 at 5:16 AM
They, these media jerkoffs, are more apt to warn our enemies of impending attacks than they are to warn US.
That’s amazing to me…
benrand on May 23, 2007 at 7:16 AM
Look for OUTRAGE! over this covert action from some of the same people who suggested assassinating Saddam in the run up to the Iraq War.
dorkafork on May 23, 2007 at 7:25 AM
And if you want another “through the looking glass” idea, imagine if it was leaked by the pro-military action faction to scuttle the competition.
dorkafork on May 23, 2007 at 7:38 AM
Priorities are showing now, aren’t they? Isn’t ABC the media who said they would not release the DC Madam’s black book, yet they’ll reveal National Security secrets? Methinks there were some ABC execs in that little black book. Bastards!
MsUnderestimated on May 23, 2007 at 8:14 AM
I’ll say it again – the laws against sedition and treason are still on the books.
locomotivebreath1901 on May 23, 2007 at 8:18 AM
Sometimes just the paranoia of a spy in the upper echelons is enough to get them eating their own. If its truly a media leak I hope we see some outrage and prosecution from the White House. If we don’t, I will just assume it came from them. ……….Or maybe its just a trap for the White House leaker. Oh wouldn’t that be grand.
frreal on May 23, 2007 at 8:22 AM
If ABC execs think that they’ve told the public anything new, then they are still dreaming with their heads up their a**es. My question is…does ABC think that this is a “bad” thing?
lynnv on May 23, 2007 at 8:25 AM
Ah blowback. The theory that anything that anyone might have done or might not have done at any time may cause terrorism. So if America attacks Iran, Europe gets attacked.
BohicaTwentyTwo on May 23, 2007 at 8:48 AM
Nothing ever happens to these traitors. The Administration should have nipped these actions in the bud -years ago.
It’s their own fault that the Justice dept has done nothing. Why wouldn’t the MSM continue to do this – nothing ever happens to them.
stenwin77 on May 23, 2007 at 9:27 AM
I question their patriotism… and their survival instinct.
Dave Shay on May 23, 2007 at 9:45 AM
You’ve heard me say it for a year, Brian Ross is an unworthy scum of a reporter. He should be jailed.
shooter on May 23, 2007 at 9:50 AM
I grew up reading the Times. I spent my youth being told (by the Times) that the Times was the product of superior minds steeped in a top-notch liberal education. Times reporters would much rather read Aristotle and Plato, but everyone has to make a living, so they deigned to scribble in ink for the enlightenment of unworthy bridge-and-tunnel types like me.
Being a bookish kind of kid, I followed their example and eagerly slogged through the Loeb Library classics that were gathering dust in my high school library.
Funny thing — the old guard over at the Times must have retired. Because the one thing the classics uniformly prove is that the military solution is always needed at some point. Hey Pinch, start with the Illiad if you need a refresher! It’s in English now so you should be able to get through it….
Anton on May 23, 2007 at 9:53 AM
A little perspective through a quick conversion: the Iranians will be paying the equivalent of 40 cents on the gallon for gas with the 25% hike. They will only be able to buy 3/4 a gallon a day though.
starflyer on May 23, 2007 at 10:46 AM
The fact that they have published this story undermines many aspects of the worldview at ABC, and proves them to be liars and fools, as well as traitors.
If anything they think about this country over at ABC were actually true, they’d be dredging the Potomoc River for Ross’s headless body right now.
They aren’t; he’s safe and sound; and no one from the CIA will be showing up any time soon in a black Escalade with tinted windows, wearing dark sunglasses and carrying an M&P .45 ACP to take Mr. Ross away. So, apparently, they are wrong about just about everything.
Jaibones on May 23, 2007 at 10:50 AM
The key problem is that Iran WILL use this to as evidence, and excuse, to further clamp down on any dissidents.
Like that Lady who was visiting her daughter, and is now in prison… wouldn’t let her come back to America.
Or the retired FBI guy who is missing over there.
We just further fed their paranoia…
Romeo13 on May 23, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Our journalists are taught in J-school that their loyalty is to their trade and not to their country. Some serious J-school questions are: is it unethical to attach an American flag to your camera while shooting? Is it unethical to hold a story that if released will put American soldiers lives at risk? They actually think these are serious questions. I’m not sure why they don’t take into consideration that without their country they wouldn’t even have a freedom of the press to begin with. Why do they think that Iranian journalists aren’t exposing Ahmedinijad’s inner workings and strategies every day? And it would be one thing if American journalists were just really dedicated to noble journalism in its purest form. That is just not true. I’ve never seen a group of people sell out their principles more easily or more frequently when it comes to pushing a particular left wing political agenda then do American journalists.
Zetterson on May 23, 2007 at 11:00 AM
MSM… Main Spying Media?
Mainly Spying Media?
Mostly Spying Media?
Romeo13 on May 23, 2007 at 11:07 AM
No, they deleted my comment as well, and it included nothing like that. Apparently there are simply some criticisms they don’t like seeing aired.
Blacklake on May 23, 2007 at 11:17 AM
I’ve posted this link before….but here it is again anyway…where is today’s Ernie Pyle? ****crickets******
http://www.journalism.indiana.edu/news/erniepyle/boggeddown.html
Limerick on May 23, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Interestingly watching the ABC online video of this an analyst suggested that the best way to destabilize Iran isnt to hit its military but its economy.
He stated that there is enough discontent with the Ayatollahs in Iran that if you cause enough economic hardship it will put enormous pressure on the government.
Arent we seeing stories out of Iraq of economic hardships ?
So it seems the plan isnt to attack Iran head on to overthrow the government but rather to destablize it enough that it is unable to interfere outside its borders.
interesting strategy.
William Amos on May 23, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Apparently the lefty sites have finally gotten wind of this and are flacking for ABC in the comments.
I’m glad we’re trying to destablize Iran, but I’d rather hear about it on the History channel in five years, when women aren’t getting beaten by fashion police.
Or straight from the Government, asking for our help in the effort to topple the mullahs. But not from a partisan schmuck like Brian Ross.
Iblis on May 23, 2007 at 11:42 AM
I realize to a degree the Mullahs know we’re trying to undermine the regime, but we don’t need stupid Brian Ross announcing every damn thing we’re doing. Stupid prick.
Bad Candy on May 23, 2007 at 11:50 AM
I suspect that this was a carefully planned psy-op to re-direct the anger of the conservatives away from the current immigration bill. Who instigated it is a damn good question.
doriangrey on May 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Interestingly presented as an absolute FACT. Fortunately, it is 100% incorrect, there IS a military solution, just not one anyone wants to talk about. Does anyone doubt the fact that the U.S. could stop progress towards nuclear weapons in Iran if we really wanted to? Heck, we could stop ALL progress whatsoever and reduce them to a stone-age existance if we really wanted to.
Sometimes being right meand giving up on the hope of ever being popular.
Fatal on May 23, 2007 at 11:56 AM
See there is no problem. Joh Edwards says there is no such thing as the War on Terror Bush just made it up.
Edwards: Move past ‘war on terror’ By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK – Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a “global war on terror,” calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.
In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a “bumper sticker” slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq.
“We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes,” Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. “By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set — that we are engaged in some kind of
clash of civilizations and a war on Islam.”
William Amos on May 23, 2007 at 11:59 AM
That should read:
“Sometimes being right means giving up on the hope of ever being popular”
I would point out that it is highly doubtful that the longest lasting and most powerful empire ever to grace this world wasn’t exactly “popular” with the rest of the world, but the world damned well respected Rome.
Fatal on May 23, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Yep… its a little thing called a punishment raid.
You don’t occupy… you invade, smash, then leave.
If they don’t come to terms then? You do it agian…
Smash every bridge, power station, oil well, Nuclear plant, and military installation they have… if they wish to act like Middle Age Barbarians? Knock em back to that technology.
Romeo13 on May 23, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Well, I could only read so many comments over there – didn’t see Ross getting reamed much, seemed to be a lot of people expressing support. Do they censor entries?
What bothers me as much is how many “youths” we have in this country who seem to have a strange new concept of what liberty is. There seems to be a consensus that if you don’t like the current administration, you can undermine the entire country because of it. That example is being set by Democrats in Congress.
Like many other misconceptions, it is now apparently a proven fact that we have sacrificed liberties to be safe. The fact that no one can cite any evidence of such activity is no deterrent to these people.
There are too many people who think that giving the enemy propaganda, undermining the government, exposing secrets and putting politics ahead of national security is acceptable.
At some point, someone needs to go down. Someone in State or Defense, or CIA, or even Congress, needs to be set-up, caught, whatever…
I guess we’re just amnesty happy in all forms these days.
reaganaut on May 23, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Yeah… there isn’t a single critical comment there.
Maybe you’re just really freakin’ paranoid. HotAir has now officially been promoted to tin-foil hat status. Congratulations, you’re now in the good company of DKos and DU.
DaveS on May 23, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Now that treason is no longer a punishable crime, I wonder what future generations of traitors will think up…
Halley on May 23, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Say, ABCNews’ website has a big fight between Unstable Mabel and Elizabeth.
E takes it right to big Ro.
Iblis on May 23, 2007 at 12:57 PM
I e-mailed this message to my congressman and my senator as well as to both the president and the vice president. I strongly urge all readers here to do likewise.
doriangrey on May 23, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Look, the best op we have in destabilizing Iran is aloonyboonyjabs MOUTH! The people hate his guts.
csdeven on May 23, 2007 at 4:04 PM
(Sorry for the cross-post, but this seems to be the hotter thread.)
Interestingly, ABC’s Blotter has deleted my comment on their story twice now. I’ve reposted for a third.
Here’s what I had to say. Any idea what, in ABC’s mind, renders this comment too offensive to avoid the censor’s axe?
I hope everyone here is able to come to grips with such shocking words.
Blacklake on May 23, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Actually, I have to take that partially back. The Blotter did delete my comments once, but the second time they remained.
Blacklake on May 23, 2007 at 6:32 PM
DATELINE June 4, 1944- Flash!
ABC News reports that FDR, Eisenhower, and Churchill have secret plan, called “Operation Overlord”, to invade Europe by having the strike force land at Normany Beach, on the coast of France, and not at Calais, as they have been trying to get the German High Command to believe.
Only the dates have changed.
Not the inherent treason.
profitsbeard on May 23, 2007 at 10:48 PM
I found this at http://www.thoseshirts.com/rope.html via nicedoggie.net.
A T-shirt with the legend:
Rope. Tree. Journalist
Some assembly required.
I’m almost tempted to send one to Ross with a special note of “appreciation.”
georgej on May 24, 2007 at 5:18 AM
I totally agree with Skywise.
todd76705 on May 24, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Not even close. As late as 1993, we had less than a bare handful of operatives who were fluent in Arabic languages/dialects, and not many of those could “blend in”. It is really only since Al Qaeda became a regular problem that our military and intelligence services stepped up Arabic-oriented training.
Freelancer on May 24, 2007 at 7:28 PM
I’ve already slammed Ross and his editors at ABC News for their treasonous act of publishing sensitive information during wartime. They deserve the maximum allowable sentence under the law.
SpartRan on May 27, 2007 at 2:26 AM
who knows what happens behind closed doors.
With that said, media who prints this stuff that is supposedly *secret* is a sell out to this country.
C’mon..what country cuts your paycheck you jerks?
This is a no brainer.
Highrise on May 28, 2007 at 3:31 AM
Comment pages: