Winehole23
08-31-2012, 08:09 AM
The rightwing transparency group, Judicial Watch, released Tuesday a new batch of documents (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-4-to-5-inch-stack-of-overlooked-cia-records-detailing-meetings-with-bin-laden-filmmakers/) showing how eagerly the Obama administration (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-administration) shoveled information to Hollywood film-makers about the Bin Laden raid. Obama officials did so to enable the production of a politically beneficial pre-election film about that "heroic" killing, even as administration lawyers insisted to federal courts (http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/04/federal-judge-denies-foia-request-for-bin-laden-photos.php) and media outlets (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/look-whos-foiaing-bin-laden-death-photo/37493/) that no disclosure was permissible because the raid was classified.
Thanks to prior disclosures (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/wh_leaks_for_propaganda_film/) from Judicial Watch of documents it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, this is old news. That's what the Obama administration chronically does (http://www.salon.com/2012/06/07/probing_obamas_secrecy_games/): it manipulates secrecy powers to prevent accountability in a court of law, while leaking at will about the same programs in order to glorify the president.
But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails (http://www.scribd.com/doc/104180865/Advance-Maureen-Dowd-Piece#page=42) between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/new-york-times)'s national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cia) spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.
A mere two minutes after the CIA spokeswoman sent this Friday night inquiry, Mazzetti responded. He promised her that he was "going to see a version before it gets filed", and assured her that there was likely nothing to worry about:
"My sense is there a very brief mention at bottom of column about CIA ceremony, but that [screenwriter Mark] Boal also got high level access at Pentagon."
She then replied with this instruction to Mazzetti: "keep me posted", adding that she "really appreciate[d] it".
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/8/29/1346258522282/mazzetti.png Moments later, Mazzetti forwarded the draft of Dowd's unpublished column to the CIA spokeswoman (it was published the following night online (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/Dowd--The-Downgrade-Blues.html?_r=1) by the Times, and two days later in the print edition). At the top of that email, Mazzetti wrote: "this didn't come from me … and please delete after you read." He then proudly told her that his assurances turned out to be true:
"See, nothing to worry about."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia
Thanks to prior disclosures (http://www.salon.com/2012/05/23/wh_leaks_for_propaganda_film/) from Judicial Watch of documents it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, this is old news. That's what the Obama administration chronically does (http://www.salon.com/2012/06/07/probing_obamas_secrecy_games/): it manipulates secrecy powers to prevent accountability in a court of law, while leaking at will about the same programs in order to glorify the president.
But what is news in this disclosure are the newly released emails (http://www.scribd.com/doc/104180865/Advance-Maureen-Dowd-Piece#page=42) between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/new-york-times)'s national security and intelligence reporter, and CIA (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cia) spokeswoman Marie Harf. The CIA had evidently heard that Maureen Dowd was planning to write a column on the CIA's role in pumping the film-makers with information about the Bin Laden raid in order to boost Obama's re-election chances, and was apparently worried about how Dowd's column would reflect on them. On 5 August 2011 (a Friday night), Harf wrote an email to Mazzetti with the subject line: "Any word??", suggesting, obviously, that she and Mazzetti had already discussed Dowd's impending column and she was expecting an update from the NYT reporter.
A mere two minutes after the CIA spokeswoman sent this Friday night inquiry, Mazzetti responded. He promised her that he was "going to see a version before it gets filed", and assured her that there was likely nothing to worry about:
"My sense is there a very brief mention at bottom of column about CIA ceremony, but that [screenwriter Mark] Boal also got high level access at Pentagon."
She then replied with this instruction to Mazzetti: "keep me posted", adding that she "really appreciate[d] it".
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/8/29/1346258522282/mazzetti.png Moments later, Mazzetti forwarded the draft of Dowd's unpublished column to the CIA spokeswoman (it was published the following night online (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/Dowd--The-Downgrade-Blues.html?_r=1) by the Times, and two days later in the print edition). At the top of that email, Mazzetti wrote: "this didn't come from me … and please delete after you read." He then proudly told her that his assurances turned out to be true:
"See, nothing to worry about."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/29/correspondence-collusion-new-york-times-cia