Reply With Quote
Somewhat chilling, IMO.
Not surprising.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...york-times-ciaThe rightwing transparency group, Judicial Watch, released Tuesday a new batch of do ents showing how eagerly the 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 and media outlets that no disclosure was permissible because the raid was classified.
Thanks to prior disclosures from Judicial Watch of do ents it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, this is old news. That's what the Obama administration chronically does: 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 between Mark Mazzetti, the New York Times's national security and intelligence reporter, and 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".
Moments later, Mazzetti forwarded the draft of Dowd's unpublished column to the CIA spokeswoman (it was published the following night online by the Times, and two days later in the print edition).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."
Somewhat chilling, IMO.
Not surprising.
Anyone on Blue Team want to defend?
Red Team, go ahead and pile on with righteous indignation.
no surprise, but all journalism assumes a fairytalish guise for me.
This ought to stay closer to the top of the page.
I think that about a number of posts that get no reply whatsoever.
*bump*
Same. If you've gotten to this level as a journalist/correspondent, it's because you have some solid relationships that are built on a foundation of hiding things. I'm not sure what the better alternative would be, beyond competing journalists and correspondents with different co-beneficial relationships who can hold the former accountable.
Disgusting.
I'd like to note that no one from blue team has defended this... yet.
Whatever it takes to get re-elected - Blue team member 2,308,6938
It appears that's the response WH wants?
Really? Might want to re read the thread.
Hint: 101a
Yep. Sorry WH. This appears to be what 101a wants to hear?
You're right.
I thought for sure Boutons was good for a "worse under W, head, UCA - Gecko...." post.
The day's not over yet....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
