Skip to main content

View Diary: Kos and Front Pagers: draw a clear, bright line on Freedom of the Press (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Umm... (0+ / 0-)

    no, I mean the failure pointed out in the comment I replied to:

    “Oh, hi, AQAP gatekeeper” — their story must imagine the mole saying as he returned to AQAP — “I’ve both failed in my mission and somehow lost the bomb you gave me, but based on that would you be willing to let me spend some quality time with even higher-ranking AQAP operatives?”
    The history of plants and moles, in law enforcement and war, suggests that this is actually quite plausible.  The failure doesn't get put down as "you're a mole" but rather as "ah, you've been stymied".  Especially if the mole is a good bullshitter.  

    Of course, once the operation was blown, and Al-Qaeda knew they had a mole, "you're a mole" alternative suddenly becomes the likely one.  Thus, the mole couldn't go back.

    And as for John Brennan failing upwards, this also from emptywheel:

    You know? John Brennan? The guy who got a big promotion nine months after sloppily exposing a mole? The guy who, as a result, now serves as the original classification authority for some of our nation’s most sensitive secrets?
    I don't know why it's so inconceivable that failing upwards happens in the CIA but not in Al-Qaeda.  The fact that it would be completely expected suggests that emptywheel's suspicions are exaggerated.

    Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

    by nominalize on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:03:54 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  edit: (0+ / 0-)

      once the inside operation's cover was blown, Al-Qaeda knew they had a mole.  It isn't clear that they knew from the bombing's failure.

      Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

      by nominalize on Thu May 23, 2013 at 09:05:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You do realize that what she wrote there (3+ / 0-)

      is simply taking the logic put forth by the administration to its logical conclusion?  A supposed suicide bomber, who is supposed to wearing the bomb, is going to be able to say that he was stymied?  Seriously?  The only way to be stymied when one is wearing the bomb is to be detected at security or to be on the plane and try to blow up the bomb and the bomb doesn't work, either of which would have garnered an enormous amount of press.  

      And the operation was not blown by the AP.  By public statements, which many people, including emptywheel, have linked to, the mole was already out of the country and the perpetrator of the Undiebomb plot had been killed before the AP printed its story, as it had held the printing for several days upon request by the administration.  In fact, as emptywheel, among others, has pointed out, John Brennan himself had already publicly claimed that the plot was under control because there was a mole on the inside well before the AP printed its story.

      So if you have evidence to support this comment that you uprated:

      Your "context" doesn't appear to include... (12+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
          flatford39, ericlewis0, ballerina X, Susan from 29, MBNYC, Terrapin, virginislandsguy, second gen, edwardssl, doroma, caul, nominalize

      any mention of the fact that the AP leak destroyed an ongoing multinational covert intel operation that had successfully infiltrated Al-Qaeda.

      That strikes me as germane to the topic.

      it would be great if you presented it, as the original commenter still has not done so.  So far, neither have you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site