The CIA’s top officer in Kabul was exposed Saturday by the White House when his name was inadvertently included on a list provided to news organizations of senior U.S. officials participating in President Obama’s surprise visit with U.S. troops.
The White House recognized the mistake and quickly issued a revised list that did not include the individual, who had been identified on the initial release as the “Chief of Station” in Kabul, a designation used by the CIA for its highest-ranking spy in a country.
This is a spectacularly bad example of journalism. How could the writer of that article possibly know that the disclosure was inadvertent? Because the White House later issued a revised list? And because the White House later made an oopsie face and asked everyone not to publish the guy’s name? Because the White House did all the things necessary to make it look like the disclosure was inadvertent? Because the White House said so?
Or is thinking otherwise just a conspiracy theory? There were eighteen missing minutes on the tape because the secretary accidentally leaned on the button, just like the Office of the President said. What are you, paranoid?
The reason why the conventional media in this country are blessedly close to bankruptcy is because they just can’t stick to the facts. The facts of the case are that the guy’s name was disclosed and that the list was later revised in what was described as a correction. Period. And a reading of these facts tells me that perhaps there is a political tussle going on between the White House and the CIA. That may be interesting to note.
I scour the internet every day in search of intelligence, in search of facts.
Stick to the facts.
It’s the Nothin’-to-See-Here media.