Bush Administration blows cover of Al Qeada double agent

To justify scaring the pants off the American public with the latest terror warning, the Bushies actually had to burn a valuable double agent. So how does this help win the War on Terror?

ISLAMABAD/LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. officials providing justification for anti-terrorism alerts revealed details about a Pakistani secret agent, and confirmed his name while he was working under cover in a sting operation, Pakistani sources said on Friday.

A Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, who was arrested in Lahore secretly last month, had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al Qaeda operatives when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers.

"After his capture he admitted being an al Qaeda member and agreed to send e-mails to his contacts," a Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters. "He sent encoded e-mails and received encoded replies. He's a great hacker and even the U.S. agents said he was a computer whiz."

"He was cooperating with interrogators on Sunday and Monday and sent e-mails on both days," the source said.

The New York Times published a story on Monday saying U.S. officials had disclosed that a man arrested secretly in Pakistan was the source of the bulk of information leading to the security alerts.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20040806/ts_nm/security_dc

Bravo, just when you think they can't up any worse...

Please keep this partisan bullshit out of it.
Something like this could have just as easily happened during a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry administration.

Amazingly, there are government officials that aren't directly accountable to the White House.

Someone deserves to be blamed for this idiocy, but to turn this into yet another assult on the sitting president based soley on party lines is pure crap.

You have to understand Dennis.... he thinks a President can oversee a $11 trillion economy, run wars single handedly, be responsible for the environment, be accountable for American's having health care, well paying jobs, the price of gasoline.... in short.... nothing in the world is the result of free markets or the millions fighting terrorism on our behalf. George Bush runs the world but he's also dumb as a f'ing chimp.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You have to understand Dennis.... he thinks a President can oversee a $11 trillion economy, run wars single handedly, be responsible for the environment, be accountable for American's having health care, well paying jobs, the price of gasoline.... in short.... nothing in the world is the result of free markets or the millions fighting terrorism on our behalf. George Bush runs the world but he's also dumb as a f'ing chimp.[/quote]

Bush should be held accountable for his poor stewardship of the environment. He is the worst president in at least the past 60 years for environmental protection.

So explain this to me....the Bush administration pushes a terror threat based on years-old information. Then when the public starts questioning the threat -- which happened just days after the opposition's political convention -- the administration burns an important source INSIDE THE TERROR GROUP to try and prove that the threat was real. But neither Bush nor his people should be held accountable? I thought Republicans were all about accountability. Or is that only when the other guys screw up?

We are now less safer, because we have one less agent inside Al Queda, and it is the fault of the Bush Administration. Try and smirk that fact away.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You have to understand Dennis.... he thinks a President can oversee a $11 trillion economy, run wars single handedly, be responsible for the environment, be accountable for American's having health care, well paying jobs, the price of gasoline.... in short.... nothing in the world is the result of free markets or the millions fighting terrorism on our behalf. George Bush runs the world but he's also dumb as a f'ing chimp.[/quote]

Who is in charge of issuing terror threats, PAD? A guy who works directly for the President. Do you think he acts without Bush's knowledge? And, to carry it further, do you think that he felt no pressure to justify the latest terror warning when the Administration had egg all over its face concerning the age of the data?

If it's not Bush's fault, fine. But how's about we actually see someone get fired over this? It won't happen, because you can't screw up badly enough to get fired from the Bush White House, but I can dream of competency and responsibility....

you keep talking about the information thats "several years old", like the fact that it is several years old means that its not important. Like i've said before, 9/11 had been planned for around 4 years. If we had found info from 1997 in 9/10, and we were like... o well this info is 4 years old, its not important, and then 9/11 occured, would you be mad?



I dont care who wins the election anymore. I'd like Bush to win, because i think he's a good president, but i'd also like Kerry to win so i can blame everything that goes wrong on him, like Kerry supporters are doing to Bush right now.

Its raining again today.... DAMNIT KERRY!

[quote name='Cracka']you keep talking about the information thats "several years old", like the fact that it is several years old means that its not important. Like i've said before, 9/11 had been planned for around 4 years. If we had found info from 1997 in 9/10, and we were like... o well this info is 4 years old, its not important, and then 9/11 occured, would you be mad?



I dont care who wins the election anymore. I'd like Bush to win, because i think he's a good president, but i'd also like Kerry to win so i can blame everything that goes wrong on him, like Kerry supporters are doing to Bush right now.

Its raining again today.... DAMNIT KERRY![/quote]

I'm not saying they shouldn't look into the information. But why make a giant terror alert out of it when they have no evidence of an impending attack? Why scare everyone for no good reason?

I think these are valid questions, not part of some wild plot to blame Bush for the color of the sky. And if you cared about the way our country is handling the war on terror, you would too.

The news keeps getting worse and worse on this.

From the AP:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The disclosure to reporters of the arrest of an al-Qaida computer expert allowed several wanted suspects from Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s terror network to escape, government and security officials said Tuesday.

Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, a 25-year-old Pakistani computer engineer, was nabbed in a July 13 raid in the eastern city of Lahore. He then led Pakistani authorities to a key al-Qaida figure and cooperated secretly by sending e-mails to terrorists so investigators could trace their locations.

His arrest was first reported in American newspapers on Aug. 2 after it was disclosed to reporters by U.S. officials in Washington. Later, the Pakistan government also confirmed his capture but gave no other details.

Two senior Pakistani officials said the reports in "Western media" enabled other al-Qaida suspects to get away.

"Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaida suspects ran away," one of the officials said on condition of anonymity.

National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) acknowledged Sunday that Khan's name had been disclosed to reporters in Washington "on background," meaning that it could be published, but the information could not be attributed by name to the official who had revealed it.

The Pakistani officials said that after Khan's arrest, other al-Qaida suspects abruptly changed their hide-outs and moved to unknown places.


A quote from Reuters:

David Wright-Neville, of the Monash Global Terrorism Research Unit, said that if Khan was still an active al Qaeda mole when his name was leaked, his loss was a serious blow.

"If it's true, at the very least it would suggest a breakdown in communication between the Pakistanis and the Americans," the Melbourne-based security expert said.

"At worst, it smacks of political opportunism and, if that is indeed the case, it suggests that political survival ranks more highly than generating potentially valuable information on the extent of the network."

Links:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=562551&section=news

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto..._re_as/pakistan_intelligence_leak_2&printer=1

A name got leaked, Bush can't watch everything, its a big government, etc, fine.

Whats his excuse for Valerie Plame?

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Cracka']you keep talking about the information thats "several years old", like the fact that it is several years old means that its not important. Like i've said before, 9/11 had been planned for around 4 years. If we had found info from 1997 in 9/10, and we were like... o well this info is 4 years old, its not important, and then 9/11 occured, would you be mad?



I dont care who wins the election anymore. I'd like Bush to win, because i think he's a good president, but i'd also like Kerry to win so i can blame everything that goes wrong on him, like Kerry supporters are doing to Bush right now.

Its raining again today.... DAMNIT KERRY![/quote]

I'm not saying they shouldn't look into the information. But why make a giant terror alert out of it when they have no evidence of an impending attack? Why scare everyone for no good reason?

I think these are valid questions, not part of some wild plot to blame Bush for the color of the sky. And if you cared about the way our country is handling the war on terror, you would too.[/quote]


as soon as they get information about a possible terror plot, they let the country know. I'm not sure why you're calling it a "giant terror alert." They didnt make a huge deal about it. They just announced that the terror alert level was raised. They found info on computers that told of some targets that the terrorists were looking at. Of course it probably didnt have a time/date that they may attack these buildings, so theres no way to know if its "impending" or not, which is why they went ahead and told the nation to be on the safe side. I dont think that raising the terror alert level scared everyone in the US... i dont know one person who got scared because the terror alert level was raised.

you keep making it seem like when the terror alert level is raised, lights start flashing, and loud sirens go off and everyone shits their pants. You're making it out to be something alot bigger than it really is.

[quote name='Cracka'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Cracka']you keep talking about the information thats "several years old", like the fact that it is several years old means that its not important. Like i've said before, 9/11 had been planned for around 4 years. If we had found info from 1997 in 9/10, and we were like... o well this info is 4 years old, its not important, and then 9/11 occured, would you be mad?



I dont care who wins the election anymore. I'd like Bush to win, because i think he's a good president, but i'd also like Kerry to win so i can blame everything that goes wrong on him, like Kerry supporters are doing to Bush right now.

Its raining again today.... DAMNIT KERRY![/quote]

I'm not saying they shouldn't look into the information. But why make a giant terror alert out of it when they have no evidence of an impending attack? Why scare everyone for no good reason?

I think these are valid questions, not part of some wild plot to blame Bush for the color of the sky. And if you cared about the way our country is handling the war on terror, you would too.[/quote]


as soon as they get information about a possible terror plot, they let the country know. I'm not sure why you're calling it a "giant terror alert." They didnt make a huge deal about it. They just announced that the terror alert level was raised. They found info on computers that told of some targets that the terrorists were looking at. Of course it probably didnt have a time/date that they may attack these buildings, so theres no way to know if its "impending" or not, which is why they went ahead and told the nation to be on the safe side. I dont think that raising the terror alert level scared everyone in the US... i dont know one person who got scared because the terror alert level was raised.

you keep making it seem like when the terror alert level is raised, lights start flashing, and loud sirens go off and everyone shits their pants. You're making it out to be something alot bigger than it really is.[/quote]

Ask the people in those "targeted" buildings, and in those communities, whether they were scared by that terror alert. I very much doubt they simply shrugged and went on with their lives. The extra security alone would add to your daily tension.

i'd like you to also ask those same people if they would rather know something could happen, or if they'd like to be told after the attack occured.

also if the attack occurred and people were killed in the buildings, and Bush later came and said "we had evidence that terrorists were looking at those buildings as targets, but we didnt tell anyone because we didnt want to put any tension on the people in those buildings". Do you think the families of those people killed would be like "well i'd rather my family member be dead than be a little scared." ? no, they'd be bitching at pres. Bush because they werent informed of the threat.

[quote name='Cracka']i'd like you to also ask those same people if they would rather know something could happen, or if they'd like to be told after the attack occured.

also if the attack occurred and people were killed in the buildings, and Bush later came and said "we had evidence that terrorists were looking at those buildings as targets, but we didnt tell anyone because we didnt want to put any tension on the people in those buildings". Do you think the families of those people killed would be like "well i'd rather my family member be dead than be a little scared." ? no, they'd be bitching at pres. Bush because they werent informed of the threat.[/quote]

Cracka,

They had nothing but years-old evidence that suggested something could happen. If they were going to put out this alert, why didn't they also say, "Hey, this is from a few years back. We just found it. We're going to protect these buildings. But really, you don't have anything to worry about"? I don't think there's anyone who would debate providing such information to the public.

Instead, they scared people by acting like these guys were casing those buildings last week. Why? Because they would rather scare the crap out of people into supporting Big Daddy Bush.

They could have very easily given the context I just gave, and they didn't. You should be asking why they didn't want people to know that information was old.

Dennis I've said why these guys do it. It's because Tom Ridge eventually wants people to be so SICK and fed up or rather worried for their safety that they're ready to give up their rights like: our "Freedom Of Speech", our "Right to peaceably assemble", etc.
This isn't just an issue of voting for Bush again. This is seriously a case of what may soon be a jeopardy to our Civil Rights.
Oh and on the subject of the name getting out, if he still was a mole finding stuff out about Al Quaeda I think WHOEVER leaked his name, Republican or Democrat, should be fired on the spot. I have a feeling it was someone in Bush's cabinet though. I mean granted it could be someone else but I doubt it. Regardless this occurance is inexcusable. People's lives on our on the line and this is no time to screw up(wishes he could find some tie in to bash the Patriot Act here).