BoatBanter.com - OT BushCo outs a mole

What a bunch of bungling idiots. I don't really think they're idiots,
but they are trying too hard to win election votes by fear, and it's
backfiring.

WORLD VIEWS: U.S. blows U.S. spy's cover; Pfc. Lynndie England's
lawyers want high-ranking administration officials to testify;
Britain's Tories consider "rebranding."

Edward M. Gomez, special to SF Gate
Thursday, August 12, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last week, after The New York Times reported that Washington officials
had disclosed that a man arrested secretly in Pakistan was the source
of the bulk of information leading to the [U.S. government's most
recent] security alerts," the Bush administration broke the most
hallowed rule of espionage: It revealed the name of the hitherto
anonymous spy, a double agent who was actively linked to al Qaeda and
was providing valuable intelligence data to the United States at the
same time. (Reuters)
The uniquely positioned Pakistani man was Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, a
skilled computer hacker. For whatever reasons, Bush administration
officials exposed him "while he was still cooperating with Pakistani
authorities." (Reuters/Dawn, Pakistan). Khan, who was arrested last
month in Lahore, had been "coaxed" by Pakistani intelligence officials
into working undercover to help track down al Qaeda militants in the
United Kingdom and the United States (Rediff.com) "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. (new Zealand
Herald)

Computer data recovered from Khan showed "detailed plans and
information about several U.S. and British targets, including
financial centers and other public buildings." However, Khan's
material was three years old. (Rediff.com) Nevertheless, U.S. National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, obliquely referring to Khan and
defending the administration's decision to expose him at the same
time, said that "the information that there were plots under way that
might relate to the pre-election period" made it "inconceivable" for
the government not to warn potential terrorist targets in the United
States, such as the New York Stock Exchange. Similarly, Rice
suggested, the Bush administration was obliged to make known the
source of its timely information, which meant identifying Khan. (CNN)

Pakistan's interior minister appeared to disagree. "This is a very
sensitive subject," he said. "... [W]e must exercise extreme caution
in coming out with such names and such information." (Reuters/Dawn,
Pakistan) An op-ed commentator for Pakistan's Daily Times was more
critical. "The unthinkable in the murky world of intelligence has come
to pass," he wrote of the Bush team's decision to blow the cover of
"one of the most important assets inside al Qaeda ... the U.S. has
ever had."

Tim Ripley, a writer for Jane's Defence publications in the United
Kingdom (subscription required), observed of the White House's action,
"The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse.... What are
they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda when it's so
difficult to get these guys in there in the first place? ... Running
agents within a terrorist organization is the holy grail of
intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback that
negates months and years of work ...." The head of the Institute for
Terrorism Research and Security Policy, in Essen, Germany, said, "If
it is correct, then I would say it's another debacle of the American
intelligence community." (Reuters/New Zealand Herald)

In the United Kingdom, Home Secretary David Blunkett, whose office
handles domestic security, offered a more measured response to the
latest, heightened terrorism concerns linked to data reportedly
provided by Khan. Is it "really the job of a senior cabinet minister
in charge of counterterrorism" to "feed the media," to "increase
concern" and to "have something to say, whatever it is, in order to
satisfy the insatiable desire to hear somebody saying something?"
Blunkett wrote in an Observer commentary. "Of course not," he
concluded. "This is arrant nonsense."

Unlike his American counterparts, Blunkett insisted that "there are
very good reasons why we shouldn't reveal certain information to the
public." For starters, he noted, "we do not want to undermine ... our
sources of information, or share information that could place
investigations in jeopardy. Second, we do not want to do or say
anything which would prejudice any trial." Blunkett reported that the
United Kingdom's security and counterterrorism agencies "are doing
their job."

"[T]hey're protecting us in a way that I desire, you desire and we all
expect from them," he asserted. "That is all, at the moment, there is
to be said." (Observer)