Apr 27 2006
WaPo Changes It’s View On CIA Prisons
Hat Tip to reader CJ (not Clarice Feldman!) on pointing us to this amazing analysis showing how the Chameleon post sees the same program as needed under Clinton and a near war crime under Bush.In 2002 the WaPo called the International detention (prison) story vital – in 2005 they quote another official calling it a burden. In 2002 they informed people that Clinton initiated the practice of extraordinary rendition. In 2005, they made it look like a creation of George Bush.
What changed? And what did Dana Priest know and when did she know it? Evidently, not a terribly great deal changed from 2002 to 2005, given that many details of the program the WaPo broke in 2005 were actually published through a group reported piece in the WaPo in 2002.
Oh, the hypocrisy!
CJ deserves the credit, not I–And it’s Feldman, not Friedman. *wink*
Isn’t that the oddest thing? What does that do to McCarthy being the source for Priest in 2005? Where was McCarthy in 2002? Would she have had access in 2002 to the information needed to be the source?
Maybe I’m thinking about this wrong. Was McCarthy a confirming source for a new article? “Yeah, it’s still going on?” I don’t know, but things are getting really weird.
Oh come on…
…we all know the truth:
Bill Clinton= goood!
George Bush=eeevillll!
Dana Priest speaks
Ever since she earned a widely-expected Pulitzer Prize earlier this month for her Washington Post exclusive on CIA “secret prisons” in Europe, Dana Priest has been attacked by conservative commentators for supposedly turning classified information into a vehicle for undermining the war on terror. Bill Bennett, among others, not only said she did not deserve the Pulitzer, but should be brought up on charges and possibly sent to jail.
Then she was drawn into the controversy surrounding fired CIA officer Mary McCarthy, who admitted meeting with Priest but not leaking classified information to her.
Priest offered a brief comment to E&P last week but had not responded at length until an online chat on http://www.washingtonpost.com today. Asked directly about Bennett’s wish to see her behind bars, she said, “Well, first, Bennett either doesn’t understand the law or is purposefully distorting it. He keeps saying that it is illegal to publish secrets. It is not.”
Plus there is more.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002424408