CIA making off the record comments

Remember one of the arguments for blogs -- and against the MSM -- was that there was no conflict, rather a free flow of information.

How quickly the blogs adopt the same rules.



Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not calling a certain blog as being "in bed" with the evil ones.

With respect to the issue at hand -- we can only wonder what the CIA might say that would warrant an "off the record comment."

Let's make that the issue: Please provide a list of issues and subject that will prompt someone in the CIA Public Affairs office to say, "I want to go off the record."

Let's imagine:

Operations, capabilities, and plans illegally being used stateside against American civilians in violation of the Constitution

Lost documents and security breaches at airfields in the United States following aborted takeoffs, and aircraft accidents in adverse weather conditions

Disclosure of classified information related to illegal activities, which cannot legally be classified, nor can anyone be bound by a confidentiality agreement when the objective is to mislead or hide evidence of wrong doing

Pending litigation or indicators of litigation related to war crimes by CIA personnel and contractors overseas and at home

Deficiencies in training on the laws of war, and demoting those who report the misconduct to the CIA IG

Failure to comply with Congressional language barring use of funds for illegal purposes

Illegal use of funds for non-approved purposes against Americans during illegal warrantless surveillance, intrusion, and interrogations stateside

Ongoing investigations of criminal activity in Eastern Europe

Areas which the CIA IG refuses to investigate on "national security grounds" but are actually illegal activity which should not be funded

Incompetence by the CIA contractors, but failure to cooperate with auditors in the pending investigation

Flaws and cost overruns of the CIA development efforts, yet continued false reports to Congress that the programs are on target

Illegal uses of the contractor's work products for use against American civilians

Knowledge of the pre 9-11 explosives installations inside the three WTC

Pending rule changes which have more loopholes, making the changes meaningless and unenforceable

Discussions at the Potomac Golf Association related to DoJ informants inside the NSA and CIA who continue to cooperate with the Grand Jury

Disciplinary problems related to underage drinking, molestation, and very nasty things done to young women in places where CIA employees are not supposed to be

Firings, demotions, transfers because of criminal activity or violations of the United States code against war crimes

Reliability of the information, oversight, and governance

Status of legislative reforms which are secretly being passed without Congressional debate as part of the "rule changing power" of the DCI

Competence of legal counsel, and anecdotes which may warrant a disciplinary board proceeding and other allegations of fraud committed upon the DC court of appeals

Competence of Congressional oversight, and anecdotes raising questions as to their fitness to remain in public office/mental capacity, and failure to timely respond to inquiries related to their failure to assert all lawful options to review the alleged crimes

Did I miss anything?

Rather, I'm simply surprised of the game that's going on.

* * *

Again, I don't mid that bloggers have their sources. But the minute that you agree to "not report everything" or "get background information, but that's off the record" I fail to see how you distinguish yourself from the NYT.

Remember how the NYT got into trouble: They valued their access to sources and power more than they did in providing the truth.

That's OK. Everyone has to make their own decisions.

Where do I fall down on the line? There is no line.

Anything learned through whatever lawful means is fair game.

* * *

Remember the other argument against the MSM: "To maintain access to the powerful, they had to agree not to report things."

OK, let's suppose that charge against the MSM is true. Again, I fail to see how what some blogs are doing is different.

Does this mean blogs are bad? No, it must means that the "slippery slope" of the MSM is now part of the blogosphere.

* * *

From this perspective, bloggers have a problem when they want to pass themselves off as blogs or "new media" when they have a greater allegiance to sources than they do in reporting.

I will have no sympathy the day that a blogger is called before a grand jury -- just as the NYT reporters and others have been called before the Fitzgerald Grand jury -- over issues of leaks, and alleged criminal activity.

If you want to be a blogger, then blog.

If you want to be a reporter, then report.

But don't ask the world to believe you're a blogger, when you want to wear the hat of those who have already slid down the slippery slope.

If you're part of the MSM, then you have a higher burden of proof. In turn, you also have no right to expect to be treated as "just a blogger."

Rather, you deserve to be treated as anyone else in the MSM: With disdain, contempt, and little personal respect.

* * *

If you want to ask for money for your blog, that is fine.

But if you're going to blog, and allow others to comment -- as they can on their own blogs -- don't whine when the bloggers call you what you are: A shill for the government.

You can't have it both ways. But as with all shills the blogger-MSM wants it both ways: The power to be free and abuse others; and the discretion to mobilize a pack of idiot blog-readers to smear others.

You're no better than the MSM. Rather, you're worse. Your readers are stupid, easily manipulated, and when you can't stand on your own arguments or credibility, you enjoy feeding your readers with non-sense to spin them up.

You're worse than the White House. But you want to make the world believe you're "meeting a higher standard."

What a load of non-sense.

Read the details here.