The Washington Post reports that the satellite phone leak mentioned by President Bush in his December 19th press conference, is nothing more than urban myth.
The al Qaeda leader's communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 -- and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time.
The second time a news organization reported on the satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself.
Causal effects are hard to prove, but other factors could have persuaded bin Laden to turn off his satellite phone in August 1998. A day earlier, the United States had fired dozens of cruise missiles at his training camps, missing him by hours.
Another interesting fact is that the cited article
buried the information about his satellite phone in the 21st paragraph. It never said that the United States was listening in on bin Laden, as the president alleged. [emphasis added]
Unfortunately, in a related article, the Washington Post reports that the Nutjobs are using this fake leak to justify cracking down on the media:
"Were it not for a leak, there is a chance we could have brought Osama bin Laden to justice by now and have a better understanding of the al Qaeda operation," said [Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich], who is considering legislation to make it easier to prosecute leakers.
A spokesman for Hoekstra did not return a call seeking comment.
Hoekstra has distributed to lawmakers a classified report on leaks compiled by James B. Bruce, vice chairman of the CIA's Foreign Denial and Deception Committee, and a leading advocate of enacting very tough laws on leaks. In 2002, Bruce was quoted as saying that "we've got to do whatever it takes -- if it takes sending SWAT teams into journalists' homes -- to stop these leaks."
Does it bother anyone else to hear of a high-level CIA staffer talking about sending SWAT teams into journalists' homes?
Does it bother anyone else that the President uses an untrue story to justify a signals intelligence program of questionable legality?
Does it bother anyone else that yet again, Sissies can see no justification for the wiretapping program (do the words "failure to connect the dots" mean anything to anyone?) while Nutjobs support any expansion of federal powers, as long as its a Nutjob doing it (haven't heard the term "jack booted thugs" bandied about much since ... oh ... January 20, 2001)?
Yet another legitimate debate between personal rights and national security is being hijacked by partisan politics. Is that the way to get the best result on the ground? Or the best result in the booth? Unfortunately, most of our politicos are more interested in results in the booth.
Recent Comments