Every spy should tap the newsies

American Thinker has joined the debate about a possible Saddam spy in the Associated Press. There are pros and cons in the debate, based on the evidence we know.

But let's back off a second. If you were running Chinese, Iranian, French, Russian, Saudi, Al Qaida, or for that matter British or Israeli intelligence, what would be the very best sources to wiretap or infiltrate in the United States? Why the news media, of course. Why? Because they apparently get plenty of "whisteblowers" from CIA and other top secret sources. Because they can apparently arrogate upon themselves the right to publish even the most sensitive secrets. And because they are seemingly immune from prosecution.

So regardless of Saddam Hussein's reported source in AP, and regardless of the blatant Hezbollah propaganda operation openly broadcast by Reuters, AP, and the rest, it only makes sense to assume that the major news offices are espionage sources, and that some of their personnel are suborned, one way or another, by a dozen different countries.

It's easy enough to do, through shared ideology, blackmail, money, sex, or fear of being kidnapped and head—chopped in Gaza. The only alternative is to assume that the Chinese, the Saudis etc., are either stupid, or that they don't read the New York Times. Neither assumption is believable.

So do the US media provide a treasure hoard of secrets for our enemies to pick off? Of course they do. And of course they know it, whatever they say.

It's not as if rock—hard integrity is their strong suit.

James Lewis   9 12 06

American Thinker has joined the debate about a possible Saddam spy in the Associated Press. There are pros and cons in the debate, based on the evidence we know.

But let's back off a second. If you were running Chinese, Iranian, French, Russian, Saudi, Al Qaida, or for that matter British or Israeli intelligence, what would be the very best sources to wiretap or infiltrate in the United States? Why the news media, of course. Why? Because they apparently get plenty of "whisteblowers" from CIA and other top secret sources. Because they can apparently arrogate upon themselves the right to publish even the most sensitive secrets. And because they are seemingly immune from prosecution.

So regardless of Saddam Hussein's reported source in AP, and regardless of the blatant Hezbollah propaganda operation openly broadcast by Reuters, AP, and the rest, it only makes sense to assume that the major news offices are espionage sources, and that some of their personnel are suborned, one way or another, by a dozen different countries.

It's easy enough to do, through shared ideology, blackmail, money, sex, or fear of being kidnapped and head—chopped in Gaza. The only alternative is to assume that the Chinese, the Saudis etc., are either stupid, or that they don't read the New York Times. Neither assumption is believable.

So do the US media provide a treasure hoard of secrets for our enemies to pick off? Of course they do. And of course they know it, whatever they say.

It's not as if rock—hard integrity is their strong suit.

James Lewis   9 12 06