Comments Posted By steve sturm
Displaying 61 To 65 Of 65 Comments
CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: WALKING BACK SLOWLY
Great minds must think alike, as I too was just re-reading Dana Priest's story and being reminded that she had more than one source - at least four by my count. If it were a sting, it was very well orchestrated.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 22.04.2006 @ 16:14
I too doubt that this was a sting operation.
Were I running such a sting, I would immediately have released information disproving the allegations that the CIA was running secret prisons as soon as Priest ran with her story.
Some reasons why: once the leak investigation started, there was nothing to be gained by letting McCarthy continue to think her leak was accurate. Two, while catching leakers is important, the Bush Admin and its allies in Eastern Europe took such a PR hit that I wonder if the sting wasn’t such a phyrric victory that we might have been better off without it. And third, what better way of discouraging others from leaking than to let it be known that there are active sting operations going on? While leakers might not have been deterred by the thought of getting caught, they and/or their reporter sources might have been troubled by the thought that what they were leaking might not have been real.
(reposted from your earlier post... sorry for not seeing this one up first)
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 22.04.2006 @ 08:51
CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: THE LEAKER AND THE SQUEALER
I doubt that this was a sting operation.
Were I running such a sting, I would immediately have released information disproving the allegations that the CIA was running secret prisons as soon as Priest ran with her story.
Some reasons why: once the leak investigation started, there was nothing to be gained by letting McCarthy continue to think her leak was accurate. Two, while catching leakers is important, the Bush Admin and its allies in Eastern Europe took such a PR hit that I wonder if the sting wasn't such a phyrric victory that we might have been better off without it. And third, what better way of discouraging others from leaking than to let it be known that there are active sting operations going on? While leakers might not have been deterred by the thought of getting caught, they and/or their reporter sources might have been troubled by the thought that what they were leaking might not have been real.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 22.04.2006 @ 08:50
I thought the producers were channelling Churchill and his decision to let the Germans bomb Coventry lest they learn the English had broken the German codes.
As for the decision itself, I disagree. Letting the terrorists gas the mall was no guarantee that CTU would be able to capture intact the other cannisters... heck, we've all seen numerous times where their best laid plans fall to pieces.
And if they had interfered, there was no guarantee that they couldn't have figured out where the other cannisters were in some other way. As an analogy, Rossler got shot, end of ability to track cannisters, right? Wrong. CTU/Jack adlibbed and got things on track. They could have done the same again.
Or put another way, now that the terrorists have taken off, does anybody really think that CTU has lost them forever and the next hours are going to be full of nothing but Americans getting gassed?
And, for anyone interested, I'm keeping a running tally of what I call 24isms
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 14.02.2006 @ 09:37
"...PROMISES TO KEEP AND MILES TO GO BEFORE I SLEEP"
Part of the fun of watching 24, at least for me, is watching for the plot holes and outright mistakes - like watching Jack send pictures from his Sprint Treo 650 phone while he was talking... something I sure can't do with my phone.
I'm running a list of 24 holes for anybody interested... additions are welcome.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 17.01.2006 @ 17:34
