Dog, I hope someone refuses to be scapegoated for this... I want their boss up on charges of compromising national security.

intelligence services.

As I noted in my own thread on this issue, the time line on these events is this--

Covert op (a Title 50) is executed in Yemen.

The Gang of 8 is notified.

Republican leaks a title 50 covert op to reporter at the AP

Reporter calls to confirm.

CIA asks for holdoff.

AP publishes early.

Republicans blame Obama for leak.

Romney blames Obama for leak. (remember this is before he goes on his foreign/Olympic tour)

AP IS SILENT.

The AP is either in active collusion on a dirty trick, OR, they knew they got punked, and didn't out the source.

I'm not trying to argue: I'm really interested in knowing what the proof is that it's GOP: Because they need to go on record as having created this problem.

press gallery phone (the AP line) means Republican, not Administration.

And why aren't the Repubs demanding a Congressional investigation on this? Because they know there's a grand jury, and they have a pretty good idea where this is headed.

as to be laughable. It's back-fill and CYA that someone in the CIA or DOJ cooked up long after the fact that this operation was over at the moment the agent was extracted in September. He was not going back in -- particularly after Quso was droned -- so when the article was published May 7, 2012, the operation was stone cold.

I've seen how backfill is created. Normally, it's at a conference table in DC where some bright junior lights start picking over the details of an operation so it fills the needs of an after-action report or some other proceeding, such as an indictment or an application for Section 13. Nobody who knows anything is buying into this backfill cover-story.

Brennan had used the term "inside control" of the operation. AP jumped to reporting (as did others, but ap came out first) a double agent. It seems they knew we had the bomb at FBI headquarters, and when they heard inside control they put two and two together. That was also what I heard on Rachel Maddow show. She had some expert on the middle east and that's what he said. The point from this story is that they confirm they were planning on sending the guy back in. We'll never know what he may have accomplished. The msm is under-reporting this story, the same as the abc news gaffe. Shame on them, if they want first amendment protection they have to go back to being journalists.

attempted to use this a dirty trick to the compromise the election. The AP should have burned their source--I am of the opinion that if the press wants to collude with liars (see the Benghazi emails) then it is journalistic malpractice.

Some Republican fed the AP the double-agent in order to affect the election. The AP let itself be used. This is not responsible journalism.

at him. I also wonder if the second round of Benghazi hearings weren't to out the CIA op there. We had an agreement with Russia that we wouldn't provide weapon assistance to Syria if they didn't. When the cia outpost was revealed they were supposedly there to re-acquire all the weapons missing during the civil war. I saw several references that were claiming they were running guns into syria. If you look at what Russia has done since that info became public it would seem to support that theory. We had the agent arrested, Obama agreed to go to Russia right after, Russia has now moved warships into the gulf, and has admitted selling them weapons in 2011. The reason I thought about it is because the blogs/news/comments have been negative on Obama's foreign policy recently.

breathlessly, as a legitimate source without ever questioning it?

I doubt the "without ever questioning it" part. RT has some good programs and some really slanted ones. The slant is pretty obvious sometimes. But then there is Thom Hartmann and Max Keiser who has some really good guests on occasion.

If the US media were more open to presenting different opinions, RT probably wouldn't be of much interest. But considering how one-sided our news coverage is in the US, if you listen to some US media and a bit of RT, you at least get different points of view.

We need to watch Fox, ABC, CNN, CBS and NBC just as critically as we watch other media including RT.

The actual problem happened before Brennan tried to reassure people with his "inside control" comment. That, in other words, is not the cause but the effect. It took a leak to get that ball rolling. And once it was rolling it doesn't explain why the AP thought it was proper to run with the report, especially after the CIA asked them not to report it. They weren't, after all, reporting on a screw up but on a success. It is getting pretty disgusting the lengths some people are willing to go in order to make Obama fail. Should this be traced back to someone on an Intelligence Committee of Congress then it would amount to treason. I have heard a Grand Jury is looking into this and that may be how the AP came to know that some of their reporters phone call records had been subject to a subpoena.

Oh, one Republican has said that there had been too many security leaks and the administration needed to crack down harder on those leaks. So, Obama cracks down harder and Republicans smell scandal. Until I learn more I see no serious issue with what has transpired in this case.

People are upset that Justice is investigating THIS?

This is possibly even more serious than the Plame leak.

And the chief of staff of the Vice President being convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury.

That's just me, though.

slapped on his hand and went back to more treason

And I remember all the serious concern at DU over journalistic freedom when Patrick Fitzgerald had Judith Miller thrown in jail for refusing to burn a source.

Oh, that's right.

It wasn't so much "concern" as it was "celebration."

Who also seem hell bent on misrepresenting the facts to fit their agenda.

Not everyone of course.

I think his opinion might need a pinch of salt.