Did the Post conduct espionage...Post decline watch day 3

The Post decline continues.

Day 3 of the espionage story at the Post has been taken over by subjouralists Moore and Anderson and the result is....no news.

And strangely there is news to report.

As David Frum shows below, the Post published the very document that is at the heart of the so called espionage story?

Shouldn't the Post have reported that most interesting fact ...wouldn't that be the real news?

Israel, Iran Trade Threats As FBI Investigates Spying
U.S. Ally Said to Have Received Documents on Tehran
By Molly Moore and John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, August 30, 2004; Page A18


Lacking any new details to advance the story, what do they do...they link this controversy to Israel's New Zealand passport fiasco:

"The investigation is the second in recent months involving allegations of Israeli espionage against an ally. In July, a New Zealand court found two Israeli men, accused of being agents for the Mossad, guilty of attempting to forge New Zealand passports. Israeli officials denied that the men were members of the Mossad, but New Zealand's prime minister announced diplomatic sanctions against Israel and demanded an apology."

Espionage against New Zealand? Come on..what secrets does New Zealand have?

....but worse, they write,


"Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Israeli officials have expressed more concern about the danger Iran poses and have been more emboldened in their threats to quash it."

Haven't US and European officals also expressed concerns about Iran.

Jpost reported that

"On Sunday, Fischer told reporters in Jordan that an Iranian nuclear arms buildup would be a "nightmare," and said that Europe is looking to head off any dangerous confrontation with Tehran."

But the problem with their analysis (although never described as analysis) is that Israel emphasized the dangers of Iran before - even long before -the US invasion of Iraq and always thought Iran is the larger threat, not Iraq.

Mischaracterizing the timing of Israel's concerns about Iran and using the word "emboldened" creates the impression that the current conflict with Iran was caused by Bush's liberation of Iraq and an aggressive Israel.

That's typical of the Post, they reverse cause and effect.

They also don't mention that the alleged law breaker is not alleged to have accepted money, that no Israeli is accused of espionage or is even being investigated or that the subject is only one employee of 1500 employees of Douglas Feith.

But here is the bombshell....David Frum has scoop on the larger problem with the story lineof the last three days....and its ugly.

The original document was leaked to the Post last year...yes it was already a public document!!!

"Remember, this whole story turns on a supposedly super-secret draft presidential directive that Franklin disclosed to the Israelis. Perhaps you would like to know what was in the draft directive? Well good news: You can. The thing was leaked to the Washington Post and a story based on the link was published on June 15, 2003.

Here are some extracts from the Post story:

“[T]he national security presidential directive on Iran has gone through several competing drafts and has yet to be approved by Bush's senior advisers, according to well-placed sources. In the meantime, experts in and outside the government are focusing on Iran as the United States' next big foreign policy crisis, with some predicting that the country could acquire a nuclear weapon as early as 2006.

“While the officials have stopped short of embracing a policy of ‘regime change’ in Iran, U.S. officials from Bush down have talked about providing moral support to the ‘reform movement’ in Iran in its struggle against an unelected government.

“Just how far the United States should go in supporting the protests is the subject of heated argument inside and outside the government, even among conservatives. Some argue Iran is ripe for revolution. Others contend there is little guarantee of radical change in Tehran in the three-year period some independent proliferation experts estimate it will take before Iran could acquire nuclear weapons, and the United States should be thinking about other options, including preemptive action against suspected nuclear sites.”

Etc.

The Post very obviously got its leak from State Department sources seeking to scuttle the draft directive. Back then, apparently, the permanent government did not regard the secrecy of this unimplemented document as anything like a vital national secret. Back then, the advocates of a soft-line policy were perfectly willing to air the directive in order to scupper it. Fourteen months later, however, you’d think the contents of this directive were the plans for the Stealth bomber. So, question: if this document was indeed so vital, when will the State Department seek to identify and punish the officials who revealed it to the Washington Post – which anyone, even the Israelis, can purchase a copy of for 35 cents."