Peter King, Movie Mogul

Peter King, the former terrorist sympathizer conducting witch hunts against alleged terrorist sympathizers, is not one to assail others for their gross hypocrisy. And technically, that’s not what his complaint about apparent Administration plans to cooperate in an Osama bin Laden Fuck Yeah movie set to release just as voters start thinking about the November election. King is purportedly less concerned about the Administration’s glaring hypocrisy on leaks and more concerned about leaks in general. Though given his silence about this leak fest, I’d wager he’s most concerned that voters might learn that it took a Democratic Administration to actually hunt down OBL.

In response to King’s request and in response to a preliminary review, DOD has promised to start an investigation into the charges immediately.

The CIA’s response was more ambiguous. It noted that,

The CIA’s Office of Public Affairs handles requests for information from the entertainment industry. According to a senior official from that office, the protection of national security equities–including the preservation of our ability to conduct effective counterterrorism operations–is the decisive factor in determining how the CIA engages with filmmakers and the media as a whole.

It seems to me this policy allows CIA to cooperate with Hollywood if doing so would make Americans enthusiastically support exciting operations against big movie villains. It allows CIA to cooperate with Hollywood to ensure CIA gets full credit for offing OBL (even if that slights the SEALs involved). In other words, there’s a whole lot that might be fall under CIA’s own definition of what might “preserv[e its] ability to conduct effective counterterrorism operations.” All the more so under a Director who’s a bit of a media magnet.

In any case, it’d be nice if King’s claimed stance towards classified information…

The Administration’s first duty in declassifying material is to provide full reporting to Congress and the American people, in an effort to build public trust through transparency of government. In contrast, this alleged collaboration belies a desire of transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history.

Was embraced by anyone in DC, Democrat or GOP.

But King, for his own part, has been working so hard to create a different villain, I doubt we’ll get it from him, either.

Tweet about this on Twitter2Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

11 Responses to Peter King, Movie Mogul

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel TIL 1: NFL owners never before realized they have power of coercion over their at-will employee players
1mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Who's going to pay for the latest Iraq war? http://t.co/6qf0l297rX And why do so called "fiscal hawk" GOP not seem to care? #WarProfiteers
17mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @DougWilliams85 My sleeper candidate is The Sandbaggers on BBC early 80's. Spy stuff in London. Great series.
38mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Are turtles allowed to be Speaker of the House? Ask @realDonaldTrump
58mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @AlisonForKY: Thank you @realdonaldtrump for firing @Team_Mitch and running him for "Speaker." Kentucky needs a new Senator. #kysen
59mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @AdamWeinstein: Al Lawson moves to advance all four FSU presidential finalists to the Board of Trustees. Lawson's aim is to keep Thrashe…
59mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @thekarami: On July 26, 1988, less than a week after the ceasefire agreement, Saddam invaded Iran again, this time as support for the ME…
1hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Any truth to the rumor that @NRA plans to hold a funeral for the 800 rounds of ammo found in White House fence-jumper's trunk?
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @benjaminwittes ...and the Govt's lethal intentions as to Khan are entirely imaginary. Or, you know, not so much. cc: @mattapuzzo
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @benjaminwittes Right, and THAT is the key. Govt specifically+intentionally refused to say "we didn't know". I am sure just an oversight...
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @GrantWoods @ScottGreenfield ...that comment emanated out of. And I too have noticed fmr prosecutors changing tune 180º when turn def attys.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @GrantWoods @ScottGreenfield In fairness, I think you likely missed the conversation regarding abusive civil forfeiture+parallel proceedings
2hreplyretweetfavorite
January 2012
S M T W T F S
« Dec   Feb »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031