<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with WashingtonPost and CIA</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/WashingtonPost+CIA</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'WashingtonPost' and 'CIA' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:09:49 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:09:49 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/19861/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59403-2002Sep9.html"&gt;U.S. Stops Iraq-Al Qaeda Talk&lt;/a&gt; From the Washington Post. Beyond the superficial significance of administration back-tracking, in regards to intelligence there seems to be two key aspects to this story: 1) The article talks about how the CIA was unable to &quot;validate two prominent allegations made by high-ranking administration officials,&quot; implying that Bush/Cheney/etc. have been making baseless assumptions about Iraq in their pro-war arguments, and 2) it brings into question whether we know anything at all about Iraq, anyway. What if the same can be said of Hussein&apos;s nuclear plans?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.19861</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:09:49 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>alqaeda</category>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>Bush</category>
		<category>Cheney</category>
		<category>CIA</category>
		<category>DickCheney</category>
		<category>GeorgeBush</category>
		<category>GWB</category>
		<category>Iraq</category>
		<category>iraqwar</category>
		<category>misinformation</category>
		<category>war</category>
		<category>WashingtonPost</category>
		<dc:creator>risenc</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/12075/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33340-2001Nov3.html"&gt;Drastic changes due for America after terror attacks&lt;/a&gt; We are to become a garrison state, for better or worse, with the CIA more intimately involved with internal (domestic) doings and the FBI taking on new duties.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.12075</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2001 13:39:24 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>9-11</category>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>CIA</category>
		<category>FBI</category>
		<category>policy</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>security</category>
		<category>WaPo</category>
		<category>WashingtonPost</category>
		<dc:creator>Postroad</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/10411/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34478-2001Sep14.html"&gt;Realism Urgently Needed - Or Not?&lt;/a&gt; David Ignatius&apos;s column today in The Washington Post addresses the question of effectiveness in the war against terrorism.  He tells the sobering story of the CIA&apos;s collaboration with the terrorist Ali Hassan Salameh.

    The downside: &quot;The most obvious (lesson) is that collecting intelligence about terrorists is a truly dirty business.  This world cannot be penetrated without help from members or friends of the terrorist network&quot;.

    The upside: &quot;Paradoxically, these tragic days have probably been an ideal time for the CIA to be recruiting new sources of intelligence about terrorism. The barbaric attacks Tuesday aroused disgust around the world --- not least among civilized Muslims.  Some of these disgusted Muslims will surely want to help the United States and its allies put the terrorists out of business.&quot;

    The crucial moral question: It&apos;s really a classic means/ends debate. Is it right - or just acceptably expedient -  to collaborate with known terrorists in order to strike out at those we don&apos;t yet(or otherwise will never) know about?   </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.10411</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2001 15:29:37 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>CIA</category>
		<category>DavidIgnatius</category>
		<category>intelligence</category>
		<category>terrorism</category>
		<category>WaPo</category>
		<category>WarOnTerror</category>
		<category>WashingtonPost</category>
		<dc:creator>MiguelCardoso</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/2573/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/A28051-2000Jul22.html"&gt;Uh-oh--&lt;/a&gt; I got a CD-ROM from John&apos;s site a few months ago. Am I on some CIA/FBI list now? (His site is down apparently.)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2000:site.2573</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:41:58 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>cdrom</category>
		<category>cia</category>
		<category>fbi</category>
		<category>john</category>
		<category>washingtonpost</category>
		<category>watchlist</category>
		<dc:creator>aflakete</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


