AP Records Grab Might Have Been Motivated by Revenge!

0
Share

holder copy

photo of Eric Holder, was he looking for revenge?

Did robbing the White House of an opportunity to politicize a foiled bombing attempt lead to an act of revenge against the AP? Maybe.

The  AP held back a big story about a foiled bomb plot for five days because the government asked them to for national security reasons. The AP was then told the security issues were lifted but the government wanted it held until they could get in front of the story.

The AP balked. They will hold a story for security reasons, they don’t want people hurt, but the President’s PR campaign is not a reason to hold back on news the public is entitled to hear.

The AP went with the story about the plot. The AP found out that an al Qaeda branch was behind the plot and that was included in the article.

That was May 2012 and that story is at the center of the AP record grab and Holder’s claim that one of the most serious national security leaks was at the bottom of the extraordinary seizure.

Congress and the media are questioning why the administration viewed the leak as so serious. Was it serious or was it out of sync with the president’s messaging?

Former White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor  said officials were being realistic in their response to AP’s story. They knew that if it were published, the White House would have to address it with an official, detailed statement.

“There was not some press conference planned to take credit for this,” Vietor said in an interview. “There was certainly an understanding [that] we’d have to mitigate and triage this and offer context for other reporters.”

At the time, the AP story was in direct conflict with the White House message being conveyed on the eve of the 1st anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden. DHS on April 30, said that there were “no credible threats or plots” against the US tied to the anniversary of his death.

The operation had been successful and the American public was never in danger, seeming to indicate that there was never a national security risk.

One possible conclusion from all this is that the administration wasn’t worried about a national security leak, they were worried about their image, and their subsequent actions were out of revenge.

Read the full story at the WaPo

Share