That's a picture of part of this article:
So, the CITY is really important for people not to know? That's why the Washington Post, and whoever contacted the Post for this story, told the Post how important it is that NOBODY know which CITY it is? That's why the Post is being so discreet about how important it is that NOBODY know which CITY it is? That's Pulitzer Prize winning stuff, that is.
I have frequently said that I am no political, military or foreign policy expert. This is all terribly interesting for me to read and ask questions about, and I'm sure that the people who really know what they're talking about will know if I'm right or wrong.
How many cities are there that could be that important? 5 or 6?
Is someone going to rescue the source? Does it really matter anymore if a crowd of people are observed getting him or her out?
Was the source ever really in danger from Russia, or is it only now that the Post has blabbed to everyone about President Trump's supposed mistake that ISIS is going to know who the source is?
Who are the people saying all of these things to the media, a media which they know is hostile to this administration?
The "plot details" that the Post didn't reveal were...
-plentiful? Really? How many could there be that the Post didn't talk about?
-discussed on cell phones, which everyone in the media knows are hacked by everyone?
-stored on cell phones or computers?
I don't want to be harsh or ignorant about this, but when the reporters who were scooping this story were talking to everyone who wanted to tell them about it, did they have these conversations in person, with their cell phones in the room? If so, is there someone who would want to know all the details whom those reporters think now doesn't?
Copyright, with noted exceptions, L. Kochman, May 15, 2017 @ 10:31 p.m.
