What did Congress know about Wali Karzai? The C.I.A. isn't obligated to report the identity of every agent or recipient of its laundered funds, but given the importance of W. Karzai to the operation and given how much money he seems to have gotten, good lawyers at the agency probably would have suggested that the notification be made, at least to the "Gang of 8." Reporters aren't having any luck getting members of the intelligence committees to comment.
And why aren't Republicans jumping on the news, framed by some in this way: that the Obama administration propped up one of the biggest (alleged) opium dealers in Afghanistan -- opium that is funding Taliban forces committed to the death of American soldiers?
I suspect it's because Republicans like the idea of the CIA being aggressive. Or they don't know all the facts...and don't want to inadvertently confirm a story that isn't true.
Incidentally: how hard is it going to be for the CIA to promise anonymity to lower-level Afghan Taliban leaders and potential sources now?
The CIA is patriotic
In making a deal symbiotic;
With Karzai on board
The U.S. reward
Is access to his crop narcotic.
News Short n' Sweet by JFD8
http://twitter.com/JFD8
If we dove-tail your final question "how hard is it going to be for the CIA to promise anonymity to lower-level Afghan Taliban leaders and potential sources now" with the question in the title of the post, it seems like the answer is:
The CIA should be subject to the director of the movie instead of directing it.
What do you think?