Numerous sites have written about the Washington Post’s Al Kamen’s story of a June 6 cable sent from the American Embassy in Iraq to the Secretary of State on “the hardship faced by its Iraqi employees” which WaPo received. The name Khalilzad appears at the bottom of the cable.
So it appears that is TWO cables that WaPo has received. (Topics and details quoted from the May 6th cable are not in the June 6th cable) Kamen reports the first was given to them by Khalilzad though nothing is said on who gave WaPo the second cable. As Khalilzad’s name appears at the bottom of the second cable and Kamen received a previous cable from Khalilzad earlier this month, wouldn’t you wonder if Khalilzad is the source for the second cable?
In my June 7th post on the first cable I also linked to the fact that the White House had abruptly canceled a classified briefing on Iraq to be held June 7th for U.S. Senators to be given by none other than US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. It was canceled June 6th. Kamen’s story appeared June 7th.
So what’s up with Khalilzad? Was the first cable given to WaPo before or after the decision to cancel the briefing? If after, has he taken that classified briefing to a new forum…a very public one? Perhaps the 2 are coincidence. But Cable 1 didn’t get much attention, so iis it cue Cable 2 now?
UPDATE: One last question before bed. The Washington Post is given TWO cables from the Embassy in Iraq to the US Secretary of State, outlining the awful mess in Iraq, one of the cables which they admit came from the US Ambassador to Iraq. Given all that ….WHY is seemingly front page news buried deep within by the Washington Post?
UPDATE: Howard Kurtz addressed the question as put to him by someone from Greenbelt, MD today in a WaPo online discussion.
Greenbelt, Md.: How do you feel about the burying into the bowels of the papers (particularly The Post) on Sunday of the Al Kamen story about two cables from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq? The conditions mentioned in those cables suggest something worthy of national first page treatment, yet, well…
Howard Kurtz: Maybe it should have been on the front page, but it was hardly buried. It ran at the top of the Outlook section, which is the second section people see on Sunday. Also, a straight news story wouldn’t have allowed the paper to run the actual cables.
UPDATE: Froomkin notes there were 2 cables.