CIA responds to WikiLeaks: WTF
December 22nd, 2010
01:52 PM ET

CIA responds to WikiLeaks: WTF

It's no secret that WikiLeaks' cable document dumps have caused ripples of concerns and speculation about how well the United States can keep secrets - its own and those of other countries.

It's been embarrassing to both U.S. diplomats and foreign leaders mentioned in the cables, but there haven't been any bombshells from the small percentage of documents released so far. The CIA, known for its ability to keep secrets, is taking no chances of being pulled further into the fray. The CIA has only been mentioned a few times in the cables, and has not been hit nearly as hard as other agencies and diplomats, but it does not appear willing to wait on the sidelines.

And it has an answer for WikiLeaks: WTF. Seriously.

In a move that couldn't be more ironic, and made for headlines such as the above, the CIA adopted a task force. And like all things involving the military, or secrecy, acronyms are huge. So when the CIA developed the WikiLeaks Task Force, naturally, it was likely thinking of the KISS method - Keep It Simple Stupid.

But in doing so, the CIA has proved it either has a really good sense of humor or was trying to send a snarky message, or perhaps someone at the agency just didn't think hard enough about the name choice.

"Officially, the panel is called the WikiLeaks Task Force," The Washington Post reports. "But at CIA headquarters, it's mainly known by its all-too-apt acronym: W.T.F."

OK, all jokes and obvious humor aside, the CIA is trying to do something real here - and that's to try and protect its reputation for secrecy.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top aides had to start a new game plan - going to meet with foreign ministers, explaining, apologizing, cajoling and trying - to salvage relationships that she and the Obama administration had worked hard to establish. The State Department went into "war room" mode, pulling together an emergency round-the-clock team to handle the fallout.

So no doubt, the CIA is looking to make sure it won't be in the same situation.

"The director asked the task force to examine whether the latest release of WikiLeaks documents might affect the agency's foreign relationships or operations," CIA spokesman George Little told The Washington Post.

That's a high priority, officials told the paper. Because having any compromised informants really could lead to a real WTF situation - and not one the CIA or any government department would want on its hands.

Post by:
Filed under: CIA • Security • WikiLeaks
soundoff (297 Responses)
  1. ClydeHenery

    All I can do is laugh...

    December 22, 2010 at 8:44 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Jeff Frank

    Somehow I get the idea that the Central Intelligence Agency would'nt have anything to do with nor take the word of nothing more than an "information pimp". That's alot like setting their crosshairs on a scandal tabloid. A waste of taxpayer revenue.

    December 22, 2010 at 8:55 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Kite005

    I don't like wikileaks. If there is something seriously wrong and uncovered then fine. There is no reason everything has to be transparent. I would not want my every communication exposed and no one should expect that everything they communicate should be a matter of public record. Julian is awful to think thats how the world should be. Seems to me that most major corruption is found out without his dumb @ss publishing everything he can find.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:04 pm | Report abuse |
  4. P. Marks

    Wikileaks is a terrorist organization and it's leader should be destroyed.
    Secrets are secrets for a reason and they should NEVER be exposed.
    WIkileaks only helps terrorists and is therefore a terrorist organization.
    Anyone who supports Wikileaks supports terrorism and is a terrorist.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Adam

      If a foreign power came into America and started shooting innocent civilians, chopping off body parts for trophies, took photos with prisoners, tortured alleged Americans for being a threat to said foreign body would you stand up and fight?! Of course you would, as did the Iraqis. Unannounced we showed up at their border and forced our way in and did much worse but we're not terrorists are we? The American government with interests in land/oil and middle east politics wouldn't do something like that, right?? well our stunning leaders did just that.
      Let's say Julian Assange found out secrets – that the Iranians were possibly bombing Israel or even better.. that The German Chancellor called Hilary Clinton a baby killer to Englands PM, and they were reported to have both laughed and agreed ?? because Secrets ARE SECRETS, he shouldnt tell anyone, correct? Oh maybe he should because its for the good of America and it's not our governments secrets.. he'd be labeled a hero or a hacker with good intent, but no – he exposes secrets of wrong doing and unethical behavior towards other governments from the US and you call him a terrorist. Julian did a good thing making the US pull its pants back up and walk away in shame, [America is too big and cares about fahkin nobody, so quit pretending you're buddy buddy with the US government and who you can call a terrorist]. The U.S. has a lot more secrets that will never get out but I wait for the next whistle-blower or official that decides to stand up and protest what they see or hear or partake in.

      December 22, 2010 at 10:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Enlightenment

      Lmao p marks! I was gonna call you a moron but I read your other post and it's obvious this post is tongue-in-cheek...well done!

      December 22, 2010 at 11:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • dallas007

      No you have just been brain washed to believe that WikiLeaks is a terrorist organization and you don't even realize it. Terrorist attacked the world trade center, those are Terrorist!

      December 23, 2010 at 1:33 am | Report abuse |
  5. Jared

    How about it you want transparency you put your full name in the name slot and show us everything. For the rest of us who think that there needs to be secrets will keep shortened names. Also, put your social and your address in here every time you post also. If you don't wish to do this then keep your f ing mouth shut. A bunch of hypocritical bs here. Whenever you say something behind someone's back you have to say it to their face. Secrets are needed.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • P. Marks

      Exactly, corporations and government agencies deserve privacy, individuals don't. Thankfully, between the government and advertisers every phone call, email, text message, mail, shopping habits of everyone is monitored. And thank God for this, even though it doesn't always prevent crime, but it makes for convenient after the fact finding of the culprit.

      December 22, 2010 at 9:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • GTFO

      The US government has records of everyone's SSN and Tax Records, I'm sure there'd be a mighty uproar if the Assangophiles had their information leaked.

      December 23, 2010 at 1:30 am | Report abuse |
  6. Crack Friday

    I hope Michael Vick dies.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:18 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Mike

    A tempest in a teapot. For all that trash-talking from Barry Clinton about how the release of the papers would cause the collapse of civilization, it seems civilization is still standing quite solidly and a few bruised egos among the world's third-string dictators can hardly be considered a global catastrophe. What a lame charade. Assange is a dbag, yes, but that trait does little to distinguish him in the sea of finger-pointing dbags out there.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:27 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Monkeys at Bronx Zoo

    "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." - John 8:32

    (That's written on a marble wall inside CIA)

    December 22, 2010 at 9:34 pm | Report abuse |
  9. phil

    How many of you have been to ? Let me see a show of hands. 1-2-3...come on. Don't be shy. 4-5...nobody can see you, don't be afraid. 6--7. Seven. Now, how many know about wiki from another source? 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-23-24-25-26-27-28-29-30-31-32-33-34-35-36-37-38-39-40-41-42-43-44-45-46-47-48-49-50-51-52-53-54-55-56-57-58-59–60-61-62-63-64-65-66-67-68-69-70-71-72-73-74-75-76-77-78-79-80-81-82-83-84-85-86-87-88-89-90-91-92-93-94-95-96-97-98-99-100-101-102-103-104-105-STOP!!! that's good. you can put your arms down.I hope I'm wrong about this. Because this in itself would be more alarming than any of these so-called "leaks". Besides, it looks like plastic wrap is a shoe-in for the next election.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:38 pm | Report abuse |
  10. skip2myloo

    This is the modern version of the Pentagon Papers, except this time its the republicans doing the leeks to make the Dem President powerless with our allies, like the Dem's did to Nixon back in the day.

    December 22, 2010 at 9:48 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Humanzrstupd

    Like some other posters have said: The public DOES NOT NEED nor has the "right" to know everything that goes on.

    Some one or government getting ahold of info that could potentially endanger YOUR way of life or fall into the hands of an enemy who would not give a rat's *** that you are on a crusade to "expose the truth". Because with said information, some world leaders would have no problem wiping YOU out despite the fact that you felt they needed to "know" what your government was doing. IDIOTS.

    People like Assange (and Bradley Manning) are as much of a threat as Bin Laden is. This Assange guy could potentially start a war behind this. I say do what the Moussad would do: accost his butt and smuggle his *** here, try him for espionage. Screw the international law. I wouldn't be shocked (or terribly upset) if someone took him out. As for Manning I say just let him hang.

    December 22, 2010 at 10:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • steeve-o

      I agree. It'd be great if the world operated with total transparency, but it does not. If there are secrets being kept from us, there are undoubtedly situations where we need to keep certain things a secret. Wikileaks is doing nothing to promote transparency; rather, it will promote more airtight secrecy. Because of Assange's extreme narcissism, there will be things we will never be able to hear about.
      Furthermore, if Wikileaks were ever heralded as the source for the unedited truth, than there would no doubt be misinformation "leaked" to his site. Assange cannot prove that what he prints is true.

      December 22, 2010 at 10:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • kat420365

      Did you just say Bin Laden??? It's people like you that scare me. You probably think the goverenment has your best interest at heart too don't you? Wake up or move out the way ok!

      December 23, 2010 at 2:24 am | Report abuse |
  12. phil

    @Jared...your comment kinda stood out from the rest, so I figured if I picked on you I wouldn't get mobbed. he-he You make a very strong case indeed. We all have a need for privacy. This idea that God is watching your every move, Sanat knows if you been naughty...that would make them peeping-toms. Stalkers. And if they are watching your personal bedroom activity, down-right perverts. Yet here WE are, peeping-tomming the government's activities, including their personal bedroom antics and screaming 'it's not fair'. I wish it were as simple as "if you give me my privacy, I will respond in kind". But I'm afraid if a deal like that were struck between the American people and the US Government, the price of mattresses would triple on demand. K-Y jelly would cost 56 bucks plus tax. Condoms would be on sale for 10 dollars...each. So maybe we should keep an eye on each other for a while. Or not.

    December 22, 2010 at 10:12 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Funnyhaha

    This article made me LOL.

    December 22, 2010 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
  14. PlanetX


    December 22, 2010 at 10:17 pm | Report abuse |
  15. steeve-o

    It'd be great if the world operated with total transparency, but it does not. If there are secrets being kept from us, there are undoubtedly situations where we need to keep certain things a secret. Wikileaks is doing nothing to promote transparency; rather, it will promote more airtight secrecy. Because of Assange's extreme narcissism, there will be things we will never be able to hear about.
    Furthermore, if Wikileaks were ever heralded as the source for the unedited truth, than there would no doubt be misinformation "leaked" to his site. Assange cannot prove that what he prints is true.

    December 22, 2010 at 10:27 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13