Using the T word about the NYT

Nazis had a machine called Enigma with “unbreakable” codes. Polish mathematicians constructed their own machine. After the Nazis and Soviets conquered Poland, they took it to Britain. The Brits broke the code. It was so secret that we STILL don’t know every detail and so important that Winston Churchill permitted the bombing of Coventry rather than tip off the Nazis that their code was compromised. If TODAY’S NYT had been around back then they would have published details. After all, Nazis were smart enough to have guessed the British were listening.

I am getting sick of this stupid idea that we can reveal anything we want in the media on the assumption that the terrorists figured it out already. Do you lock your door? Why? A determined thief can break through a locked door. Do you freely share your credit card with anyone who calls on the phone? Why not? A determined identify thief can find out anyway.

After 9/11 everybody said that we had to pursue terrorists in a variety of ways. We needed to anticipate what they would do. We had to follow the money and starve them of funds. We could not stop them all, but we could make life hard for them. Liberals agree with this. They just don’t want to give our government the means to do it.

If you are against following financial data to find terrorists, how do you expect to follow the money? The IRS checks your data. When you seek a mortgage the company checks your data. When you apply for a mortgage, of course, you give them permission. Maybe we should ask terrorist suspects before we invade their privacy.

During WWII the allies sacrificed "privacy" as well as thousands of lives to keep secrets and anticipate the enemy. During the Cold War we foiled many plots by the bad guys by following the money. "The Washington Post" revealed Watergate by following the money and invading the privacy of Watergate conspirators.

Okay, you can (incorrectly) quote Ben Franklin. You can say that those who would give up this amount of liberty don’t deserve liberty or security. Maybe I do not. But I am willing for my government to check my financial data if they think it will help find terrorists. And I am willing to let them check YOURS too. Let's fight this out in court and in the court of public opinion. Bring it on.

I like a program that spies on terrorist. I don't like journalists to reveal it and here I will use the t-word, the government official who revealed this to journalists is clearly a traitor. He/she should lose his job and his pension and spend some time in jail. This case has none of the ambiguity of the Plame case. Let’s catch this bastard. And if you are financing terror, let's catch you too.

Posted by Jack at June 24, 2006 8:36 PM
Comments
Comment #161427

Jack,
For shame. You cannot give up your constitutional rights and freedom fast enough, can you? You have been terrorized. You live in fear. Oh, it is not on the front burner all the time. But it is there.

Concentration camps? Fine with you, Jack, as long as they are not as bad as Nazi Germany. Kill freedom of press? Oppose transparent government? Find with you, Jack. Fill in the blank with something about how it is not as bad as the Nazis.

Clap. Clap. Clap.

You and your fellow Republicans must be very proud.

There has been no significant actions by terrorist networks since 2003. Very few caught. Actions consist of bombing the occasional mud hut in Pakistan, or arresting groups of loons who have been nothing but talk since 2002. The few “terrorists” we catch did not take a lot of surveillance and high powered monitoring techniques. They have been caught by informants, and a internet chat room for terrorists set up in 2002.

But look at yourself. What are you so afraid? Think about what this country stands for, Jack. I put my life on the line for it because I value the ideals. You have traveled. There are other nice places to go. Is there anything other than the opportunity to make a buck that keeps people here? Do Republicans stand for anything?

Posted by: phx8 at June 24, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #161431

It’s funny that, for Right-wingers, the government is corrupt, stupid, enables laziness, imcompetence, is nothing but a tax machine, is hog-tied by red tape and lucicrous laws—BUT, when it comes to spying, fighting terror and busting flag-burners, it encompasses the height of efficiency.

I’m all for tracking down terrorist financing, wire-tapping the bastards, listening in on their phone conversations—as long as that’s what’s going on. Spying on political opponents, journalists that are “unfriendly” to your cause, peace groups, and average Americans that utter the word “socialist” more than four times a day I have a problem with.

How does one tell the difference, especially when there’s no independent oversight of such programs? Why not have some gray-beards from both parties, people with counter-intelligence experience and terrorist-tracking expertise overseeing these programs to insure their efficacy as well as their propriety?

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 24, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #161432

Phx8

We lived with these sorts of things in most of our history and most of my life. Even today, there is nothing illegal about checking bank records.

The Supreme Court has held that bank records are not constitutionally protected private information. The government may obtain them without seeking a warrant from a court, because the bank depositor has already revealed his transactions to his bank.

This is not a rights issue. It is whether we want to stop the terrorist or not. I want to protect my American way of life. Checking bank records is a good old fashioned American way to do it.

I don’t live in fear because I am confident that our American way is working as it has and as it should.

What are you afraid of?

I have read the Constitution many times. Our Bill of Rights was meant to protect the innocent, not level the playing field between the good guys and the bad guys.

I don’t want my country to die of a misconception. And I do not think anyone has a right to be a terrorist or support them.


Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #161436

I, for one, and sick and tired of the self serving analogies the right wing comes up with to justify giving up our rights and freedoms. You want to me to believe al-Queda are at the same threat level as the Nazis? What a load of crap. No wonder I’ve stopped being able to communicate in a rational discussion here. Later.

Posted by: Dave at June 24, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #161437

Jack:

“I don’t want my country to die of a misconception.”

Which one? There’s so many in full operation right now.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 24, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #161439

OK Jack, please site the big secret that was revealed. The US is tracking financial records. I’m not a terrorist and know they have done this for years with Drugs. Do you really think Bin Laden isn’t aware of this? There were no sources or techniques revealed. There is no outcry from the CIA. This is politics. The NYT knows it, you know it, Karl Rove knows it, and so do the beings more sentient than primordial slime.

Posted by: gergle at June 24, 2006 9:39 PM
Comment #161443

Gergle

Do you lock your car and take your keys? Why reveal details of a secret program? U.S. government employees with secret clearance must be constantly reminded of what they supposedly already know. No reason to keep reminding the bad guys.

Besides, if you know about terror networks, you know that lots of these guys are free lancers and most of them are not too smart. Anybody who really believes in that 72 virgin crap at least displays a judgement problem.

Dave

What freedom did you give up? The government already had the right (and did) check your bank records if they thought your were doing something illegal.

I am confident that all serious Dems would support this sort of thing when they were in power. The liberal outcry just proves what Rove said (as I quoted below). The left wing extremists are running too much of the show.

Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #161445
The Supreme Court has held that bank records are not constitutionally protected private information. The government may obtain them without seeking a warrant from a court, because the bank depositor has already revealed his transactions to his bank.

Damn activist judges!

OK Jack, please site the big secret that was revealed.

That my bank account is $20 overdrawn! Get real, we all know that they are collecting this information and a lot of other information too. What will your excuse be when it is leaked that the Government is accessing your medical records? More boogymen?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 24, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #161446

Jack,

Your analogy just doesn’t hold water. Anyone who uses the Nazi secret code is obviously working with the Nazis. That’s a no-brainer. There would be no danger of spying on an innocent person, because an innocent person wouldn’t use the code.

What the administration has been doing is mass screening of Americans’ phone and financial records. You can say that doesn’t bother you, but it is not at all analogous to reading coded enemy tranmissions. If you can’t see the difference I don’t really know what to say.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 24, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #161447

Tim & Jack,
Earlier this week I suffered the second episode of identity theft, sparked by the same original theft. The charming confluence of technology, government ineptitude, and a “guilty until proven innocent” attitude resulted in my spending several hours in handcuffs, then a night in jail.

This is NOT a good time for anyone to tell me how we should expand our policing powers, and stamp our feet if anyone objects to expansion without independent oversight.

Posted by: phx8 at June 24, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #161449

Jack:

My suggestion of a bi-partisan panel to oversee these intelligence programs doesn’t warrant a comment from you?

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 24, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #161450
I am confident that all serious Dems would support this sort of thing when they were in power. The liberal outcry just proves what Rove said (as I quoted below). The left wing extremists are running too much of the show.

Jack,

I would support the Cons doing this sort of thing if they did it with judicial oversight. What Cons can’t seem to understand is that the government should never be given complete power. If this type of data collection can be abused, it will be. We have procedures in place that allows the government to access these records. It is not that the government is accessing these records, it is that they do it without judicial oversight.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 24, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #161452
If TODAYS NYT had been around back then they would have published details.

This is a completely meaningless accusation.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 24, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #161454

phx8:

Uh… I don’t believe I was calling for more surveillence without some supervision.

And I’m sorry for your hassles—especially for a Bankruptcy and Consumer “Protection” Act that doesn’t even protect citizens from Identity theft.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 24, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #161456

Terrorist knew before the article that we were tracking money in the U.S., but did they know that we were tracking their funds internationally? They do now. It is completely idiotic to assume they knew so it is o.k. to tell. The NYT is all about making money and not journalism as is every network and major newspaper. They were trying to sell papers and not protect the American people and that makes them traitors.

Posted by: lllplus2 at June 24, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #161458

The Bush Administration believes that it can operate without oversight. If that oversight, that is built into our Constitional system, is disregarded then they deserve to be exposed for their unconstitutional activity. If that means that the NYT has to be that oversight, then so be it. If compramises are made to our national security, I do not blame the NYT, I blame the Bush Administration for not following the laws of oversight in the first place.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 24, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #161461

JayJay

If the fact that we had a program like this was not new, why did the NYT feel it proper to write and article and do all the research required. And if it was news to the NYT, it may have been news to some of the bad guys.

Woody
My point was that they kept the secret. The liberal logic (that we have seen here already) is that the bad guys would have anticipated such a program and so revealing it is not harmful. Certainly the Nazis, who for all their flaws were generally more capable than the current crop of terrorists, would have drawn similar conclusions. Why keep any secrets?

Phx8

Better policing may have kept this crook from stealing your identity.

Tim & JJ

Because both parties already have bipartisan oversight and nothing illegal has been done. The Supreme Court has ruled on this subject already. We have plenty of oversight and for all the complaining nobody has pointed to a single case where the rights of an innocent person were compromised by any of these programs.

It just is not a major departure from previous policies. If Clinton were doing it, I suppose my crazier right wing colleagues would pretend to be aggrieved. Since Bush is running the show, the lefties get to play the fools.

Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #161468

Jack’s analogy exactly matches this situation. The issue is the protection of covert government activities. The process of deciding what information is secret is codified by law and administered by the elected officials and authorized government employees, not by media executives seeking a boost in circulation. The media sold our country’s secrets to anyone with a dollars change.

This incident would not have happened during WWII Even if the press wanted to release secret information, the public would not stand for it. That generation understood that covert activities were national secrets and disclosing them harmed all Americans.

I will be outraged if there is no criminal prosecution for the leakers and if the reporters fail to cooperate completely, then I want to reserve a cozy cell for them. The administration should sanction the media outlets who are compromising our war by not granting them access to anything more sensitive than a press release about the new White House china patterns.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 24, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #161469

Jack,
The identity thief is a non-violent meth addict who shoplifts to support his habit. The non-violent inmates were released from jail two years ago due to lack of tax revenues.

But on a larger scale, the problem is one of human nature. Most people are trustworthy and competent. But all those below average people from Garrison Keillor”s town had to go somewhere. And, there are a small number of people who are not good.

So when an enormous amount of power is given to people, and there is no oversight, the results are predictable. Most will do a good job. Some will not. A few will abuse the opportunity.

In my case, linking municipal databases would have helped. But if a clerk does not make an entry, or an overzealous DA decides to jail everyone in the database, no amount powerful database will prevent human nature from screwing everything up.

This is why transparency in government is more important that secrecy. Always. This is why limiting government policing powers is more expanding the powers of a Unitary Executive. This is why we need a free press, no matter how irritating or stupid it may be.

There is a price to be paid, it is true. We might not be as secure as we could be, and secrets may be revealed, and the price to be paid is very, very real.

But we should be willing to pay that price everytime.

Posted by: phx8 at June 24, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #161471

Jack:

“We have plenty of oversight and for all the complaining nobody has pointed to a single case where the rights of an innocent person were compromised by any of these programs. “

Perhaps this is true, perhaps not. But I find it interesting that when General Hayden of the NSA was asked in a Congressional hearing if any spying was being done for political purposes, he refused to answer the question. Same thing happened when Alberto Gonzalez was asked the same question.

On top of that, the NSA refused to give security clearence to the Justice Department to complete their investigation into any wrong-doing. The stone-walling, the foot-dragging, the refusal to give information to Congress perpetuates a certain, shall we say, reticence to relieve certain doubts about the lawfulness of such surveillence.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 24, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #161474

Is there a reason any one should trust the current administration to do the right thing. W’s record of abuse speaks for itself.
The sad fact is all they have to do is folow the rules and they cant seem to do it.
This is noyhing but another way for the neocons to push this Country towards a Corporate state one right at a time.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 24, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #161476

By the way, Jack I never thanked you for using the T word (Truth seeking) for the NYT.

Posted by: gergle at June 24, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #161477

Jack,

If TODAY’S NYT had been around back then they would have published details.
Right. And if George Bush had been president, we would have invaded Argentina following Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Elliott at June 24, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #161478

Phx8

Your meth guy is the crook, not the police. I am sorry the authorities let him out if he still is a danger.

This government program would not have done anything to compromise your freedom and may have enhanced your security.

Identity theft is a broad category. You have suffered a particularly odious kind. This meth guy deserves to be sent away to an unpleasant place. I agree. I had my credit card stolen and used. My bank put GREATER scrutiny on my account and now I get calls when I make purchases in different countries or different states. It can be annoying. They are watching me and I am glad for the protection. I don’t want MORE privacy, because more privacy for me means more privacy for the crooks.

Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #161480

Gergle

The NYT has really declined. Not talking about its liberal leaning or this case, but it simple lack of fact checking.

It is a problem for ALL media. They try hard to be first, and sometimes sacrifice accuracy. Teh 24 hour news cycle feeds this frenzy.

Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #161481

Jack, again what details?

Report: The gov’t is tracking financial records.

Boy that detailed.

By the way, Jack this was revealed in books about the tracking the original Trade Center bombing, 911, the USS Cole and the African Embasssies.

This isn’t even really news to anyone that reads.

Posted by: gergle at June 24, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #161487

The article has plenty of details and leads someone could follow.

Why remind the bad guys? I ask again, do you bother to lock your door? What is the use? The thief knows how to get in.

Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #161488

If it wasn’t secret why would the NYTraitors publish it? If it was a secret program to catch terrorists then the NYTraitors are indeed traitors. Argue about freedoms all you want and theories about how the government under Bush will misuse this program. But the bottom line doesn’t change… if it was a secret program to catch terrorists, then revealing it is treason.

Posted by: Don at June 24, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #161489

Jack
If you dont want privacy for yourself thats fine, but just like religious beliefs, dont push it on the rest of us. Just put your stuff out there for all to see. But dont make it a law for everyone.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 24, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #161490

Elliott:

“Right. And if George Bush had been president, we would have invaded Argentina following Pearl Harbor.”


Beautiful!

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 24, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #161494

j2t2 -

Don’t push your anti-religious beliefs on me.

Posted by: Don at June 24, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #161497

j2t2:

Push your anti-religious beliefs on me—I’ll give them the respect they deserve.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 24, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #161498

Jack,

Ok, the NYT just crossed the line.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at June 24, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #161499

No constitutional right is absolute. These are the same guys who are calling for a reporter sheild law so the can continue to do what ever they want. They have just make my life and the life of my family less secure.

Posted by: Charles Pierce at June 24, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #161502

Jack,
It comes down to the same problem. It is not necessarily the programs themselves that concern me. It is the people operating the programs.

No amount of computational power or classified programs will help if a clerk cannot be bothered to manually enter new data, or if a user cannot be bothered to read more than one page in a file.

Worse, once the precedent is set & the program is in place, it is only a matter of time before an unethical person may be tempted.

This is why we depend on oversight, a free press, and transparency in government.

Many people believe Bush is a good man, and so they willingly give the administration greatly expanded powers.

But remember, those programs & powers will still be in place for the next president, & the one after that…

Posted by: phx8 at June 24, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #161505

The claim that the info in the NY Times article is old news is ridiculous.

A quick perusal of the article revealed the turnaround time between a transaction posting and a report being given to US intelligence agencies, a summary of the sort of transactions that are monitored, and more tellingly a list of the sorts of transactions that are not monitored. If I could get that much specific information at a glance, you can’t dispute that terrorists could find this article useful.

Don’t tell me that it’s not THAT useful. My theory is that the American press should not be useful AT ALL to our enemies.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 24, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #161506

Touchy are we Don?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 24, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #161517

JayJay:

Thanks for the link to Captain’s Quarters. The number of suspects lessens with each leak so eventually he/she will be caught.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 24, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #161519

From what I have gathered checking out blogs from most of the top counter-terrorism “experts” the finance guys for terror groups knew about this stuff since @ 2002. My bone of contention isn’t with the story being written, it’s why? Do we as citizens need to know the down and dirty details of counter-terrorism if it’s got congressional oversight? I believe the answer is no. The story is harmful only in a motivational way and only as a means of stirring up the MoveOn.TinfoilHat.BigOil.BushLied crowd for the polls in 2006. Most Americans from centrist to the right have no problem with NSA, CIA, DIA, FBI using every tool imaginable to keep us safe. No rogue agency stuff mind you, all legal and above board with congressional oversight. The couching of the story as a “strictly held secret” leaves it hanging out in the ozone for KOS cutters to feed on as another “see America IS like the Nazi’s”. It wasn’t a blow to our national security, per se, but the the reasoning behind printing the story sure does blow! In a time of war there can be reasoned debate about policy, but never about the correct ending - Western civilization wins and prospers or Fundamentalist/Classic/Radical/Islamofacism wins and we die. Whipping up additional anti-American feelings at home or abroad by writing the story like a gotcha tale does more harm than good.

Posted by: JR at June 24, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #161521

WWII was a declared war, which had a definite end in sight. People knew that once the fight was over, they’d see the necessity of such programs lifted.

This is not a declared war, nor is it one with a definite span. Given that fact, people are rightfully worried about the sacrifice of rights and liberties, given the fact that the people in power may never end the emergency.

What may be very necessary, and crucial in an emergency, when spread into less panicked days like we have now, might degenerate and become abusive as time and the informality of the measures complicate the day to day operations of it. Secret as these programs are, there’s little way to call attention to the abuses and and problems dealing with these public policies without blowing the cover.

In essence, the lack of oversight practically invites people to reveal these facts.

What we need to do is sit down and structure these programs. Create the structure for granting warrants and everything. Give clear legal authority to the people running the program. Keep everything constitutional so the program has a decent half-life.

Homeland Security and Civil Liberties are not alternative choices, but goals that must coexist. If a program is perceived to be too invasive, it might inspire Church Committee style reductions to the powers of those who gather intelligence. Rather than do that, we should strike the compromises necessary to achieve public approval. In this way, public sentiment does not turn against necessary security improvements.

We have to have a system we can live with, becaue apparenly we will be living with it for quite some time to come.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #161527

phx8

What more do you expect of an intelligence agency in the way of oversight? If members of the Intel. committee get briefings what else should be done. What powers exactly does Bush wield like a sword that have not been used by Clinton, Carter, Reagan, JFK? When confronted by a time of war Presidents throughout our history have “taken on too much power”, yet when peace comes again to the land we go back to our representative republic, our democratic ways - no military coup, no dictatorship. Remember the famous line by one of Clintons staff back in the day? “Stroke of a pen law of the land, pretty cool, huh?”. We’re still here, no takeover yet. It’s another one of the mistakes liberals make about the nature of the american citizen, we’re not stupid enough to be “scared” into some kind of despotic rule, or suffer at the hands of a tyrant. Ain’t gonna happen.

Posted by: JR at June 25, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #161529

The New York Times cares not one whit about national security or individual freedoms.

They didn’t raise a ruckus when Bill Clinton started the NSA program. But, let a Republican use the same tool and “The US has become a police state.”

The publisher of the Times, Pinch Sulzberger, was widely quoted saying he prefered the deaths of American soldiers in Vietnam to those of the Viet Cong.

This is no different than fake Professoer Ward Churchill calling the 9/11 WTC victims “little Eichmanns”.

Or, Noam Chomsky saying America deserved 9/11 as payback for its “imperialist past”.

The voices of the left are anti-American. That is why they lose elections.

That is why Americans do not trust them with power.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 25, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #161531

The definition of “oversight” might be useful. Some claim there is oversight, but what kind?

I don’t believe that just because a few congress people “know” about the program that knowing provides oversight.

If I could feel confident that this administration is providing for meaningful oversight I wouldn’t worry about this so much. The definition of meaningful oversight seems to be so much of what is at issue with these things.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 25, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #161533

Stephen

While I admire your reasoned approach to the issue, I must take aim at one of your points. Please, God, no Church type hearings! Church and the walls his hearings helped build between the CIA & FBI are in great measure to blame for the “failings of the intelligence community” prior to 9/11. Oversight? By all means! Hearings? Only if foul play is detected. If the intelligence agencies, congress and the administration (Dem or Repub) are all in the loop that’s all I ask of my government. No black ops, no hidden from congress programs, just the hard work of counter-terrorism.

Posted by: JR at June 25, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #161534

Speaking of “stroke of the pen” lawmakers…

FDR issued over 3,000 executive orders during his three and half terms.

That’s more than all the presidents who followed him combined.

And, most of the FDR executive orders created wide-ranging new government programs and regulations that were later overturned by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

The moral of this story is that democracy is too important to be run by liberals…

And, come to think of it, freedom is in the safest hands when protected by those who trust the people more than they trust the government.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 25, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #161536

If WW2 were being fought today?

Are you kidding… The NYT would be leading the call for neutrality vis-a-vis Nazi Germany. Afterall, they didn’t attack the US, Japan did.

The thousands killed in a single day in Normandy… in a single day, not three years… would be proof that the US didn’t have a good plan for war.

Consider the two thousand plus Allied casualties suffered during D-Day training exercises. Once the NYT leaked that story, Hitler would have moved his troops from Calais to Normandy. And the death toll in France would have been even higher.

The problem is the NYT thinks… and apparently many libs share this opinion… freedom of the press is more important than national security.

Both are vital.

But without a nation, who will protect our precious freedom of the press?

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 25, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #161545

Someone care to guess the author of the following:

“We Americans of today, together with our allies, are passing through a period of supreme test. It is a test of our courage—of our resolve—of our wisdom—our essential democracy.

If we meet that test—successfully and honorably—we shall perform a service of historic importance which men and women and children will honor throughout all time.

As I stand here today in the presence of our God-I know that it is America’s purpose that we shall not fail.

In the days and in the years that are to come we shall work for a just and honorable peace, a durable peace, as today we work and fight for total victory in war.

We can and we will achieve such a peace.

We shall strive for perfection. We shall not achieve it immediately—but we still shall strive. We may make mistakes—but they must never be mistakes which result from faintness of heart or abandonment of moral principle”…

any guesses?

Posted by: JR at June 25, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #161551

Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki standing on the Green Zone barricades?

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #161554

Clinto, Carter, Reagan, JFK had the trust of their people. W does not. Congressional oversight, what is so hard about that. The level of arrogance in this administration is hurting their ability to lead this nation. By abusing the liberties that so many have fought for, W and his administration has allowed Bin Laden to dictate the terms of this war.
To compare WW2 to Iraq and the war on terror as a means to justify these acts is just plain silly.
Meaningful Congressionl oversight what is so hard about it. If this was more than a political war surely W could muster the courage to include Congress in the loop. But alas to allow the Dems a say would mean the War president could lose votes. What a shame.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 25, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #161557

j2t2:

I don’t know who does your polling, but I never trusted Clinton or Carter. Truth be told, I was iffy on Reagan.

However the proper reaction to distrust or dissaproval is to vote against the offending politician, not to leak secret data or to accept national security compromises by others.

Posted by: goodkingned at June 25, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #161560

Jack, what a fallacious argument this is. The Enigma code did not infringe upon British citizen’s rights, now did it? British citizens were not even aware the code existed let alone using it for their personal affairs. World of difference there, guy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2006 1:25 AM
Comment #161561

JR
couldnt have been W .

Posted by: j2t2 at June 25, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #161568

j2t2

W won his election with the most votes in history, I believe he has the peoples trust - just not yours. If ONE congressman from the opposing party of the majority knows about a program, it has oversight, much more so a leader on a committee. Never would a Democrat in todays intense political environment throw away a chance to make political hay over an “unconstitutional act” by this administration. His majority couldn’t save him from a proven allegation and his demise would follow.

The speech I qouted earlier was by FDR. He knew what an effort it would take to once again make America safe. “Stay the course”, anyone?

Posted by: JR at June 25, 2006 1:44 AM
Comment #161572

Did FDR order an invasion of Iraq on flimsy pretexts? I missed that one.

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2006 1:54 AM
Comment #161575
The voices of the left are anti-American. That is why they lose elections.

Then why did a majority of the people vote with the left in 2000? Remember, Al Gore DID WIN the popular vote!!

Also, kindly apprise all of us how fighting for keeping the Constitution and its Bill of Rights in force for the entire nation is “anti-American”???

Posted by: Lynne at June 25, 2006 2:00 AM
Comment #161576
W won his election with the most votes in history,

And Kerry had more votes than any elected president had ever received…your point is????

Posted by: Lynne at June 25, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #161578

Yeah, we get you oppose the Iraq War.

You’re all “one note Johnnys”.

Your answer to every challenge on any issue is “What about Iraq?”

Does your whole existence depend on that one issue?

If so, I want a refund on the taxes wasted on your education.

My new refrain will be “What about Bosnia?”

Bring the soldiers home from Bosnia. Its been nearly ten years! Its a civil war between religious fanatics. Why aren’t they home yet?

Where are your protest marches on that “occupation”?

Oh that’s right. A Dem got us into that one, so, we wouldn’t notice his pecadillo for sexual harassment of federal employees.

Some legacy. Some hypocrisy.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 25, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #161579

GKN
W is his own worst enemy. If he cant find the right people and follow the rules established by the representatives of we the people then someone has to bring it to light. One persons traitor is another persons patriot. Meaningful oversight would go a long way to solving this problem.

JR
And Kerry had the second most votes in history. I think there is a lot more just like me out there who have lost trust in W and his administration. If the Repubs feel they cannot trust 1 Dem then this “leaking” is the least of the problems facing this Country. I actually fear W and his neocon followers more than I fear Bin Laden and his terrorist followers in this Country.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 25, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #161580

Jack
The MSM is in dire need of being asked what side of the war they are on. I wish the administration had the testicular fortitude to do it, but the libs are right, they don’t have what it takes. Time after time after time, they (the MSM +Dems) take the side of anyone out to kill americans, their allies, or anyone not of the muslim faith. Look at Darfor!!! The examples there could fill a shopping cart. The MSM, particularly the old gray whore of New York needs to be asked hard questions by men with no discernable sense of humor about their patriotism and loyalty to their country. (Sorry, my tree-huggin pals, you are not citizens of the world, you are citizens of your country. Hope that clarifies things.) Its fine by me that the media openly supports anything liberal and or democratic, conservatives have developed their own successful and growing media-forms, but anyone with an ounce of common sense has got to be asking themselves are they (MSM) more loyal in the war on terror to the side of America (no matter who ends up running this place) or are they more loyal to their democratic pals and doing anything, anything at all to help them regain and secure political power? Its been pretty disgusting so far. Manufactured stories about massacres that never happened, save in the mind of Al Queda, discrediting military efforts to spread good news and slavering at the jaws whenever a soldier dies or might end up in the stockade, the MSM is the enemies best friend. When do we get to hear about our boys kicking ass and taking names? Can’t have that, bush might get credit! I have buddies that just came back from building roads and schools for these folks over in Iraq, rebuilding the long non-existant power-grid and so on and so forth, but were it not for the videos they themselves took, there may as well be no evidence of any of the good stuff ever happening. Why is that?
(If bush died tomorow and a democrat took over, would the media report things differently? You betcha ass.)
Locally, when I read the fishwrapper I call the morning paper and it blithly states that the seven nutjobs that planned on blowing up the Sears Tower had nothing in common in with each other (outside of hatred towards their own country and fellow citizens) I have to wonder what planet they are from. The artical ended with praise for the “Religion of Peace” The writer also indicates that the ACLU is interested in defending these losers, on the grounds that the “informant” was actually entrapment, and that the men really had no idea what they were getting involved with (according to an interview with one of the suspects mother, who is also illegally present in the US).
Since it is the Seattle fishwrapper, I have no idea how accurate any of that is, but it certainly annoyed me that the first thing my local paper did was to defend the home-grown terrorist wannabes. Whose side are they on again?
Well, its pretty clear they are not on the side of the armed forces.
And unless you have a (D) next to their name, their probably not on your side, either.

Posted by: HardHatHarry at June 25, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #161581
The speech I qouted earlier was by FDR. He knew what an effort it would take to once again make America safe. “Stay the course”, anyone?

What timing JR. American Pundit’s just put up a post
about WWII/FDR cf. Iraq/GWB and America’s willingness to “stay the course” during wartime. Check it out. It was quite illuminating.

Welcome back AP.

Posted by: Nikita at June 25, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #161585

It is kind of sad the way we all ignore Afghanistan.

Republicans & Democrats, Liberals & Conservatives are nearly unanimous on the subject of Afghanistan. There is not even enough heat generated by the topic to drive a discussion. Liberals & Democrats would like to see more resources devoted to it, and I do not think Conservatives & Republicans would seriously disagree. When it comes to Afghanistan, “cut and run” and “withdrawal” and “surrender” and “stay the course” never even enter the discussion.

Concensus about going into Afghanistan in the first place was overwhelming. Support remains widespread.

The wheels come off with Iraq. More than any other, it is the issue that divides us. Suddenly words like “traitor” and “coward” and all the other negativity enters the discussion.

When Reagan went into Lebanon, and all those marines died, we quickly realized it was a mistake, and withdrew.

When we went into Somalia to relieve famine, and experienced so much mission creep that we found ourselves backing sides in turf battles between warlords, we realized the mistake, and withdrew.

We accomplished our goals in Bosnia, Kosovo, and other conflicts with minimal impact.

Iraq is a whole nother kettle of fish.

The Bush administration refuses to admit a mistake. Like a gambler who loses heavily, and keeps doubling bets, we keep becoming more and more invested in an untenable situation.

I still hope the Iraqis & the Bush administration will orchestrate a withdrawal at the request of the Iraqis. It will help us save face. Really, I think that was the plan all along. We will see.

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2006 2:17 AM
Comment #161586

Lynne:

Al Gore did not get a majority of the votes cast in 2000. He got a plurality. The last Dem to get a majority was Carter (yecch!) in 1976, when he beat Ford with 50.1% of the vote.

Gore lost the electoral vote and you need to deal with that fact.

And, I didn’t say defending the Bill of Rights was anti-American. The Bill of Rights permitted conservatives to overcome the near-monopoly liberals held through the Old Media. I’m a solid supporter of free speech, even yours.

I gave examples of famous leftists saying American soldiers deserved to die in Vietnam and that America deserved 9/11. They have the right to say them.

I called those making the statements anti-American. Because their statements are prima facie evidence of their anti-Americanism.

Try challenging what I actually said.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 25, 2006 2:17 AM
Comment #161588
And Kerry had the second most votes in history.

It still means Kerry didn’t win.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 25, 2006 2:24 AM
Comment #161589

Nixon got more votes than FDR.

So, are you saying Nixon was a better president than FDR? :-)

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 25, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #161594

Jack:

You’ve forgotten a little detail of the Supreme Court jurisprudence on bank records: a subpeona is required. Of course, the Bushies have yet to see a law they won’t or haven’t broken. They are above the law, you know.

Posted by: Allen at June 25, 2006 3:56 AM
Comment #161595

Actually, Nixon was a very good President. With a long list of accomplishments. Was he as good as FDR? Different time, with different problems; Unfortunately, Nixon was also crooked and he surrounded himself with some people that would do his illegal bidding. It is not a little ironic that Rumsfeld and Cheney worked for his administration. But Nixon had a good eye for talent, and they were mainly coffee fetchers in his White House.

Posted by: Cube at June 25, 2006 4:06 AM
Comment #161599

nixon had non union Plumbers on the payroll. he should have looked for the union label.

Posted by: steve at June 25, 2006 4:58 AM
Comment #161600


It is official, the new government of Iraq has told the U.S. to leave their country. Has this been in the NYT?

Posted by: jlw at June 25, 2006 5:32 AM
Comment #161609

David

The point was re secrecy and keeping secrets to protect your country.

We can disagree about the rights issue. I don’t believe this program or the terrorist wiretapping program has infringed on any rights. The expansion of the idea of privacy is a dead end.

People have NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY for their bank records. It would be very easy to cheat on your taxes if you could just tell the IRS that all your records were private.

J2t2

Do you remember the times before Bush? Clinton did not have the trust of the American people and if you look at the media of the time, you certainly would not think Reagan did. Each president has the trust of SOME of the Americans people and the distrust of others.

If NYT and others have such mistrust of our president that they do things that side with terrorists, it is a serious problem FOR THEM. The Times used to be a really good paper. Maybe they should have asked Jason Blair to do the story.

Re Bush as president

Let’s repeat this again. Bush won a majority of the votes in 2004. He was the first person to win a majority since 1988 (no candidate got more than 50% in 1992, 1996 or 2000). He also won by all our Constitutional procedures. He is my president and he is your president. You have no logical or moral right to imply otherwise. Get over it and stop being such big babies. Or in your own language, just move on.


Allen

They don’t need a subpoena for the kind of research described in press reports. We are looking for terrorist patterns. If anyone wants to dig deeper or use information in a prosecution, it may require more.

What Bush opponents are advocating is to prevent investigations. You could only investigate after you knew most of the facts. In other words, they want to wait until after the bombing to make inquiries. That makes us morally clean (and some of us dead).

Hatred blinds NYT editors and others. Eventually people will die because of their poor judgement. If/when a big attack comes against us again, they will justifiably be among those to blame.

Posted by: Jack at June 25, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #161623

Ladies and gentlemen

I regret to inform you that j2t2 has lost the confidence of the american blogger public. Anyone who writes of his own free will that he fears “neocons” more than UBL has been accepted and approved by the tinfoil hat wearing society of greater Kookdom. j2t2, when was the last time someone you knew or knew of was beheaded by a neocon? How many suicide bombers did the President send to your neighborhood? Car blown up by an IED lately? Your grip has slipped.
Hatred of Bush and neocons may make you feel better about your political heartbeat, but it sure don’t make statements like that appear to be anything but irrational ranting! Sorry, but that check won’t cash.

Posted by: JR at June 25, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #161625

Some journalists during World War Two knew about the Manhattan Project (the program to develop the atomic bomb, for those history-challenged individuals), but kept it a secret.

Some journalists knew about D-Day invasion plans, but kept it a secret.

But the rules of journalism are very different today. If journalists were operating under these same rules back then, the world might be a different place today.

“U.S. developing new secret weapon said to harness the power of the atom” one headline would read.

“Allies gearing up for invasion of Europe” another may read, with the following subtext.

“Anonymous sources say invasion forces could hit the beaches of Normandy as early as the first week of June.”

It’s all about fear and the bottome line: Fear a competitor will break the story first and sell more newspapers.

I’m all for a free press and I think their job as watchdogs of the government is a valid one.

But there is a line that even a free press must not cross, a line that has been obliterated by the modern media.

If that puts me in the camp of fear-mongering zealots, so be it.

Posted by: ulysses at June 25, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #161630

JR
Just being honest. I wasnt irrational when I made this statement. This war like all others will pass. The damage to this Country by the neocons will continue long after Iraq is just a base we send troops to.
As I am not in Iraq nor Afganistan I dont live in fear of being beheaded, suicide bombers, or IED’s. In fact this fear you seem to have of these things, puts you in the tinhat crowd in my opinion.
Further I doubt the ability of UBL and the terrorist to attack this Country and do the damage that the policies of the neocons cause. Abuse to the rights and freedoms the people of this Country enjoy is far more dangerous, long term, than anything the terrorist could do.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 25, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #161641

i’m not sure if this has already been said, but i don’t have time to read all of the posts and post my own, so here goes:

the main issue with the government looking into my bank records, wire-tapping my phone, etc. is that they did it illegally. especially the wire tapping one. there was already a system in place that allowed them to essentially skip over the ‘red-tape’ they were so unfond of. as it was, they could tap ANY phone they wanted to and wait 72 hours before they reported it to a court which would decide whether or not they could continue. that court, between the time the laws were set up post-9/11 and the time the whole issue surfaced denied about 5 of over 2,000 requests. where the hell is the ‘red-tape’ that got in the way? i agree that we must do our best to combat terrorism (of course, fighting terrorism is quite possibly one of the hardest things to do in this world, but that’s a different issue), but the government MUST act within the legal restrictions that are in place and those that they set up themselves.
another issue that comes up in nearly every post on these blogs and in american in general: radicals are portrayed as the majority of liberals and reactionaries as the majority of conservatives. of course those who said vietnam soldiers deserved to die and that we deserved 9/11 were un-american and out of line, but just because they happened to be liberal does not mean that all liberals therefore agree with them. what about that religious reactionary group that has recently been protesting across the country at american soldier’s funerals saying that they deserved to die because they supported a government that allows same-sex relationships and, possibly, marriage? are all liberals now to believe that all conservatives fell that way as well? one thing that many conservatives, as well as liberals, have trouble grasping is that it is possible to support the troops overseas but not the war itself. we went into iraq for reasons based upon greed, a cardinal sin, and the bush administration flat-out lied to us, the american public, about the motives and justification for invading. but you better believe that i support our troops. they are over there fighting, sweating, suffering, dying, and being maimed for their country, for our country, and i think they do not deserve to be fighting in a war that is going nowhere and was incited over immoral motivations. over 2,500 hundred have died and over 8,000 have been seriously wounded; i think that the bush administration has insulted those soldiers and insulted the american public by sending them overseas to fight a war for his own personal ambitions and blatantly lied about his reasons.
no, we can’t pull out of iraq now; we should not have gone in in the first place. nation building is another of the hardest things to do, and that is exactly what we have gotten ourselves into and there is no way we can extricate ourselves easily or cleanly from it now. yes, we need to keep fighting terrorism, but we sure as hell could be doing a better job and the success does not rely on the government illegally infringing on our privacy and our rights.

Posted by: alefnaught at June 25, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #161651

JR, j2t2, has a very important point in his retort. When in the history of the Presidency, has power acquired ever been relinquished? I am sure there is an anecdote or two, but, overall, it doesn’t happen. Granting the White House Authoritarian powers either by the Congress or the people, is how all Authoritarian regimes begin in these modern times. It is happening in S. America and Bush is following the pattern. Instead of natural resources and private companies in S. America, for Bush it is privacy and freedom from intrusion by government without judicial and Congressional oversight. That is as dangerous to America as Evo or Hugo’s authoritarian grabs for power are in S. America, and the effects will last long than the sickly OBL.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 25, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #161652

The Plame case was not ambiguous. The entire executive branch has been guilty of Treason for revealing Valerie Plame, and for the bribery selling out of the American people in the Abramoff case.
It’s clear cut. Nothing ambiguous about any of it.

Posted by: Lamar at June 25, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #161655

The New York Times, L A Times, CNN, CBS, and PMSNBC, each hate the President so much for “stealing” the 2000 & 2004 elections that they are willing to aid and abet al Qaeda and other terrorists in an effort to make Bush look bad. When their hatred for one person rises to the level of assisting America’s enemies, the the word treason needs to be used. Hiding behind the First Amendment to commit treason is deplorable. It deminishes the legitimate use of Free Speech and Free Press.

Posted by: Political_Sniper at June 25, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #161657

“No reason to keep reminding the bad guys.”

Jack, explain to me please, we aren’t you “reminding the bad guys” with this very post?

Posted by: William Cohen at June 25, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #161659

Bush Supporters have been rendered politically deaf and blind by their partisanship. An explosion is occurring as we speak. The new leader of the Somali organization which has taken over is an associate of Osama bin Ladens from back in the day.

Yet Bush Supporters cannot see the flash of the explosion or hear its roar.

An Islamic fundamentalist government, very similar to the Taliban, has taken over southern Somalia and the capital city, Mogadishu. Since the US backed opposing warlords, the new government (the Islamic Courts Council has just changed its name) will almost certainly be hostile to the US, and friendly towards those who would do us harm.

Yet Bush Supporters are so invested in Iraq, they are deaf and blind to the consequences of the investment. We are spending our treasure and tying down our military, and we cannot address more pressing threats.

Bush Supporters who want the US to stay in Iraq do so for purely partisan reasons. They do not want to admit a horrendous mistake. And they would jeopardize the national security of this country to protect the political fortunes of their party.

Yeah, there is treason afoot, all right.

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #161662

Is oversight the new leftist buzz word? Everything said above about oversight is from non-original thinking. Oversight with the Congress is done so much on so much activity. There are far too many senators and representatives that get intel. Some of the leaking is done by those same senators or representatives or their staff. Those on the left are barking up a bark beetle infested tree.

Posted by: tomh at June 25, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #161665

TomH:

Who would you prefer provide oversight? The court? Bush and company apparently won’t go there either.

It’s not a buzzword, except maybe in your mind.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 25, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #161674

The last time NYT had any loyalty to USA was WWII, and that was because their hero who they referred to as “Uncle Joe” was in danger by the National Socialist Germans. So if USA won WWII their “Uncle Joe” otherwise known as the world’s worst mass murderer Joseph Stalin could survive. Stalin always got positive press from NYT, the opposite of the treatment George Bush or Ronald Reagan gets/got from NYT.

Something to think about.

The NYT strongly desires that Iraq is lost to antiAmerican terrorists for domestic political reasons just as they rejoiced when Pol Pot took over Cambodia and literally cried in Nicaragua when the Comunists lost the election.

They are loyal, its just not to the USA. They are and have been an enemy of the USA for a long time.

Posted by: Darp at June 25, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #161693

Jack:

You are filled with fear. You keep talking about codes, locks and snooping. You say you want to be protected even if you lose some of your liberties. Why are you so afraid?

You know, too much fear can place you in more danger than you are normally susceptible to. You ask if we have a lock on the door. Of course. Does this mean you should put 2 locks, 3 locks?

Perhaps it means, as one fellow in our neighborhood thought, that he should enclose his house with iron gates to keep the burglars away. Yes, it did that. But when his home caught fire, it kept the firemen away too.

In a free society, we all take chances. We have free speech even though we know some bad guys will take advantage of us. We have civil liberties though our enemies may use them against us. We want our privacy protection even though jihadists may use it to attack us.

In the long run, these liberties will keep us a great deal stronger than if we violate these liberties today out of fear.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 25, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #161705

William

I don’t flatter myself that as many people pay attention to me as they do to the NYT. The NYT set the fire. I am just complaining about the damage.

Paul

I don’t consider the government monitoring my finances or phone calls looking to stop terrorists an infringement of my liberty. The IRS can already check my finances. They are a greater threat to me. And the terrorists are a very much greater one. I am doing nothing to help the terrorists that I know about and if the terrorists are using my phone or bank in some way I want to find out and I want my government to find out.

You can call that fear. But it just makes sense to me. If I know a mad dog is loose in my neighborhood, I don’t mind if the cops check my backyard. In fact, I would be upset if they did not.

We chose our level of risk. Sometimes I don’t lock my door at all. I probably should, but there is not that much crime where I live. One reason there is not that much crime is that the police and citizens cooperate to catch the crooks. SO I have a lot MORE liberty than if we let the crooks get out of hand. I can walk w/o fear of assault because of good law enforcement. I can lose liberty to both government and criminals.

Posted by: Jack at June 25, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #161725

right of way

My new refrain will be “What about Bosnia?”
Don’t be ridiculous. How many American service people have died in Boxnia? How many American service people have died in Iraq?

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 25, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #161736

Jack, For your info I don’t lock my back door, or my car. I leave the windows in my car down. I live in a major US city. I have lived in this house for over 5 years. I moved after my car was broken into while it was locked where I lived before.

Posted by: gergle at June 25, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #161748

Sorry Jack off topic, mr Buffett,Just announced that he is giving the bulk of his money, 38 billion. to the bill gates foundation. you did a post about 4 -5 months ago about It. you were Right.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 25, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #161755

Jack,

As much as you love the Bill of Rights Jack, what does it say about Freedom of the press? Jack the SWIFT thing was leaked more probably by Republicans to serve November elections, that is not a left wing paper.

I’ve said this before, tinfoil hat or no, that the Republicans have to look remotely useful right now or they lose the house. Releasing this story accomplishes exactly what gets the Republicans behind their party.

Okay well then riddle me this (again) how did it the NYT get the story being that after the wiretaps story came out they would have been under constant Governmental watch? think about it and don’t be dumb enough to fall for it. The Bushies know the source of who leaked it—them.

The NYT is a ‘centrist to right-wing’ paper take a gander at it sometime. There is too much funny business goping on to take this leak stuff seriously—it’s the Republicans who need to round up their base.

Posted by: Novenge at June 25, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #161762

Novenge

I read the NYT most days. It is definitely left of the center of American politics, whether or not you think it is left or right in the great scheme of things.

Re freedom of the press, I think the NYT acted irresponsibly and we should criticize and castigate them, but I did not call for government restraint. This is what I wrote:

“I like a program that spies on terrorist. I don’t like journalists to reveal it and here I will use the t-word, the government official who revealed this to journalists is clearly a traitor. He/she should lose his job and his pension and spend some time in jail. This case has none of the ambiguity of the Plame case. Let’s catch this bastard. And if you are financing terror, let’s catch you too.”

There are lots of things I do not like, but most of them are not illegal.

I advocate that the government official who revealed the program be punished. The NYT behaved irresponsibly and unpatriotically, but the Constitution protects them. It does not protect the official who betrayed the trust of his country.

Posted by: Jack at June 25, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #161765

Jack, Question: Do you honestly believe that the Government, the NSA, the FBI or the HSA doesn’t know who the leaker is? It’s my personal inclination that they have been under a surveilance watch since the NSA wiretap story broke. That is what gets me about this whole thing—the claim they are absolutely mystified. What baloney—they have access to every journalists phone records, all of them. They have probably been watching key journalists as well.

It all just sounds a little fishy wouldn’t you say? I think it rallies the rightwingers, makes a largely Republican congress look useful, makes Bush look like he is on the ball only to be foiled by that nasty MSM demon. It pulls together a splintered base.

If this isn’t a set up it must be a Godsend because those are some good graces sent the way of the GOP to work with for November.

Just my opinion.

Posted by: Novenge at June 25, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #161779

Novenge

If you believe the NYT is right-of-center, can I presume that you are extreme left of center based upon what you put on this blog?

Posted by: tomh at June 25, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #161780

Novenge

You give the NSA more credit than they deserve. If only they indeed had that capacity. They will probably be able to find the bad guy; they might know who he is already. But that does not mean they could have stopped him before hand.

Re elections, I think this is a valid question. Do you feel such a program should continue or not? I think it should. If Dems disagree, it is their business, but let them be open about it and let the people decide what they want.

Posted by: Jack at June 25, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #161888

The sooner some Times journo is dragged in cuffs and thrown into Rikers on a treason - the sooner the very small testicles of Sultzburg will insist on some type of self restraint. This hogwash that revealing these things is no big deal is exactly why libs lose elections

Posted by: Armand at June 26, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #161896

Other countries might not be so thrilled


Casualties of the program?

Posted by: womanmarine at June 26, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #161898
The sooner some Times journo is dragged in cuffs and thrown into Rikers on a treason - the sooner the very small testicles of Sultzburg will insist on some type of self restraint. … Posted by: Armand at June 26, 2006 02:25 PM
Yeah, let’s close the rest of the free press, reopen Auschwitz, and repeal the 1st amendment while we’re at it! Actually, screw the whole constitution, Bush rules!!!! Hoo-Rah! Posted by: Dave1 at June 26, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #161926

Great article! Mortgage. Find best mortgage rate and mortgage calculator.

Posted by: Mortgage broker at June 26, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #161935

ElliotBay:

What about Bosnia!

I think that’s quite analagous to the tripe being peddled by the left on Iraq.

Let’s see…

Did Clinton get UN permission to bomb Bosnia?

Answer: No

Did the US Congress adopt a declaration of war on Bosnia?

Answer: No

Did Bosnia attack the US?

Answer: No

Sounds quite similar to the rantings of libs on Iraq.

What was Clinton’s exit strategy? Did he have one?

What chicken hawks proposed bombing civillians from 15,000 feet?

What about the collateral damage?

What about the civillian deaths and injuries?

Clinton couldn’t stage a successful pull-out from Monica, so it may have been too much to expect him to perform one in Bosnia.

I say “Clinton Lied, People Died! Bring them Home from Bosnia!”

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 26, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #161945

The major problem following the disclosure of vital information is that, the NYT claimed we the citizens have a right to know, but they did not give us anything. They only released information that the government was doing something. A full disclosure certainly was not done. Once again the NYT pages numbers are hard to believe accurate.

Posted by: tomh at June 26, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #161950

Somebody please show me what U.S.law it is that covers privacy of transactions from one foreign country to another foreign country, through an international clearing house in another foreign country. The ridiculous justifications of the traitor times are childish at best. I also wish to know what is the security clearance of an America hater like Pinchy Salzberger. This intelectual hypocrite has the the nerve to call his worthless biased rag, a watchdog? I wouldn’t denegrate my dog by letting him defecate on the traitor times.

Posted by: BOB at June 26, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #161992

This administration has such a credibility problem that it is difficult to sort out what may indeed be a secret needing to be kept secret, and what is a secret because they don’t want the public to know what Constitutional rights they may be treading on yet again. All in the name of fighting the war on terror, aka preying on the public fears.

The big boys yelled loud and clear immediately after 9/11 that they would be tracking any and all financial records available to trace terrorist funding. Obviously, even with the billions of factoids they’re harvesting daily, the Secrets of the Terrorist Financial Empire remains a secret. Or maybe not. Who knows? They, apparently, aren’t able to do much with the facts harvested, or they would have discovered the sham charities being used to benefit the political coffers, much of the monies coming from the American Indian casinos via Abramoff and his gang of thieves. Oh, wait, we’re just looking for financial info on terrorist, not morally backsliding politicians.

Had congress been controlled by Republicans in the Nixon era, he would have never been called on his Watergate involvement. He could have screamed “state secrets” and gone on mining all the personal info on his political enemies to his little, devious heart’s desire. After all there was a little war going on then, too.

Do you really believe George, Dick, et al are mining this vast array of data strictly for the good of America and ignoring all the tidbits of info on their friends and foes uncovered along the way? Can I sell you a nice piece of property nestled against a New Orleans levy. Trust me; it won’t flood.

Posted by: KDTEXAS at June 26, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #162086

Look, can’t we all see that this is a red herring. SWIFT is nothing new or secretive. It’s been out there in plain open for everyone to see. It has been around forever, and anyone that wires money overseas – globally, private or commercial transfers is damned familiar with SWIFT. ( You’re assessed a fee for it’s use. It has no competition. ) Plus which, do you really think the US Treasury department and Fed have no idea about the wire transfers that go in and out of this country. Billions – Trillions move throughout the world via SWIFT. Does one really think the Fed has no idea where all that black money moves to and fro….C’mon . Maybe we should be more concerned with that lil ol banque located in Basel, Switzerland….Ya know BIS The central bankers bank…The one that made it possible for Schacht to right the ship that was penniless Nazi Germany.

The NYT is just screaming, hey people , big brother has been watching…Now he is just coming out from the shadows into the light because some countries aren’t as cooperative. ( Such altruism from the NYT ) Ya know when those blokes from Treasury go knocking at the door of the Bundesbank seeking proprietary proper from one of it’s Gmbh or AG. The Bundesbank just might ask that pesky question: Why ! Besides the fields of a SWIFT transmission aren’t all that informative….So what is dear ol Uncle Sam really seeking ? Maybe that should be the topic of discussion…N ‘ est pas ?

Posted by: Eisai at June 26, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #162135

Right of way,

Did Clinton get UN permission to bomb Bosnia?
Now you’re being REALLY ridiculous. Have you ever heard of NATO? They requested that the US honor its treaty obligations. You know what treaties are, right? They are obligations that our Constitution requires that we keep. Perhaps you think that our treaty obligations are “quaint”?
What chicken hawks proposed bombing civillians from 15,000 feet?
That would be general Wesley Clark. Why are you calling a decorated American military veteran a “chickenhawk”? Why do you hate our military so much? Are you a terrorist sympathiser? (Of course you aren’t, but how does it feel?)
What about the civillian deaths and injuries?
Let’s compare and contrast, shall we? The civilian deaths in Kosovo as a result of the air campaign you’re so upset about, according to Wikipedia, were between 500 and 1,500. In Iraq, the civilian deaths are somewhere between 15,000 and 100,000 or more.

And since you appear to appreciate cheap shots, if Karl Rove’s father had withdrawn, this topic wouldn’t exist.


Posted by: ElliottBay at June 27, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #162746

Elliott,

KKKarls Dad had withdrawn, that’s why he’s such a bastard.

Posted by: Dave1 at June 28, 2006 1:34 PM
Post a comment