Tuesday, July 04, 2006
The NY Times explains why they are traitors
Well, well, well. The heat is on in Liberaland and it's the New York Times turn to squirm like the worms they are.
After divulging (and therefore damaging) a successful, secret program in the war on terror, they now realize, much to their surprise, that they are being viewed as traitors.
So now this bastion of journalism trots out a feeble, and I do mean feeble editorial to explain why they were right. Oh yes, and it was a decision made with great anquish. Yeah, right.
Look. Either the information reported on PAGE ONE of the NYTimes was old news, or it was breaking news. It was reported as breaking news. Now, the NY Times and its apologists (ie, liberals) are saying, "Oh, well, you know, everyone knew about this anyway. I mean, the Treasury Dept made a big deal about how they were going to do it almost five years ago."
I remember the TD saying that they would be freezing bank accounts and assets of suspected terrorist groups and those sentimental to them. But I didn't know any of the details.
So, tell me, if everyone knew about it, why would it make Page 1 of the NY Times?
The only possible explanation is an attempt to disparage Bush. The left has time and time again tried to show that Bush is using his power to spy on ordinary people. The criticism of the Patriot Act, the monitoring of cell phone calls to terrorist nations, etc. And I have no doubt that the Times thought this would lead to more of the same.
The difference? The majority of Americans is getting tired of this. We don't feel like we are being spied on (because we're not). We don't feel like our liberties are being curtailed (because they're not). And we don't feel like our financial transactions are being monitored by George Bush (because they aren't).
So, out comes the Times with their "explanation" as to why they published the story. (Of course, when they do this, you know they are already in trouble).
Source
Spin on, baby.
It is ALWAYS about hating Bush, folks. ALWAYS.
There were no laws broken. I'm not aware that anything like that has even been alleged. There was Congressional oversight, even if it was "skimpy".
This was at best an act of stupidity, and the Times' efforts to cover it up and explain it away shows that they know they screwed up. I believe they reported national secrets and I believe that is treason. They're actions could well cost American lives, and the only rationale for this was that it might hurt Bush because they hate him so much. And that is treasonous.
That's it. There we are.
After divulging (and therefore damaging) a successful, secret program in the war on terror, they now realize, much to their surprise, that they are being viewed as traitors.
So now this bastion of journalism trots out a feeble, and I do mean feeble editorial to explain why they were right. Oh yes, and it was a decision made with great anquish. Yeah, right.
Look. Either the information reported on PAGE ONE of the NYTimes was old news, or it was breaking news. It was reported as breaking news. Now, the NY Times and its apologists (ie, liberals) are saying, "Oh, well, you know, everyone knew about this anyway. I mean, the Treasury Dept made a big deal about how they were going to do it almost five years ago."
I remember the TD saying that they would be freezing bank accounts and assets of suspected terrorist groups and those sentimental to them. But I didn't know any of the details.
So, tell me, if everyone knew about it, why would it make Page 1 of the NY Times?
The only possible explanation is an attempt to disparage Bush. The left has time and time again tried to show that Bush is using his power to spy on ordinary people. The criticism of the Patriot Act, the monitoring of cell phone calls to terrorist nations, etc. And I have no doubt that the Times thought this would lead to more of the same.
The difference? The majority of Americans is getting tired of this. We don't feel like we are being spied on (because we're not). We don't feel like our liberties are being curtailed (because they're not). And we don't feel like our financial transactions are being monitored by George Bush (because they aren't).
So, out comes the Times with their "explanation" as to why they published the story. (Of course, when they do this, you know they are already in trouble).
Source
Wait a minute. Is it secret or not? You have said it wasn't. Now you say it is. Such confusion from such a respected journalistic source.
The Bush administration's unusually harsh attacks on The New York Times for exposing a secret banking-data surveillance program have turned a glaring spotlight on the paper's decision to publish the article.
Okay, so it wasn't secret to the many people who were involved in monitoring the program. THAT MAKES IT NOT A SECRET?
There was a significant question as to how secret the program was after five years. "Hundreds, if not thousands, of people know about this," Mr. Keller said he was told by an official who talked to him on condition of anonymity. The 25 bankers from numerous nations on the Swift board of directors, and their predecessors going back to 2001, knew about the arrangement. So did some consortium executives and staff members — a group that probably expanded during this period. Starting in 2003, Swift representatives had to be stationed alongside any government intelligence official searching the data.
Spin on, baby.
YES, NO DETAILS. Isn't that what makes it secret? I know the government has spy satellites that monitor foreign agencies. But I don't know exactly how they work, what they are seeing, and how they are gathering that data. And I shouldn't read about it in the Times.
A former State Department official who has served on a United Nations counterterrorism group pointed to a 2002 United Nations report noting that the United States was monitoring international financial transactions. Swift and similar organizations were mentioned in the publicly available report, although there were no details.
Yes, awaking the public is also called telling secrets. And tell me, if the information was "fairly" well known by terrorism financing experts, why was this such a successful program? Why bother doing it if everyone knows you are doing it? Because if you don't know the details of how it works, you will be more likely to trip into it. The money has to move somehow, and it is hard to fund terrorism by dropping cash into Baghdad.
The Times's June 23 article "awoke the general public" to the Swift program and "in that sense, it was truly new news," Victor Comras, the former State Department official, wrote on The Counterterrorism Blog last week. "But," he added, "the information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002."
BANG!!! And there it is, folks. There is your answer. It was a blatant attempt to usurp the power of the executive branch of the government. That, and nothing more. Who cares about national security? Especially if you are a liberal who doesn't think terrorism is a real threat anyway?
Another reason Times editors were right to proceed with the 3,550-word Swift story was the skimpy Congressional oversight of the program. Secrecy is vital for intelligence and national security programs, but so is oversight by the courts or elected legislators.
It is ALWAYS about hating Bush, folks. ALWAYS.
There were no laws broken. I'm not aware that anything like that has even been alleged. There was Congressional oversight, even if it was "skimpy".
This was at best an act of stupidity, and the Times' efforts to cover it up and explain it away shows that they know they screwed up. I believe they reported national secrets and I believe that is treason. They're actions could well cost American lives, and the only rationale for this was that it might hurt Bush because they hate him so much. And that is treasonous.
That's it. There we are.
# posted by bigbarry2u @ 10:01 AM 
