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.
Liberaland mourns the loss of Zarqawi
Sad news in Liberaland. The man they love to hate to love, had his ticket punched by the great U.S. military.
And watch how the leaders of Liberaland immediately went to work to show just how bad it is that Zarqawi is dead.
Starting off with Reuters, who rushed out to the "anti-war activist and candidate for U.S. Congress", Michael Berg
Nancy Pelosi:
Cindy Sheehan:
The Media: (from an article by David Limbaugh in Newsmax.com)
And this from NBC...
Oh, it can't be verified, but it sure as heck can be reported. Maybe they should ask Dan Rather or USA Today to verify it for them.
And now, from me:
Liberals before the death of Zarqawi:
"When will Bush get Zaqawi? He is still alive! We love the troops, it's not their fault we have not captured or killed Zarqawi. It's Bush's fault!!!"
Liberals after the death of Zarqawi:
"Way to go, troops!!! Bush had nothing to do with it."
That's it. There we are.
And watch how the leaders of Liberaland immediately went to work to show just how bad it is that Zarqawi is dead.
Starting off with Reuters, who rushed out to the "anti-war activist and candidate for U.S. Congress", Michael Berg
Michael Berg, whose son Nick was beheaded in Iraq in 2004, said on Thursday he felt no sense of relief at the killing of the al Qaeda leader in Iraq and blamed President Bush for his son's death.
Asked what would give him satisfaction, Berg, an anti-war activist and candidate for U.S. Congress, said, "The end of the war and getting rid of George Bush."
The United States said its aircraft killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the insurgent leader who masterminded the death of hundreds in suicide bombings and was blamed for the videotaped beheading of Nick Berg, a U.S. contractor, and other captives.
"I don't think that Zarqawi is himself responsible for the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq," Berg said in a combative television interview with the U.S. Fox News network. "I think George Bush is.
Nancy Pelosi:
Zarqawi's death should be a resounding call to President Bush and the Republican Congress that we must have a serious debate about U.S. policy in Iraq. His death does not alter the fact that our brave men and women in uniform are fighting a war of choice in which the President sent our troops into harm's way without a plan for victory and without leveling with the American people.
Cindy Sheehan:
"Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan said Friday that she's troubled by the death of al-Qaida's top operational terrorist, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, predicting that it will actually make things worse for U.S. troops in Iraq.
"I suspect it's gong to make the insurgency in Iraq worse," she told Cincinnati, Ohio's 9News.
The Media: (from an article by David Limbaugh in Newsmax.com)
ABC's Diane Sawyer asked former White House adviser and Bush critic-at-large Richard Clarke whether Iraq was any safer and the war would end any sooner after Zarqawi's death. A glum Clarke said, "Well, unfortunately, the answer is no." He then said Zarqawi only commanded a few hundred people out of tens of thousands involved in the insurgency. Huh? Were the libs saying that before he was killed?
NBC's Tim Russert said the death would probably not "change things on the ground," noting that "foreign fighters are not the only threat that confront Iraq. There is this sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shiites, and that is separate above the killing of Zarqawi we're witnessing today."
Yes, Tim, but would it be too painful for you to acknowledge that one of Zarqawi's primary missions was to foment that sectarian violence?
And this from NBC...
An Iraqi man who was one of the first people on the scene after an airstrike that led to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi told Associated Press Television News that he saw American troops beating a man who had a beard like the al-Qaida leader.
The witness said he saw the man lying on the ground, badly wounded but still alive. He said U.S. troops arriving on the scene wrapped the man's head in an Arab robe and began beating him. His account cannot be independently verified.
Source
Oh, it can't be verified, but it sure as heck can be reported. Maybe they should ask Dan Rather or USA Today to verify it for them.
And now, from me:
Liberals before the death of Zarqawi:
"When will Bush get Zaqawi? He is still alive! We love the troops, it's not their fault we have not captured or killed Zarqawi. It's Bush's fault!!!"
Liberals after the death of Zarqawi:
"Way to go, troops!!! Bush had nothing to do with it."
That's it. There we are.
As long as we're talking about amending the Constitution...
OK, it's about time we made some long overdue changes in our legislature. A great compromise was made by our founding fathers in order to get this country started, and it's high time to revisit that deal.
As you know, in an effort to appease smaller states and get them to unify, Congress was set up with two houses. One based on population, the other based on representation of individual states.
As a result, states like Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota and Alaska have a combined population of 3.1 million. And between them they have 10 Senators. That is about a third of the population of North Carolina which is not even among the ten most populous states.
So, some lines need to be redrawn. I have given this careful consideration, folks, and humbly offer the following:
Combine Maine, NH, VT, Mass, Ct, RI into one state called "New England".
Combine Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho in a new state called "Wy-U-Aho?".
Combine North Dakota and South Dakota into a county called "Dakota", and then include it with the other counties in Minnesota.
Sell Alaska to Canada, and sell Hawaii to Japan to pay down our national debt. Be sure to keep the mineral rights in Alaska so we can keep drilling for oil, and negotiate to Keep ANWR as a drilling and hunting site. Going to Hawaii is like going to another country anyway, so it won't be that much different. Believe me, with the money we save from this plan, every American could go to Hawaii for a week's celebration.
Combine Maryland and Delaware and, while we're at it, the District of Columbia into a new state called "Maryland".
Combine New York and New Jersey and call it New Jerksey. Since there are plenty of people in those states, there's no real reason to do this other than it would make a great name and would cut down the liberal noise there by two senators. Imagine having to choose between Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez.
Just think. If we did this, we would reduce the number of states by a total of 13 states, and get rid of 26 senators, two-thirds of the Democrats (ain't that interesting, btw). And, best of all, among them could be:
Ted Kennedy
Hillary Clinton
Charles Schumer
Olympia Snowe
Jim Jeffords
Christopher Dodd
Patrick Leahy
John Kerry
Joseph Biden
Frank Lautenberg
Lincoln Chafee
I'm sure there are some problems with this plan. But, for the moment they escape my detection.
As you know, in an effort to appease smaller states and get them to unify, Congress was set up with two houses. One based on population, the other based on representation of individual states.
As a result, states like Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota and Alaska have a combined population of 3.1 million. And between them they have 10 Senators. That is about a third of the population of North Carolina which is not even among the ten most populous states.
So, some lines need to be redrawn. I have given this careful consideration, folks, and humbly offer the following:
Combine Maine, NH, VT, Mass, Ct, RI into one state called "New England".
Combine Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho in a new state called "Wy-U-Aho?".
Combine North Dakota and South Dakota into a county called "Dakota", and then include it with the other counties in Minnesota.
Sell Alaska to Canada, and sell Hawaii to Japan to pay down our national debt. Be sure to keep the mineral rights in Alaska so we can keep drilling for oil, and negotiate to Keep ANWR as a drilling and hunting site. Going to Hawaii is like going to another country anyway, so it won't be that much different. Believe me, with the money we save from this plan, every American could go to Hawaii for a week's celebration.
Combine Maryland and Delaware and, while we're at it, the District of Columbia into a new state called "Maryland".
Combine New York and New Jersey and call it New Jerksey. Since there are plenty of people in those states, there's no real reason to do this other than it would make a great name and would cut down the liberal noise there by two senators. Imagine having to choose between Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez.
Just think. If we did this, we would reduce the number of states by a total of 13 states, and get rid of 26 senators, two-thirds of the Democrats (ain't that interesting, btw). And, best of all, among them could be:
Ted Kennedy
Hillary Clinton
Charles Schumer
Olympia Snowe
Jim Jeffords
Christopher Dodd
Patrick Leahy
John Kerry
Joseph Biden
Frank Lautenberg
Lincoln Chafee
I'm sure there are some problems with this plan. But, for the moment they escape my detection.
The Anti-anti-American Creed
Humbly sumbitted by yours truly.
I believe in peace, freedom, dignity and the basic human rights of all individuals, American or otherwise.
I believe America has tried to instill and defend those rights and values in all parts of the world where it has influence, has been generous to those in need, and difficult on those who would seek to take those rights and values away from its own citizens.
I believe America's intentions are good, and that in protecting its own interests, affords the rest of the world a better chance of enjoying the same freedoms and rights that America enjoys. I believe America has led the way in sacrifice and generosity for the common good of the world.
I believe America is a leader, and while it may not always be right, it is right enough to be given the benefit of the doubt and sets a positive example for the rest of the world to follow.
I believe that the ones who hate America most are the ones who want control and power for themselves or their political affiliations more than they want peace, freedom, dignity and basic human rights for all. I believe the worst of these are those who claim they want control and power because they love America, but are willing to exploit the vulnerable to achieve that power and control.
I believe that it is acceptable to challenge American leaders on their ideals and methods, but it is not acceptable to lie, mislead, exaggerate, insult, intimidate, cheat, steal or threaten in order to raise those challenges, and once the decision has been made I believe those who love America will celebrate the democratic process and support America and its leaders in those decisions.
I believe children are sacred, and that anyone who intentionally harms them for their own gain is on the wrong side of a conflict. This includes physical harm as well as emotional and intellectual harm.
I believe I will stand firm on America's right to be America until I am knocked out, taken out, passed out, dragged out or carried out, and in the end, I believe that America as a God-respecting society will lead the world to a new age of peace and prosperity.
bb
I believe in peace, freedom, dignity and the basic human rights of all individuals, American or otherwise.
I believe America has tried to instill and defend those rights and values in all parts of the world where it has influence, has been generous to those in need, and difficult on those who would seek to take those rights and values away from its own citizens.
I believe America's intentions are good, and that in protecting its own interests, affords the rest of the world a better chance of enjoying the same freedoms and rights that America enjoys. I believe America has led the way in sacrifice and generosity for the common good of the world.
I believe America is a leader, and while it may not always be right, it is right enough to be given the benefit of the doubt and sets a positive example for the rest of the world to follow.
I believe that the ones who hate America most are the ones who want control and power for themselves or their political affiliations more than they want peace, freedom, dignity and basic human rights for all. I believe the worst of these are those who claim they want control and power because they love America, but are willing to exploit the vulnerable to achieve that power and control.
I believe that it is acceptable to challenge American leaders on their ideals and methods, but it is not acceptable to lie, mislead, exaggerate, insult, intimidate, cheat, steal or threaten in order to raise those challenges, and once the decision has been made I believe those who love America will celebrate the democratic process and support America and its leaders in those decisions.
I believe children are sacred, and that anyone who intentionally harms them for their own gain is on the wrong side of a conflict. This includes physical harm as well as emotional and intellectual harm.
I believe I will stand firm on America's right to be America until I am knocked out, taken out, passed out, dragged out or carried out, and in the end, I believe that America as a God-respecting society will lead the world to a new age of peace and prosperity.
bb
