Gay Patriot Header Image

Time to Investigate the New York Times

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:20 pm - June 26, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Media Bias,War On Terror

While other bloggers — and conservative pundits — are calling for the prosecution o the New York Times for for publishing information about a classified program to track terrorist financing, I think it may be premature to indict anyone. I believe we should follow the precedent established with the latest CIA “leak” case and first launch an investigation into which government officials, entrusted with secrets essential to our national security, leaked this classified information.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez should do, as his predecessor John Ashcroft did, now nearly three years ago in the Plame matter and appoint a dedicated prosecutor with a reputation for diligence to investigate this matter. This prosecutor, like Patrick Fitzgerald, must be willing to jail reporters for contempt if they, like Judith Miller, refuse to reveal their sources. He (or she) should be empowered to determine (1) who was responsible for the leak and; (2) whether any laws were broken. (It seems clear that the answer to the second question will be in the affirmative.)

When the Attorney General announces the investigation, he should be sure to refer to the New York Times‘ zeal to investigate the Plame matter, using that paper’s arguments to help defend his decision. He should of course base that decision on existing statute as the responsibly individuals are likely to be tried in courts of law. But, in the court of public opinion, he must take advantage of the precedent the Times helped establish.

If the Times reporters know they could face jail time for failing to reveal their sources, it’s not only they who would think twice before publishing classified information. Career bureaucrats at the CIA and State Department who have animus against the Administration would be less inclined to blab to reporters with similar ideological inclinations (as well as those especially eager to win industry accolades), knowing that their indiscretion could cost them their jobs — and possibly subject them to prosecution.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

ADDENDUM: As I’ll be busy the next few days, I may not get as much chance to blog as I would like. Michael Barone has an excellent column today where he wonders why The New York Times hates us. Hugh Hewitt favors House and Senate pass resolutions “expressing outrage at the endangering of national security via the publication of sensitive national security information that obviously assists terrorists in eluding capture or killing.

Hugh recommends Heather MacDonald’s excellent Weekly Standard article where she writes:

BY NOW IT’S UNDENIABLE: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.

Powerline has a lot of good stuff on this matter, including a link to another former subscriber to the Los Angeles Times Patterico who writes that the editors of our hometown daily:

took it upon themselves to decide what classified information the public (and our enemies) should know about. Bizarrely, he claims that the critical factors in his decision were whether the program was legal and had adequate safeguards — even though, as I document in a related post, it was indeed legal and had extensive safeguards in place. Thus, his excuses are an apparent cover for some other motivation, as yet unrevealed.

Read the whole thing! And don’t forget to check out Instapundit and Michelle Malkin as well where you should be sure to keep scrolling!

Share

85 Comments

  1. I wouldn’t call the WSJ’s editorial page right-wing, but libertarian-conservative. While the editors have defended the president on the war and his judicial picks, they have frequently criticized him, most notably on domestic spending and federalism issues.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 27, 2006 @ 10:55 pm - June 27, 2006

  2. So what will your response be if investigations reveal that it was not “career beurocrats”, but oh, say, elected republican officials or appointees who did the leaking? Will that then be credited to Presidential power deciding where and when to de-classify classified information?

    Or let me ask you this: When the leaders of a government work in ultra-secret from its citizens for citizens’ protection, what will stop that government from doing things in secret for any reason? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Comment by Kevin — June 27, 2006 @ 10:57 pm - June 27, 2006

  3. Kevin, if an investigation reveals that GOP officials did this, then they should be prosecuted. Wasn’t it just under a year ago when my critical commenters were assuring me that Rove would be indicated and DeLay convicted?

    Well, given that both the NSA and now the banking program had built-in safeguards, it seems that we needn’t worry about the government doing things in secret for any reason. We have the separation of powers to protect us. Alas, that the NYT thinks the 1st Amendment makes it one of the branches of government.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 27, 2006 @ 11:30 pm - June 27, 2006

  4. #51: “I wouldn’t call the WSJ’s editorial page right-wing, but libertarian-conservative.”

    This is a bit off-topic but I would describe the WSJ editoirial page as corporatist meaning that their advocacy almost invariably benefits large corporations. Libertarians and most old-school (paleo) conservatives only supported the attack on Iraq based on believing the erroneous claims of the Bush administration. Once the rationale for invasion was shown to be phony, they opposed the war. The WSJ editorial page has been a consistent supporter of the war since after all, it has resulted in lucrative contracts for their corporate patrons. Their only objection to government spending is if it doesn’t directly benefit large corporations.

    Comment by Ian S — June 28, 2006 @ 1:32 am - June 28, 2006

  5. #35
    But ever the opportunists, they are quite happy to use the story to bash the “liberal” media for some kind of political advantage.

    Let’s indulge Ian for a moment and pretend he knows what the hell he’s talking about. If it’s such a “well known” item and “no big deal”, why on earth was it run the way it was? If it’s “old news” then why the hell did they run the story?

    #45

    this administration is filthy and each day there’s more and more proof.

    Ho-hum. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it true. I promise you. Oh, how about providing some of that “more and more proof”?

    hope you all like living in stalinist ussr, as we’re very close to that.

    Given the fact that liberal douchebags such as yourself still revere “Uncle Joe” and your undying love for Castro & Chavez, I’d think you’d be all for a Stalinist USSR.

    Keep going, RIW. Love watching folks making asses of themselves.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 28, 2006 @ 1:36 am - June 28, 2006

  6. It would be interesting to see the stats on Bush Administration officials indicted by 6th year for corruption, vs. Clinton Administration.

    I haven’t lately, so I don’t know this for sure: but I suspect the Clinton Administration was rather more corrupt, going by number of equal-level officials indicted per year (and in total).

    Regardless, that would be apart aside from the fact that Bush didn’t lie, while Clinton not only lied, he committed the legal crime of perjury.

    Or that the Bush Administration did not out an undercover CIA agent, while the Clinton Administration did give major nuclear secrets to North Korea and China. Etc.

    Comment by Calarato — June 28, 2006 @ 2:52 am - June 28, 2006

  7. It would be interesting to see the stats on Bush Administration officials indicted by 6th year for corruption, vs. Clinton Administration.

    Hell, all the Bush administration has to do is answer every question with “I don’t know”, “I don’t recall” or any other variation of that and they’re off scott free. That is, if they were dishonest.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 28, 2006 @ 5:46 am - June 28, 2006

  8. 53: What exactly are the built-in safeguards they are adhering to? Wire-tapping laws provide for “after the fact” warrants, which the Bush adminisitration has pooh-pooh’d because the time period involved doesn’t fit their schedules.

    In some ways, this is similar to the prisoner detention schemes: Instead of people being held for years without charges, they’re doing the same, but this time with massive amounts of general information on possibly millions of people. In general, any government having this kind of information on its citizens is a bad thing.

    Comment by Kevin — June 28, 2006 @ 5:48 am - June 28, 2006

  9. 56: Keep in mind that indictments on Clinton all came about only because of issues of a purely personal nature that would never have been asked to other politicians. How many of our elected officials, no matter their political affiliation, would pass the litmus test of answering truthfully about extra-marital affairs? No indictments based on the original investigation (whitewater). Interesting that this all came about when 6 of Clinton’s 8 years were presided by a Republican-controlled congress. Of course, in the same situation, you ain’t gonna see much happen Bush, now are you?

    Plus, the Bush amdinistration had a leg up on that from day one: Bush brought to his administration more indicted/convicted people than any other president in history.

    Comment by Kevin — June 28, 2006 @ 5:56 am - June 28, 2006

  10. #55: “Given the fact that liberal douchebags such as yourself still revere “Uncle Joe” and your undying love for Castro & Chavez, I’d think you’d be all for a Stalinist USSR.

    Keep going, RIW. Love watching folks making asses of themselves.”

    If you like watching people make asses of yourselves you have a great source in your comments. All you are capable of doing is making crude non-sensical insults. Every response from you is the person is a “fucktard”, “libtard”, “douchebag” on and on. There is never any content but just a string of insults. You write like a 2nd grade boy who has learned his first “dirty words” during recess; I would not be surprised if you giggle after you type them.

    Quite frankly, it is difficult to take seriously the periodic calls for “civility” posted on this site, when not once have I seen the hosts reprimand you for you endless juvenile behavior.

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — June 28, 2006 @ 7:54 am - June 28, 2006

  11. #28 Michigan-Matt — June 27, 2006 @ 9:43 am – June 27, 2006

    Hey Ian S or raj baby or Kevin or Brendan… a favor to ask: When you guys check into the DailyKos, DemocratUnderground, BlogAmerica or BlogActive this morning for your daily talking points briefs, check and see if the radical Left and the GayLeft’s Left flank is all abuzz about Rush. Thanks.

    I’m sure that even you 2Ls are quite capable of doing that yourself. Maybe you will report back on your findings.

    I first learned about Rush’s latest faux pas yesterday morning from TalkingPointsMemo.com, which linked to the web site of a CBS affiliate in Miami. I have to admit that I did find the Rush Revelation a bit hilarious, but not from the standpoint of his possible LimpDick. What I found hilarious was the fact that one of the right wingnuts’ chief moralizers was going to the Dominican Republic, with a sex-enhancing drug. The DR is, of course, well known for its sex tourist industry. One might seriously want to know when the prescription for Viagra was issued. One might seriously also want to know why it was issued in a name other than his. And one might seriously want to know why he would take the drug to the DR, when the product is not necessary for sustaining life–and when discovery of it might have endangered his parole in his earlier case. The man appears to be even more stupid as I had believed.

    I have long recognized–since I was posting on the ridiculously-named FreeRepublic.com almost a decade ago–that right wingnut moralizers are more than willing to forgive the transgressions of their gods such as Rush Lamebrain, as long as they would tell them what they wanted to hear. And as long as they listened to commercials for nose-strips, etc.

    Pathetic.

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 8:50 am - June 28, 2006

  12. This thread is an almost painful-to-read example of how little the role of the press is understood by the averge American. A thread below gasps at the notion of the NYT being in an adversarial relationship with its own government. DUH. That IS the appropriate role.

    But this is all politics, meant to obscure the Plame investigation. There’s a lot of ranting here with no explanation of how the NYT’s story actually compromises national security. As usual, the facts — if they aren’t compatible with the right’s political agenda — are ignored.

    Comment by dante — June 28, 2006 @ 8:57 am - June 28, 2006

  13. “Given the fact that liberal douchebags such as yourself still revere “Uncle Joe” and your undying love for Castro & Chavez, I’d think you’d be all for a Stalinist USSR.

    “Keep going, RIW. Love watching folks making asses of themselves.

    “Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 28, 2006 @ 1:36 am – June 28, 2006”

    Unless of course the ass is you.

    Comment by dante — June 28, 2006 @ 8:59 am - June 28, 2006

  14. #39 Calarato — June 27, 2006 @ 1:43 pm – June 27, 2006

    See what the outgoing Treasury Secretary has to say about this matter:

    http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/06/25-week/index.php#a002579

    Oh, !interesting. A (presumed) statement by the outgoing Treasury Secretary. Aside from the fact that, a couple of days ago, I rooted around the Treasury Department’s web site and was unable to find a reference to this presumed statement, even if the outgoing Treasury Secretary did issue such a statement, one could quite frankly consider this a “cover your ass” statement, given the fact that the Treasury Department itself had been touting the program for at least three years. As I showed in comments several threads downstream.

    Several things are amusing. One, you people seem to be unable to cite to anything other than blogs. The citation above was to Hewitt’s blog, which referenced another blog. Apparently, you are unable to find anything other than blogs–the 101st Keyboard Brigade–to support your points. Very odd.

    Two, it is interesting that the right wingnuts were praising the NYTimes when they were publishing articles condemning the Clintons for the non-scandal that was Whitewater, and now they’re condemning it. Apparently, the right-wingnuts are rarely if ever satisfied with the NYTimes unless its reportage conforms to their preconceived notions. Fine with me–that’s one reason that I go to foreign and foreign-language media for news.

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 9:11 am - June 28, 2006

  15. #1 PatriotPal — June 26, 2006 @ 2:37 pm – June 26, 2006

    I’m much more concerned about the government workers who are leaking this information than the Press that prints it (although I guess the larger danger is in the printing, not the leaking).

    It is, of course, possible, that the leaks to the NYTimes, the LATimes and the WSJ were coordinated by the administration so that they would publish them at the same time. And so that the Bush malAdministration could lambast the NYTimes for the publication. I recognize that this is a somewhat Machiavellian interpretation of the events, but the fact that most of what has been heard from the Bush malAdministration has been vituperations against the NYTimes, to a lesser extent the LATimes, and virtually nothing against the Bush-friendly WSJ, and further given the fact that the revelations in the NYTimes article has little that is really new, suggests that there may be more to that than you might wish to admit.

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 9:18 am - June 28, 2006

  16. #39 Calarato — June 27, 2006 @ 1:43 pm – June 27, 2006

    And cut the crap about SWIFT being well known. You didn’t know it, until this week.

    I have known about SWIFT for at least a decade, when I went into private practice and needed to provide my international clients with international bank routing numbers so that they could remit payments to our US bank. The most prominent of the international bank routing numbers was the SWIFT number. We also make use of SWIFT numbers when we send money from our US bank account to our account in Germany.

    Anyone who is doing any international banking is aware of SWIFT. SWIFT isn’t a secret.

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 9:39 am - June 28, 2006

  17. #51 GayPatriotWest — June 27, 2006 @ 10:55 pm – June 27, 2006

    I wouldn’t call the WSJ’s editorial page right-wing, but libertarian-conservative.

    If you wish. We cancelled our WSJ subscription almost a decade ago after it had become clear that the then-publisher Karen Elliot House was using its idiotorial page to go on an anti-gay jihad. The financial information that they published was little more than a rehash of what was available over the Internet, so why bother with them?

    I haven’t paid any attention to the WSJ since we cancelled the subscription. Every once in a while, I’ll go to their OpinionJournal idiotorials if they involve gay-rights issues and read comments from the wingnuts that comment there. Sickening–it’s almost like reading comments from the wingnuts at the ridiculously-named FreeRepublic.com (Rush Lamebrain’s favorite web site)

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 9:41 am - June 28, 2006

  18. Dr. Strangelove

    Ambassador de Sadesky “Our Doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The Deciding factor was when learned that your country was working along similiar line and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.

    President Merkin Muffley: This is preposterous. I’ve never approved of anything like that.

    Ambassador de Sadesky Our source was the New York Times

    Comment by nuyorker — June 28, 2006 @ 10:39 am - June 28, 2006

  19. #56: “It would be interesting to see the stats on Bush Administration officials indicted by 6th year for corruption, vs. Clinton Administration.”

    From http://tinyurl.com/n2f4m :

    “not a single official in the Clinton administration was even indicted over his or her White House duties”

    Comment by Ian S — June 28, 2006 @ 10:57 am - June 28, 2006

  20. Just goes to show you how much those historians don’t want to tell the truth.

    • In November 1996, Henry G. Cisneros resigned from his position as President Clinton’s housing secretary. In December 1997, he was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction and lying to the FBI. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in 1999 and was fined $10,000.

    • In December 1994, Mike Espy resigned from his position as Clinton’s agriculture secretary. In August 1997, Espy was indicted on 39 corruption counts in allegations that he had received financial gifts from Tyson Foods Inc., one of the companies his department regulated. In December 1998 Espy was acquitted on all counts.

    • In May 1993, White House travel office chief Billy R. Dale and his entire staff were fired by the Clinton administration. Dale was indicted in December 1994 on two counts of embezzlement and conversion after a grand jury said he pocketed up to $68,000 from media organizations traveling with the president. Dale was acquitted of all charges in November 1995.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - June 28, 2006

  21. Ah, but you see NDT, Ian’s legalistic – or you might say, Clintonesque – evasion is to only talk about Clinton White House STAFF.

    The generalized, broad corruption that ran throughout the Clinton Administration, with its HUNDREDS of politically-appointed figures that were indicted by 6th year if you include Cabinet Secretary plus the first several levels below them? They don’t count. LOL

    Comment by Calarato — June 28, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - June 28, 2006

  22. #70 North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2006 @ 12:30 pm – June 28, 2006

    Aside from the fact that Espy was acquitted on all charges (as you admitted) and that Dale and his staff at the White House travel office were hold-overs from the Reagan/Bush I adminitration, I will merely remind you that Cisneros’s problems stemmed from a period in time before he was a member of the Clinton administration.

    Cisneros Indicted: Former Housing secretary charged with 18 counts of lying, obstruction

    Comment by raj — June 28, 2006 @ 1:13 pm - June 28, 2006

  23. #72: I think it’s also significant that the Clinton administration had a hostile Congress that spent much of the latter 1990’s engaged in investigating the administration. In contrast, Bush has had a Rubber Stamp Republican Congress that has attempted at nearly every turn to impede investigation of its own as well as Bushco corruption. Hopefully, that will no longer be the case next year.

    Comment by Ian S — June 28, 2006 @ 1:32 pm - June 28, 2006

  24. Trying to right the ship and get back ON the topic instead of rehashing the total number of indictments by Clinton Administration officials (isn’t that count still running?) I’ve re-thought my position and I think the NYTimes –although wrong for running the piece– shouldn’t be punished.

    I think the best thing to come of this episode is to underscore that the Press isn’t always the “best friend” of democracy nor most valuable asset in a free society… sometimes the Press works against the common interest(s) of us all. The Press has long played the “government” as some equivalent of corporate evil… I think it’s time for some restraint of the Press –beginning with breaking up the monolopies and conglomerates serving multiple markets.

    Additionally, I think the episode of the NYTimes harming American’s ability to wage a war against the Islamo-fascists will help Americans remember that the press is biased, secrecy in govt isn’t such a bad thing for some policies and practices, and our elected officials are the ones who we vote on to decide matters of natl security –not a newspaper editor buddied-up with a publisher.

    Like with DanRather, Jason Blair, the contrived “Rove Scandal” and other episodes, the Press is proving to most Americans that it can NOT be trusted to sort out the truth. Far from it: it has its own horses in the race.

    I hope the heat on the NYTimes and MSM in general continues and that journalists are outed for what they are: self interested, amoral, PR grubbing, craven people interested in the spotlight. They are NOT “in the public’s service” as DanRather and others like to proclaim.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 28, 2006 @ 4:20 pm - June 28, 2006

  25. Ah yes, when one leftist gets slapped down, another one rises to defend them.

    Let me remind you of the actual quote made:

    “not a single official in the Clinton administration was even indicted over his or her White House duties”

    So if Scooter Libby is acquitted, he will never have been indicted.

    Note, again, how leftists apply the double standard.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 28, 2006 @ 4:25 pm - June 28, 2006

  26. Ian S at #18 writes ” This whole story is about to get knocked off the front pages. Poor Rush, if this is true.”

    Day 3 –that’s t-h-r-e-e- Ian S — and the NYTimes story is still leading, backlash building, liberal protectors like Tom Brokaw and others charging into the trenches to defend… and next to nothing on your BIG story that’s going to “blow” the NYTimes debacle off the “front pages”.

    Poor Ian S. I feel sorry for YOU.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 29, 2006 @ 1:20 am - June 29, 2006

  27. #60
    Every response from you is the person is a “fucktard”, “libtard”, “douchebag” on and on.

    Au contraire. I haven’t used libtard in a long time.

    There is never any content but just a string of insults.

    Maybe because that’s all you’re worth.

    So now you’re pissing your diaper because you can’t take what you’ve been dishing out? Frankly, I don’t care about your feelings.

    Quite frankly, it is difficult to take seriously the periodic calls for “civility” posted on this site,

    BOO FUCKING HOO Like you lame brain bastards give a good royal damn about “civility”. We’ve been civil to you liberal cum catchers for years and we’re sick and tired of biting the pillow for you pieces of shit. IMHO, you can take “civil” and shove it sideways just before you drop down to the fifth level and cook.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 29, 2006 @ 6:30 am - June 29, 2006

  28. #64

    Apparently, the right-wingnuts are rarely if ever satisfied with the NYTimes unless its reportage conforms to their preconceived notions.

    Not when they shit on the citizens of this country to protect their sources, Reinemachefrau.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 29, 2006 @ 6:40 am - June 29, 2006

  29. #78 ThatGayConservative — June 29, 2006 @ 6:40 am – June 29, 2006

    You aren’t going to seriously contend that the right wingnuts weren’t jumping for joy over the NYTimes’s “reportage” regarding the Clintons’ Whitewater non-scandal in the early to mid 1990s, are you? You remember, the non-scandal that led to no Clinton indictments.

    And you aren’t going to seriously contend that the right wingnuts weren’t jumping for joy over Judith Millers “reportage” regarding Iraq in the early 2000s leading up to the Iraq War, are you? You know, the reportage in which she was little more than a stenographer for the Bush administration and the crook Chalabi and his gang. Her “reportage” has subsequently been called into question–and that’s putting it mildly. Reassessing Miller: U.S. intelligence on Iraq’s WMD deserves a second look. So does the reporting of the New York Times’ Judith Miller But her reportage provided cover for the Bush malAdministration to go to war on Iraq.

    And those are only two rather egregious examples.

    Regarding the subject at hand, the NYTimes article about the US gov’t’s use of records from SWIFT, that was no secret.

    News reports disclosing the Bush administration’s use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    (snip)

    The controversy continued to simmer yesterday when Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican of Kentucky, accused the Times of “treason,” telling reporters in a conference call that it “scares the devil out of me” that the media would reveal such sensitive information.

    (snip)

    But a search of public records — government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 — describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

    “There have been public references to SWIFT before,” said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. “The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.”

    Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. “A lot of people were aware that this was going on,” said Comras, one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited for the task.

    “Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume” their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist groups. “We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing.”

    Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into.

    Much more at Terrorist funds-tracking no secret, some say

    I, for one, find it difficult to believe that the NYTimes published secret information that the Bush malAdministration had been making public for years. As far as I can tell, the only thing that the NYTimes may have published that was not on the public record is the Treasury Department appears to have been sifting through all SWIFT records, not just those that were related to terrorism.

    BTW, Ihr Deutsche Sprachkenntnis hat sich verbessert. Toll.

    Comment by raj — June 29, 2006 @ 8:48 am - June 29, 2006

  30. raj, you can’t be seriously offering that the Whitewater scandal didn’t lead to “any indictments”, are you? An impeached President?? It’s the ultimate indictment of corruption, avarice, and malpractice as president.

    Oh, wait, I know… like Ian S and the other nut splitters… you’re going to offer that Whitewater wasn’t the issue when Clinton was impeached, impeachment of a president isn’t an indictment… etc etc. What utter spin and ineffective too… you need to wait a few years until history gets foggy before trotting out those spins and fabrications. You’re carrying the Democrats water pails and you don’t even realize it anymore.

    How many times has the GayLeft’s Left flank carried the water for Democrats who neither want us, nor accept us? Start with yesterday and count back 25 years… it’s time for YOU to leave the Democrat Plantation, put down the BushHatred daily talking points and rejoin the human race. Frankly, I’d rather you join it in Germany since that seems to be where your patriotism and loyalty default.

    I can’t believe that YOU think the NYTimes would debate and fight multiple attempts to restrain publication of a story that was just old news or had been previously and widely known in the terrorist community. Get a grip, raj baby.

    God, there are times you are simply a transparent vessel for the anti-Bush, anti-American voice and it’s simply amazing to watch you put your brain on hold so often, for so little, for so long.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 29, 2006 @ 11:01 am - June 29, 2006

  31. #80 Michigan-Matt — June 29, 2006 @ 11:01 am – June 29, 2006

    One can only conclude that you have never read the Articles of Impeachment that the House approved against Bill Clinton. The text of the Articles is here. None of the Articles relate to the Whitewater non-scandal–they all relate to the Monica Lewinski and Paula Jones matters.

    There were some people who were indicted as a result of the investigation into Whitewater, but the Clintons were not among them, irrespective of whether an impeachment is or is not an indictment.

    Regarding

    I can’t believe that YOU think the NYTimes would debate and fight multiple attempts to restrain publication of a story that was just old news or had been previously and widely known in the terrorist community.

    I really don’t care what you believe. You have provided no evidence that the Bush malAdministration tried to keep its use of information from SWIFT secret, whereas I have provided evidence that they not only did not try to keep it secret, but widely touted the fact that they were using the information. Evidence, you know? When I was in law school, that was a 1L course. Maybe they don’t teach it where you’re going to school.

    As I said, perhaps the only thing that was new in the NYTimes revelation was that the Bush malAdministration was basically using a “vacuum cleaner” to suck up SWIFT information concerning apparently all international transactions in their database, whether or not there was any indication that the transactions were related to terrorists or terrorist activities. But that isn’t particularly interesting, since the Bush malAdministration has already published the fact that they were using SWIFT information to supposedly fight terrorism. It seems to me that, if they wanted to keep that information secret, they could have eschewed releasing the information in the first place. That they didn’t more than suggests that they didn’t care that the information got to the terrorists.

    I’ll ignore the rest of your petty jibes. I posted the link above relating to the Articles of Impeachment because I presume that you might want to educate yourself as to what actually happened instead of merely bloviating about what you believe happened. I tend to doubt it, though.

    Comment by raj — June 29, 2006 @ 11:58 am - June 29, 2006

  32. “BOO FUCKING HOO Like you lame brain bastards give a good royal damn about “civility”. We’ve been civil to you liberal cum catchers for years and we’re sick and tired of biting the pillow for you pieces of shit. IMHO, you can take “civil” and shove it sideways just before you drop down to the fifth level and cook. ”

    Time for a medication adjustment perhaps?

    Comment by Brendan Flynn — June 29, 2006 @ 5:42 pm - June 29, 2006

  33. #79

    To be honest, Raj, I didn’t care to follow news & politics much during BJ’s White House & Massage Parlor, so I really can’t speak to your points above.

    I will say that this is all anyone needs to know about this

    We spent weeks listening to the administration’s case. I personally spent a long time in Secretary Snow’s office and spoke on the phone to John Negroponte. Others at the paper spoke to other officials.

    I believe they genuinely did not want us to publish this. But I think it’s not responsible of us to just take them at their word. -Bill Keller, Situation Room, 26 June 2006

    In other words, to hell with what they’re asking. al-NYT is the final arbiter in what national security issues are leaked.

    AGAIN, if this was “no big deal” and was “already reported”, why in the hell print it again?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 30, 2006 @ 2:33 am - June 30, 2006

  34. #83 ThatGayConservative — June 30, 2006 @ 2:33 am – June 30, 2006

    To be honest, Raj, I didn’t care to follow news & politics much during BJ’s White House & Massage Parlor, so I really can’t speak to your points above.

    I did. I laughed reading Ken Starr’s soft-core porn novel when it was first released on the Internet in 1998.

    In other words, to hell with what they’re asking. al-NYT is the final arbiter in what national security issues are leaked.

    Apparently you are missing the point that the information on which the NYTimes report by and large was not secret. I suppose that you are one of the people who would have lambasted the NYTimes for publishing portions of the Pentagon Papers in the early 1970s–which the Nixon malAdministration tried to suppress. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

    Comment by raj — June 30, 2006 @ 7:57 am - June 30, 2006

  35. Keep up the great work on your blog. Best wishes WaltDe

    Comment by WaltDe — September 1, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - September 1, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.