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’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). People who leak classified information should be investigated and prosecuted if it seems like a crime has been committed. If that standard was good enough for the Plame leak inicident (which doesn’t seem much like an incident at all anymore), then it should be good enough here. Who will be the first Democrat to call for the special counsel?

    Comment by PatriotPal — June 26, 2006 @ 2:37 pm - June 26, 2006

  2. #1 above, exACtly. As someone who used to work in intelligence, it’s very disturbing to me to read about/hear all these expose’s in the press regarding the intelligence community, including locations of what were once highly classified entities. Although I realize that some of our tax dollars go to pay for intelligence agency oeprations, and believe, to an extent in oversight and the public’s right to know, these recent security breaches just astound me. You can bet that it’s someone (s) on the inside leaking this info., and I agree — whoever they are should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. But I also think that the upper management in these media conglomerates should use a lot more discretion in what they publish/broadcast (even if they obtain the information from reliable sources) as they did back in the old days. We rarely had breaches like this prior to the 1980′s, and when there was a breach, the information wasn’t published in every newspaper in the country, nor broadcast on every media outlet available worldwide like it is now. I’m a firm believer in freedom of the press, but enough is enough.

    Comment by ndtovent — June 26, 2006 @ 3:37 pm - June 26, 2006

  3. #2 ndtovent — June 26, 2006 @ 3:37 pm – June 26, 2006

    But I also think that the upper management in these media conglomerates should use a lot more discretion in what they publish/broadcast (even if they obtain the information from reliable sources) as they did back in the old days.

    The statement of the NYTimes’s executive editor Bill Keller explaining why they published it is reproduced here (scroll down). As far as I’m concerned, the money paragraph is

    A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.

    I recognize that that may be interpreted as a self-serving explanation, but the third sentence does, indeed, conform to what I posted in a comment thread below: the Treasury Department does, indeed, trumpet the fact that it makes every effort to track international financing of terror.

    Comment by raj — June 26, 2006 @ 3:47 pm - June 26, 2006

  4. Interestingly, there were two other newspapers besides the New York Times that published the story last Thursday night. Why is the focus only on the New York Times? Even more interesting is the claim by the Wall Street Journal, a pro-Bush newspaper, that they were never asked NOT to publish their story:

    http://tinyurl.com/ju2yt

    I guess publishing “secrets” IOKIYAR.

    Comment by Ian S — June 26, 2006 @ 4:00 pm - June 26, 2006

  5. Fair point, Ian. When the Attorney General commissions an investigation, he should instruct the prosecutor to look into these papers’ sources as well.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — June 26, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - June 26, 2006

  6. Not only all that, but the DOJ should go after ANY government employees who leaked to the NYT, WSJ and whoever else under the Espionage Act of 1947.

    And while we’re on the subject – I have petitioned the DOJ via e-mail to pursue libel charges against the NYT for violating the guidelines of prior restraint as decided in the 1964 New York Times co. v Sullivan decision (note the irony). Furthermore, the NYT and its staff should be investigated for treason as enumerated in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

    If anyone wishes to act as an apologist for the NYT or any other media outlet pushing its own political agenda, remember – you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. ‘Nuff said.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 26, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - June 26, 2006

  7. There are methods of oversight that could be implemented while still safeguarding classified information. For example, if Congress set up a mechanism where government employees involved in top secret information could contact a member of the Senate or House Intelligence Committee through some sort of whistleblower program, it would take away the need for these people to go to the press when they think people in a given administration are doing something illegal. The committee — which will always have members of the opposite political party than the sitting president — would then be charged to do an investigation. Only after certain things have been done could the investigation ever be made public. This satisfies the need for oversight while also protecting methods by which we get information about terrorists.

    This is all off the top of my head, and it might not be the best method, but I think you get my point — supply a mechanism for top secret whistleblowers. If they don’t follow that and head to the press instead, then they should be prosecuted.

    Comment by PatriotPal — June 26, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - June 26, 2006

  8. Great post Dan!
    I’d like to know why exposing classified war tactics is more important to the NYT than helping translate the 50,000 intel documents the coalition discovered — The Saddam Files.

    It really makes you question who our news media wants to win and lose in the War on Terror.

    Comment by GayPatriot — June 26, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - June 26, 2006

  9. #8: “It really makes you question who our news media wants to win and lose in the War on Terror.”

    So do you question who the Wall Street Journal “wants to win and lose in the War on Terror?” Don’t you find it odd that they apparently weren’t asked not to run the story? By all means let’s have an investigation but it seems to me that the only people liable for prosecution would be those who leaked the “secret” information not the media themselves.

    Comment by Ian S — June 26, 2006 @ 5:33 pm - June 26, 2006

  10. #4 – You do understand, Ian, the concept of the paper which “broke the story” or bears responsibility for the FIRST decision to publish? You should be well familiar with the concept from the Wilson-Plame kerfuffle. WSJ wasn’t it. NYT / LAT were.

    #5 – Dan, for reasons above, I am not understanding why you considered it a fair point. But I do agree that the biggest problem to solve is the unelected government bureaucrats thinking they can “declassify” any info they want, when such authority is reserved to the elected POTUS and VPOTUS.

    Comment by Calarato — June 26, 2006 @ 6:19 pm - June 26, 2006

  11. the saddam files. yeah the ones that said saddam had an APB out on Zarqawi. you don’t WANT them to open those believe me.

    This is just more “outrage”. republicans never have enough of it. every thing is outrageous to them. I rememebr people freaking out because john kerry brought a pen to the first debate. it never ends

    Yeah we’ve had like 10 terrorist attacks since that NSA story came out. Why can’t we know about this. As keller says in his letter, the government is proud of all the stuff they do to fight terrorism and have boasted about tracking funding in the past. Also, the New York times is in New York, why would they want to help terrorists? they are the most likely victims of it.

    Comment by lester — June 26, 2006 @ 7:07 pm - June 26, 2006

  12. #10: “for the FIRST decision to publish”

    All three stories were first published on the web last Thursday night. How do YOU know who made decisions and when? Furthermore, if the Wall Street Journal claim is correct that no one asked them not to publish, what does that say about the “treachery” of it all? Did the Administration only care if the story was published by the “liberal” media rather than their steadfast friends at the Journal? Maybe in light of the fact that it’s been public knowledge for years that we’ve been hot on the trail of terrorist financing, this “bombshell” of a story isn’t that big a deal after all. Yes, let’s have an investigation – I think it might turn up some interesting relationships. But I’ve got a hunch that the Bushies will use the story to do a little bashing of the press, then drop it.

    Comment by Ian S — June 26, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - June 26, 2006

  13. I just heard Hugh Hewitt interview Doyle McManus, the Washington, D.C. bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times. In an hour or two the transcipt and the audio will be up at: http://www.radioblogger.com/
    Hugh is an excellent interviewer, he gets good info from MaManus that won’t help either the NYT or the LA Times.
    Also, the corner at NRO http://corner.nationalreview.com/ has a devestating letter from John W. Snow, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury to Bill Keller about the devestating results of publishing this article.
    It is time for an investigation.

    Comment by Leah — June 26, 2006 @ 8:22 pm - June 26, 2006

  14. How so you explain the NYT and the MSM unwillingness to fight this war? And how do you explain the lefts desire for the USA to be humiliated and forced to leave the Middle East? Do they think the Nazi’s only murdered Jews? If the terrorists win, they’ll want to kill liberals as well as conservatives. They’ll make no distinction between those in the media and those working in grocery stores. In the larger picture… if Iraq and Afganistian are on a road to democracy, oil, the life line of our economy will be in safer hands as well. Somehow I feel that if gasoline was at $5 a gallon in 2006 because of a renegade Iraqi threat to the Saudis, Kuwatis and Iranians, those on the left would be squeeling loudest.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 26, 2006 @ 8:32 pm - June 26, 2006

  15. It used to be that Freedom of the Press meant that you could not be stopped from printing something…but that you were liable for the consequences. It’s not “censorship” if the NYT is prosecuted fater the fact for breaking Federal law…if the NYT feels that it’s that vital, then they shoud be equally willing to take their lumps for doing-so.

    But to claim “Press priviledge” is arrogance that deserves to be taken-down a peg. And those who aided by “leaking” the SWIFT operation to the NYT shoud be swung from a telephone poll if a civil service or uniformed service-member. While it might not be “treason” nor “sedition”; it certainly is acting against the interests of common sense and discretion.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 26, 2006 @ 8:38 pm - June 26, 2006

  16. I just remembered Zell Miller’s retort about “what do the liberals and John Kerry want to fight the war on terror with….SPITBALLS?” At this rate the NYT wants us to have as little as possible left to fight off the terrorists. An outraged expert said last night…if we were 2 hours away from bagging Bin Laden would the NYT and MSNBC announce breaking news. And cite the publics need to know. How pathetic.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 26, 2006 @ 9:04 pm - June 26, 2006

  17. #13: “devestating letter from John W. Snow, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury to Bill Keller about the devestating results of publishing this article.”

    Gee, I wonder if Snow sent the same letter to the Wall Street Journal. Oh that’s right, nobody cared to tell the Journal not to print the story.

    Comment by Ian S — June 26, 2006 @ 9:30 pm - June 26, 2006

  18. P.S. This whole story is about to get knocked off the front pages. Poor Rush, if this is true. Believe it or not, I feel sorry for him:
    http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_177194808.html

    Comment by Ian S — June 26, 2006 @ 10:21 pm - June 26, 2006

  19. The issue of journalists crossing the line and operating in a manner unfit for other citizens not so secured by an omnipresent 1st A brings to mind two brief stories where wiser men made prudent, better decisions.

    When WallyCronkite decided to use the CBS News show for an editorial-ish but highly political “speech” and called for the withdrawl from VietNam… RR called Prez Nixon and urged the Prez to bring the bastard up on charges of treason, sedition. Of course, back then we didn’t know how deeply in bed ol’ Wally was with his martini swilling Democrat Party operatives nor how liberally biased the MSM had become in a short 10 years.

    RR was right. Nixon should have had Wally brought up on charges, cuffed and made him do the perp walk in the front of the cameras. I think American journalism would be much different today –better in a long shot on many aspects; brutally harmed in others. But the news readers like DanRather would not have held court in that rarified alternate world, for sure.

    It would have been worth saving America from the then liberal-spawn’s needling away of American resolve to win, etc. The ensuing cultural decay that throttled America, the rise to preeminence of the media, and the Left’s failure to America under Carter.

    The second story involves CIA Director Casey asking Ben Bradlee (the godfather of the liberal press if there ever could be one) to hold a story about Americans listening in on some underwater, non-encrypted communications from Moscow to the embassies. Bradlee deferred for a two days; NBC “learned” about the story from senior RR officials and did the 1st run… scooping old leacherous Ben Bradlee.

    I have to love that someone snookered Ben Bradlee. But Bradlee has said and written that hearing a govt official invoke “national security claims” should be a warning signal for journalists and they should run the story ASAP. Bradlee’s asked: Why should govt be the ones determining what is in the national interest or what rises to the level of damaging natl security?

    That same attitude exists in the last two decisions of the NYTimes to run security-sensitive stories that undercut American intelligence efforts.

    It’s just like when the smug, nattering news reader sneers at a story about Homeland Security working with NY transit to inspect backpacks on subway trains… and the “journalist” raises all sorts of credibility issues with such an unwarranted search… and then 6 months later we learn that terrorists might have been planning to secret WMDs onto subway trains via backpacks.

    Makes you want to go hmmmmmmmm.

    Good post again, Dan. We may never get rid of leakers; but we sure as Hell can chill down the journalists from printing the story if they know their career might be in jeopardy. Leakers have little to lose in the govt– they do their criminal dance in the dark, generally out of spite.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 26, 2006 @ 11:18 pm - June 26, 2006

  20. Ian S writes: “P.S. This whole story is about to get knocked off the front pages.”

    Come on Ian S, even as hardcore a BushHating partisan as you don’t believe that Rush getting caught with Viagara will knock the NYTime’s acts of treason off the front pages?

    It may take precedence over at the DailyKos poo-slinging competitions but it ain’t knocking the Time’s treason “off the front page” or out of the blogosphere.

    You gotta do better than that. Try getting TeddieK to give Patrick a lift to the addiction center for the weekly maintenance runs… that’ll do it. Or ask HowieDean to speak at Bob Jones U about DOMA, DADT, and gay marriage –that’ll knock it off the front pages.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 26, 2006 @ 11:25 pm - June 26, 2006

  21. #3
    The US Government does, indeed, trumpet the fact that it makes every effort to track international terrorists. So I suppose that you would agree that it’s OK to reveal any methods and/or plans used to capture or kill them?

    Comment by Bobo — June 26, 2006 @ 11:30 pm - June 26, 2006

  22. Heather MacDonald as quoted by GPW pretty much sums up my feelings.

    Today the teenager who mows my lawn asked me why a newspaper would do what the New York Times did. I told him I hated to say it, but I thought there were two possible reasons. The editors and publishers are eurocentric elitists who despise America’s status as the world’s only superpower and hope Islamist terrorist victories in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., will knock America (and its middle class values) down a notch or two. Or the edhtors and publishers hate George W. Bush with such a passion they hope an American loss in the War On Terror will forever leave Bush’s legacy in the trashheap of history. On second thought, I’d better call my lawn boy and tell him I think it’s a combination of the two!

    Comment by Trace Phelps — June 27, 2006 @ 12:38 am - June 27, 2006

  23. Trace -a good lesson for the kid to learn early. American history is chocked full of similar events where “journalists” –using that term very, very loosely– operate in the near-treasonous realm and use the 1st A to hide behind… for the most part, counting on liberal courts and peers inciting public opinion to protect them from prosecution.

    Most people think Bush’s appointments to SCOTUS and the federal bench is all about overturning RvW –but I’d be happy if the jurists can simply restrain journalists enough to counteract their penchant for treasonous reporting which aids the enemies of our Country. That’d be enough for me to claim Bush’s appts are a success.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 27, 2006 @ 12:51 am - June 27, 2006

  24. #18 – OMG, Ian what a joke! WHO should personally care that Rush (a) uses Viagra, and (b) as a controversial figure, doesn’t like the prescription in his own name? The boiz do those same 2 things every weekend!

    So here you go again, defensively trying to gloat over “how great it’s going to be when…” i.e., over stuff that has not happened – and that either won’t happen, OR at least not quite the way you’ve imagined. God knows you’ve nothing real to gloat about – No bad economy, no Iraq war loss, no new homeland attack (knock on wood), no President Kerry, no Fitzmas! ;-)

    Comment by Calarato — June 27, 2006 @ 1:23 am - June 27, 2006

  25. (for clarity: the “has not happened” reference being, not to Rush’s behavior, but to Ian’s prediction of his becoming tomorrow’s number one headline)

    Comment by Calarato — June 27, 2006 @ 1:27 am - June 27, 2006

  26. #4
    Even more interesting is the claim by the Wall Street Journal, a pro-Bush newspaper, that they were never asked NOT to publish their story:

    Clearly you don’t read the WSJ as it’s the Op-Ed section that is “pro-Bush” and even then it’s not always the case. However, I can understand how some douchebag of your ilk would ASSume such since there’s not much in the way of DNC marching orders to go by.

    #11
    the saddam files. yeah the ones that said saddam had an APB out on Zarqawi. you don’t WANT them to open those believe me.

    Well, so far the documents have pissed all over the liberal team killing fucktard arguements to the point the liberals are changing their song as they go along.
    BTW, I thought we were supposed to believe that neither Zarqawi nor anybody else in al-Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our arrival. Now the liberals seem to be flip-flopping. Seems to me, based on the current rants and theit MSM’s disinterest, that it’s actually the left who doesn’t want the documents translated and reported.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 27, 2006 @ 4:44 am - June 27, 2006

  27. P.S. This whole story is about to get knocked off the front pages. Poor Rush, if this is true. Believe it or not, I feel sorry for him:

    It’s more interesting how the libs piss & moan for privacy, but damn anybody else’s.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 27, 2006 @ 6:29 am - June 27, 2006

  28. 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.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 27, 2006 @ 9:43 am - June 27, 2006

  29. #26: “Clearly you don’t read the WSJ ”

    Actually, I’ve had a subscription for many years so I know most of the reporting is excellent. Which is all the more reason to wonder why exactly THEY were not asked to kill the story if its publishing would be so “devastating” to our efforts to track terrorist financing.

    Comment by Ian S — June 27, 2006 @ 10:27 am - June 27, 2006

  30. I’m sorry…

    I may just be a bit out of the loop here, but as to why the WSJ may not (or may, for that matter) have been asked to kill the SWIFT story, WHO GIVES A SHIT?!?!?!?

    Doesn’t alter the fact that The Old Gray Whore has decided that IT alone posesses the wisdom to conduct effective anti-terrorism programs.

    And I thought I was arrogant!

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — June 27, 2006 @ 11:20 am - June 27, 2006

  31. So, Ian thinks Rush Limbaugh being detained at an airport for being in possession of his own prescription V14GR4 is a bigger, more important news story than the New York Times helping terrorists kill Americans.

    Just shows where the head of the typical leftie is firmly wedged.

    Comment by V the K — June 27, 2006 @ 11:23 am - June 27, 2006

  32. This is great – Powerline readers are further exposing the New York Times‘ true colors.

    A guy wrote a letter of support, consisting of an over-the-top anti-Bush rant, except for the exclamation remarks and profanity being removed. The NYT didn’t merely think he was serious (which you’d excuse, since they don’t know him), or give him a form thank-you. No – They warmly praised him! LOL :-)

    Comment by Calarato — June 27, 2006 @ 11:26 am - June 27, 2006

  33. #30: “as to why the WSJ may not (or may, for that matter) have been asked to kill the SWIFT story, WHO GIVES A SHIT?!?!?!?”

    Do I really have to spell it all out? Oh that’s right it’s just Eric showing his inability to put two and two together. ‘Nuff said.

    Comment by Ian S — June 27, 2006 @ 12:14 pm - June 27, 2006

  34. Ian, the one who can’t put 2 and 2 together is you.

    Eric – Ian is bringing up this WSJ thing as a total red herring – i.e., a desperate effort to confuse the real and serious issues, or failing that, to at least get a reaction out of you. (also known as a troll)

    Comment by Calarato — June 27, 2006 @ 12:24 pm - June 27, 2006

  35. #34: “Ian is bringing up this WSJ thing as a total red herring”

    Why is it a red herring? If nobody saw fit to tell the WSJ reporters that the story would be “devastating” to the war on terror, then just how “devastating” could the story possibly be? The facts remain that at least three papers were working on the same story and three published the story last Thursday night. Only the NYT and to a lesser extent the LA Times have been singled out for criticism. Where’s the criticism of the WSJ?

    The utility of SWIFT for monitoring terrorist financial transactions has been out there for a decade or more. http://tinyurl.com/zmg7z There’s apparently even a 2002 UN document on the UN website discussing the use of SWIFT for such monitoring. With all the info already out there, it will be virtually impossible for any kind of prosecution of the news media and I think the Bush Administration knew that else there would have been more than half-hearted attempts to shut down the story. But ever the opportunists, they are quite happy to use the story to bash the “liberal” media for some kind of political advantage.

    Comment by Ian S — June 27, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - June 27, 2006

  36. We should just repeal the First Amendment. Get rid of it. It makes more trouble than anything. Why do we need freedom of speech or the press, etc., when all we have to do is get behind the President and, more or less, agree with him during this War on Terror. So, maybe we don’t repeal it. Let’s just table it until this war is long gone.

    Comment by jimmy — June 27, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - June 27, 2006

  37. Ian S, it’s a red herring, a smoke screen, scattering wild geese on the track… take whatever metaphor YOU want and apply it to the exercise of trying to: a) diminish the focus on the first reporting/lead paper to expose the details of the program (NYTimes) and shift it elsewhere; b) temper the appropriate scorn for the treasonous act by arguing that a “right” or “conservative” paper like the WSJ carried the story off-lead too so the WSJ is equaly culpable (bzzzzzt, wrong).

    On the one hand, the NYTimes “broke the story”on the program –do you realize what that means? If, after months of investiagtory journalism and gnashing of editorial teeth and pressure from both Democrats, GOPers and the Administration top people… the Times STILL broke the story. What others do in reporting that fact after the story has broken is immaterial.

    For you to try to divert attention away from the NYTimes’ action by saying other papers published so they are guilty too misses the point of who published the story –who paid the leakers, who cultivate the betrayal, who failed to take the Administration’s concerns seriously, who put the paper’s bottom line ahead of America’s national security.

    You just flat out miss it, Ian S. It isn’t about the WSJ. It’s about the insular, arrogant, presumptive power of the MSM to determine, without restriction, what constitutes natl security interests.

    A red herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. Irrespective of which paper subsequently published anything about this story is as irrelevant as the power of the GayLeft vote in natl elections.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — June 27, 2006 @ 1:23 pm - June 27, 2006

  38. that gay conservative- the saddam files say nothing of the kind. hE was in kurdistan, which is under the no fly zone. That’s where he was when Bush decided he didn’t want to kill him because it might effect his pathetic attempts to get people on board for Iraq.

    Were you gonna say that he was fitted for a prostetic leg in baghdad? yeah, another right wing lie. just look at the video he had two fat jihadi legs. They asid the same at the autopsy. Saddam Files = bunko.

    go bill keller. he’s our ann coulter. gettin the other side all riled up!

    Comment by lester — June 27, 2006 @ 1:42 pm - June 27, 2006

  39. Ian, in case you don’t get the point from Matt above: You are the master of red herrings. With you it’s all red herrings, all the time.

    You know perfectly well, from the Wilson-Plame affair, that it is the paper who published first, doing the research and driving the story forward – who did the dirty deed. And you expect us to pretend that we don’t know that you know!!!

    As I said: TROLL.

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

    Of course it’s been well known in a GENERAL way that the government tracks terrorist finances. The 9-11 Commission recommended it! But not the crucial details. Until this week.

    And the program continued to prevent terrorist attacks and save human lives – until this week. But, stuff like saving human life doesn’t matter to you, does it now Ian? Especially not the lives of our troops who must suffer terrorist attacks and IEDs constantly.

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

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

    “[Mr. Keller,] You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that “terror financiers know”… [your claim] betrays a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.”

    Valuable for what? Valuable for saving human life. But that’s not much of a concern on your radar screen, is it now Ian? Only trolling and confusing people matters to you, apparently.

    Comment by Calarato — June 27, 2006 @ 1:43 pm - June 27, 2006

  40. I’m just so happy that The Terrorists were not smart enough to be careful with their money for so long so that we could track them while we could, that is, before the MSM let them know that the US was tracking financial transactions. There was absolutely no way that The Terrorists could have even imagined that money was being tracked, even if The President had stated it in his speeches for years. I think it is very important that OBL’s account be watched, for sure. Then we could, well, ‘ketch-im’. Follow the money!

    Comment by jimmy — June 27, 2006 @ 1:57 pm - June 27, 2006

  41. guys, if you weren’t all worked up about this, would it make a difference? Think about it. Do you really care?

    Comment by lester — June 27, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - June 27, 2006

  42. #37: “What others do in reporting that fact after the story has broken is immaterial.”

    Well, all the stories first appeared the SAME night (last Thursday) and the story was also on the front page above the fold of the WJS the morning after – the SAME morning it appeared in print in the NYT. Obviously all the papers had been working on it for months probably with many of the same sources. Clearly all the papers must have considered any ramifications of printing it but interestingly, the WSJ claims it was not pressured to kill the story. Do you really think that under those conditions, the WSJ would have killed the story if the NYT had decided not to publish? Hardly.

    Comment by Ian S — June 27, 2006 @ 3:09 pm - June 27, 2006

  43. Glenn says it better than I can, or this blog has, with regards to this issue.

    Comment by Mr. Moderate — June 27, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - June 27, 2006

  44. #39: “And cut the crap about SWIFT being well known.”

    I never made that claim. What I stated was a FACT – that the information that SWIFT among other systems was a rich source of payment information for the US to use in going after terrorist transactions has been available for years to anyone interested enough in the subject to do a little googling. Here’s a quote from a 2002 UN Report mentioned in my earlier link:

    “The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.”

    Comment by Ian S — June 27, 2006 @ 3:21 pm - June 27, 2006

  45. thank god for the New York Times. while they’re hardly “liberal” (ie. why did they sit on the NSA eavesdropping case for over a year? it certainly may have played a part in the 2004 election had they done the right thing and published it when it was first discovered) they are a beacon to hope.

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

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

    Comment by rightiswrong — June 27, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - June 27, 2006

  46. The NYT hates GWB more then they love America.

    Comment by Pamela — June 27, 2006 @ 5:01 pm - June 27, 2006

  47. Why isn’t there more thunderous discussion about the dangers of these attempts to amend the Constitution?

    Surely, long range, therein lies more danger to the Republic as we know it.

    Comment by Gene — June 27, 2006 @ 5:02 pm - June 27, 2006

  48. Read from Captain Ed, how on sept 24, 2001 the NYT was calling for just the program that is in action now.

    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007321.php#comments

    “However, that doesn’t quite square with what the Times wrote on September 24th, 2001, less than two weeks after Islamifascist terrorists killed almost 3,000 New Yorkers. Back then, the Times demanded that the federal government take action against the networks that support and control these lunatic jihadis. In fact, the Paper of Record demanded a very specific kind of action, one that the New York Times has now kneecapped in a bitterly ironic twist (via Hugh Hewitt):”

    Comment by Pamela — June 27, 2006 @ 5:03 pm - June 27, 2006

  49. Has it occurred to some of you that the reason the Bush Administration –and the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission — didn’t contact the Wall Street Journal (and two other newspaper) is because they were not
    aware papers other than the NYT had the story.

    BTW, I’ve never really considered the WSJ a particularly pro-Bush, pro-Administratio or pro-Republican paper. Yes, the editorial page is quite right-wing, but the reporters and news editors don’t necessary follow the “party line”. I don’t read the WSJ, so I don’t know if Al Hunt still runs the paper’s Washington bureau. Hunt (Judy Woodruff’s husband) made it clear in countless television appearances that he’s a left-wing partisan.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — June 27, 2006 @ 7:31 pm - June 27, 2006

  50. #49: “Al Hunt still runs the paper’s Washington bureau.”

    Al Hunt is long gone from the WSJ pages. The WSJ reporting itself is quite good. The editorial pages are best used for fish wrap or lining bird cages. The idea that the Administration was unaware that the other two papers had the story is belied by the fact that the LAT has discussed their decision in light of the arguments put forth against publishing by the Administration. The WSJ has claimed that they were not asked to kill the story suggesting that the Administration knew about their story too. In fact, it is beyond belief that any of the papers would have printed without letting the Administration know they were going to do so. Certainly the NYT has a history of doing just that since we know they sat on the NSA spying story for over a year in deference to Bushco.

    Comment by Ian S — June 27, 2006 @ 10:25 pm - June 27, 2006

  51. 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

  52. 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

  53. 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

  54. #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

  55. #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

  56. 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

  57. 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

  58. 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

  59. 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

  60. #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

  61. #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

  62. 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

  63. “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

  64. #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

  65. #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

  66. #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

  67. #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

  68. 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

  69. #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

  70. 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

  71. 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

  72. #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

  73. #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

  74. 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

  75. 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

  76. 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

  77. #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

  78. #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

  79. #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

  80. 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

  81. #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

  82. “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

  83. #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

  84. #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

  85. 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.