« The New York Times Publishes Classified National Security Secrets Once Again | Main | Standing headline: another PETA publicity stunt »

The Priorities of the New York Times

Kudos to Bob Sellers at Fox News Channel who pointed out that the New York Times put its Terrorist Finance Surveillance program story on the front page and buried the story about the arrest of the Miami Seven.

Additional thoughts: I'm refering to the placement of the articles in print edition of the New York Times.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Priorities of the New York Times:

» Musing Minds linked with OK, It’s Conspiracy Theory Time

Comments (75)

This is nothing less than T... (Below threshold)
ted:

This is nothing less than TREASON by the NYT!!!

Something needs to be done.

the washington post did the... (Below threshold)

the washington post did the same thing

Hey, they skipped the WMD f... (Below threshold)
bill:

Hey, they skipped the WMD find story altogether.

Who would actually get their news from the NYTimes.

Oh to have Abe Lincoln back... (Below threshold)
Steve N.:

Oh to have Abe Lincoln back in the Oval Office. He routinely rounded up traiterous bastards like this and put them were the sun doesn't shine.

Ann Coulter was right. Tim McVeigh took his truck bomb to the wrong building.

The NYTimes is nothing more... (Below threshold)
914:

The NYTimes is nothing more then a hotbed of liberal anti american talking points. read at your own risk.

Good advice Steve.

The front page is where the... (Below threshold)
Master Shake:

The front page is where the al-NYT puts all of the important information for al Qaeda and their allies.

They wouldn't have even bothered to mention the Miami story, but they think that their taqiyya is more effective when they throw in a little truth.

However, those who consider... (Below threshold)
cate s.:

However, those who consider themselves "enlightened" liberals feel that this news must get out. It would be interesting to see how they would feel if they were face to face with a "Jihadist" or if one of their family members were. Maybe this sounds mean but I feel that's what it would take to wake these clowns up. They can think of their first amendment rights while suffering the will of Allah.

First off the Miami story i... (Below threshold)
DFlatts:

First off the Miami story is fishy. Real fishy. Santorum and Rummy put their tin foil hats on too tight yesterday and all of a sudden there is a terror arrest. Golllly.

I suppose you are probably miffed that Santorum and his "we found the WMDs" claim is not front page?

Miami story reminds me of t... (Below threshold)
Dflatts:

Miami story reminds me of the Padilla story .... who fishy story, issued at a time the admin needs to change the subject. Remember Padilla ... the guy the US still hasn't charged. The guy they said was going to blow up malls and apartments and then admitted they had nothing on him as far those charges. This sounds like a similar boondoggle.

I checked ... you ranting r... (Below threshold)
DFlatts:

I checked ... you ranting rightwing lunatics are all wrong, AS USUAL. Get your news first hand and not from the drug addict Limpbaugh and that will happen less. The NYT, the WaPost, USA Today, WSJ ... all were sporting big front page stories on the Miami arrests.


Get a life people. Tune back into reality. You don't have to live inside Ken Mehlman's anus forever (although we all know he likes it).

Forbes covered it too. Kil... (Below threshold)
Lint:

Forbes covered it too. Kill Steve Forbes! Traitor.

Oh no. So did the Wall Street Journal. Kill all them too. Damn Judasesesess.

What is this country coming to. So did Bloomberg. Isn't Bloomberg a republican?

DFlattsI was not w... (Below threshold)
914:

DFlatts

I was not wrong, but dead on in My posting You rabid frothing lunatic!

914You should defi... (Below threshold)
Lint:

914

You should definitely stick to Fox News, especially Hannity. If you want more "real" news, certainly Limbaugh is the way to go. Washington Times is also good.

For those conservatives who held their noses and went to collegs (because you know, colleges are all librul and full of lies), the Weekly Standard offers propaganda in a polysyllabic oeuvre.

But definitely, the bestest place to get news from is all the other blogs. Because, you know, the best source of information always comes from people like yourself.

All those reporters in the NYT don't want anything more than to turn this country over to Osama bin Laden. Beacuse you know, all those liberal, lesbian feminists secretly want to be covered up in Burkas and be spanked by bearded thugs.

DFlatts, take your libruhl, uh, moonbat ass back to your ivory tower. A lot of good that PhD is going to get you. Have you ever seen a Harvard PhD working at the muffler shop?

See...liberals are not capable of honest work.

Since so many of you have s... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Since so many of you have stated you don't or won't read the NY Times, and you certainly aren't going to see both sides of the issues in any of these blog posts, here are the reasons TO PUBLISH information about the program:
(Quoting from the TIMES article:

The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.
----------

That access to large amounts of sensitive data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.

While tight controls are in place, the official added, "The potential for abuse is enormous."
----------

Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization
--------

Among the program's safeguards, government officials said, is an outside auditing firm that verifies that the data searches are based on a link to terrorism intelligence. Swift and Treasury officials said they were aware of no abuses. But Mr. Levey, the Treasury official, said one person had been removed from the operation for conducting a search considered inappropriate.
---------

Several people familiar with the Swift program said they believed they were exploiting a "gray area" in the law and that a case could be made for restricting the government's access to the records on Fourth Amendment and statutory grounds. They also worried about the impact on Swift if the program were disclosed.

"There was always concern about this program," a former official said.
--------

I'll stop there, only half way through the article, and will try to get back and post more reasons later.

Still waiting for the reasons why they shouldn't have pubished this story, other than "because Bush and Cheny didn't want them to"....

Lint, For... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lint,

Forbes covered it too. Kill Steve Forbes! Traitor.

Oh no. So did the Wall Street Journal. Kill all them too. Damn Judasesesess.

What is this country coming to. So did Bloomberg. Isn't Bloomberg a republican?

Your post is a little fuzzy. Are you saying the NT didn't break the Finance Surveillance program story? If that's your point, then there must be some conspiracy between the NT, Forbes, and the Wall Street Journal in order for them to all reveal this classified program at the same time. If the NT did break the story, then your point is meaningless, as no harm is done by reprinting a story that's already been published in the NT.

The last few days have trul... (Below threshold)
wave_man:

The last few days have truly been a pleasure. In 2002 and 2004 the left thought that their message did not get out. Just a couple of months ago the MSM and many pundits were writing off the weak Republicans in 2006 [flashback 2002/2004]. Now through a series of votes in Congress and events that have occured all over the world and their reactions to these events, the Left is getting their message out. We shall see if the majority of Americans 'get' it in November.

The Lefty comments on the thread above about this 'phony arrest' and how all the idiots are on the Right side of the aisle, all marching to the same beat, agreeing 100% with everything said by the administration, talk radio, and the idiots in a few 'discredited' media outlets are just the ticket to your win in November. You've been more successful that you imagine with this strategy. I encourage you to keep it up.

[/sarcasm]

"Hey, they skipped the WMD ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Hey, they skipped the WMD find story altogether."

lol

It's reached the point of no return for some people.

Lee,I'll ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

I'll stop there, only half way through the article, and will try to get back and post more reasons later.

The problem with the reasons the NT gives is that the press is self-appointed and unqualified to judge what is and what is not a vital interest to this nation. How many of the 20 current and former government officials and industry executives were for keeping the program classified? The NT editors don't say, only that some of them "expressed reservations about the program", not that it should be disclosed. We can't even readily get any of this information, so the NT editors could make any claims they want about their reasons. How much weight do you put in unverifiable claims?

Espionage is a serious crime as it can jeopardize people and even the nation. In the past, spies would use drop points to pass on classified information, but there was always the risk of being caught. That's no longer needed as a spy can simply give the information to the NT who can publish it with seeming impunity. The only drawback of this method is that the U.S. government knows what secrets have been compromised. What's to keep the NT from publishing the names of covert agents, or details of a black weapons program? I'm not willing to leave such decisions up to self-appointed partisans just because they work for a news paper.

I think it's time the NYTim... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

I think it's time the NYTimes, LATimes and WaPo had their press credentials revoked for a year or two and were on the receiving end of some serious subpoenas.

They purport to be the high-tide mark of American Journalism, yet they act more and more like the British tabloids every day.

What insolent, self-absorbed morons.

How dare the NYT, LAT and W... (Below threshold)
Lint:

How dare the NYT, LAT and WaPo act like the guardians of all that is virtuous and good.

That's the self-proclaimed job of the Fox News and the Weekly Standard.

Jeesus, these darn libruls.

And Lee, don't bother "gett... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

And Lee, don't bother "getting back to us". Not many here care what you think. And take your little can of gasoline with you.

Mac Lorry said:<block... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Mac Lorry said:

What's to keep the NT from publishing the names of covert agents, or details of a black weapons program? I'm not willing to leave such decisions up to self-appointed partisans just because they work for a news paper.

And what's to keep the White House from abusing this program? The light of day, thats what.

The White House can still operate this program, but American's have a right to know what their government is doing if their financial records are subject to program that is abusive or has a high potential for abuse.

Has this program been limited to the financial records of only suspected criminals, there wouldn't have been a story here. What's "news" is that the hugh Dick Cheney data vacumn cleaner is running amok again.

DFlatts:D as in DUMB... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

DFlatts:
D as in DUMB.

Lee lee:
You are still not signing with your new name-"pucker puss".

Could someone on the left p... (Below threshold)
ted:

Could someone on the left please answer this question:

Why does the NYT etc. get to keep its government informers identity secret BUT the Government does not get to keep its own national security measures secret????

Lee,And w... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

And what's to keep the White House from abusing this program? The light of day, thats what.

It seems your point is that we can't trust the highest elected official in the U.S., but we can trust self-appointed partisans.

Has this program been limited to the financial records of only suspected criminals, there wouldn't have been a story here. What's "news" is that the hugh Dick Cheney data vacumn cleaner is running amok again.

First, there's no evidence that this program is running amok and second, if they were already suspected there would be no need for such a program. They are trying to find undercover terrorists to prevent a future attack on this nation. If it's ok for the IRS to inspect all our financial records to collect money, then a program to protect the people of this nation from attack is even more worthy.

Lint,I see you're ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lint,

I see you're back, but without an answer to the question I directed to you. Did you miss it, or is it that you just don't want to engage in a reasoned debate?

No evidence at all that it ... (Below threshold)
Lint:

No evidence at all that it even exists, Mac. I mean, why trust the NYT on the fact that this program is real?

I still trust the adm. when they first said they weren't doing warranless spying. And I trust them when they said they weren't data mining telecommunications traffic. And I believe them now.

What's the big deal right? I mean, they are simply protecting us, right? I mean, I'd be totally cool with having an NSA guy just hang out at the dinner table, cause, you know, I'm not really a terrorist or anything.

No, Mac. Your question was... (Below threshold)
Lint:

No, Mac. Your question was really rather idiotic. You posed two non-real alternatives, chose to pick one and then pretended to argue for it like it was a question. I saw no reason to get in the middle of the debate you were having with yourself.

Lint and/or Lee:Ag... (Below threshold)
ted:

Lint and/or Lee:

Again, please answer:

Why does the NYT etc. get to keep its government informers identity secret BUT the Government does not get to keep its own national security measures secret????

Lint,Your reply so... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lint,

Your reply sounds like the classic dodge used when someone finds themselves in a logical corner. I'll make it real easy for you this time and only ask one question.

Are you saying the NT didn't break the Finance Surveillance program story?

An intelligent liberal like you should be able to answer that question.

Jesus man. Go Google "1st ... (Below threshold)
Lint:

Jesus man. Go Google "1st amendment" and look it up. You can't possibly be this dense.

You can take it for anythin... (Below threshold)
Lint:

You can take it for anything you want. Call it a dodge if you like. The fact is that the story was published on the same day by 3 different newspapers under 3 different bylines.

You surely must have the minimal technical skills to go and look it up at the Los Angeles times and Wall street Journal's sites.

WSJ Online is not free. So, if you don't have access to it, pony up a buck and buy a hard copy.

And Mac, it's NYT -- New Yo... (Below threshold)
Lint:

And Mac, it's NYT -- New York Times.

NT was an operating system Microsoft put out in the mid 90's. That stood for New Technology.

Lint, if you'r going to kee... (Below threshold)
ted:

Lint, if you'r going to keep coming back, why won't you answer my (Ted's) question?

Lint,I st... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lint,

I still trust the adm. when they first said they weren't doing warranless spying. And I trust them when they said they weren't data mining telecommunications traffic. And I believe them now.

Is that what the administration actually said, that the we not doing warrant less spying, or did they say warrants weren't needed?

As for data mining telecommunications traffic, did they say they weren't doing it or that it didn't violate anyone's privacy? Has it even been confirmed yet?

Being you read the NT you should be able to tell us for sure.

TedIt's called Goo... (Below threshold)
Lint:

Ted

It's called Google. You put in words and it spits back answers.

Try "1st Amendment" or "freedom of the press". You'll learn a lot.

I can see why you may not want to yuse Google though. Brin and Page are liberals. They drive hybrids. Google is in the Bay Area (full of liberals).

Lint,It's warrantl... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lint,

It's warrantless or warrant less, not warranless.

MacLorry:... (Below threshold)
Lee:

MacLorry:

It seems your point is that we can't trust the highest elected official in the U.S., but we can trust self-appointed partisans.

What does George Bush have to do with preventing abuses of this program? Do you think he personally is supervising this program, and personally insuring that abuses don't occur? Of course not.

Now, tell me who is supervising this, and ask me if I trust that person.

First, there's no evidence that this program is running amok and second, if they were already suspected there would be no need for such a program. They are trying to find undercover terrorists to prevent a future attack on this nation. If it's ok for the IRS to inspect all our financial records to collect money, then a program to protect the people of this nation from attack is even more worthy.

I was trying to make the point that the adminstration's data-gatherers are running amok in general, not specifically referring to this program, and we are discovering more and more examples where domestic spying on innocent American citizens are taking place.

As I've said before, a door-to-door search of every home in the United States would uncover a treasure trove of terrorist information, but that wouldn't make it ok.

So you think there are more programs like this out there we don't know about? More "potentially abusive" (as described by officials who have intimate knowledge) domestic spying programs? Or are all of them out in the open now...?

I bet there are more, and I hope outfits like the NYT are never intimidated into not revealing their existence. I trust them when they say that they weighed all of the considerations and determined it was ok to revel this much information. They may well have much more that they aren't revealing for national security reasons. I don't see where merely revealing the existence of the program compromises national security.

Lint,The ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lint,

The fact is that the story was published on the same day by 3 different newspapers under 3 different bylines.

That's meaningless given our instant communications. You made a claim that papers other that the New York Times did the same thing in outing this classified program. My point is that only the New York Times broke the story, and once the information was public the other papers only repeated it. Repeating such a story does no damage. Can you dispute that?

Thanks Mac. You do an exce... (Below threshold)
Lint:

Thanks Mac. You do an excellent job of aping the Shift+ F7 command on in Word.

Can I call you the next time I need to spell check a document?

DFlatts at June 23, 2006... (Below threshold)
wave_man:

DFlatts at June 23, 2006 01:13 PM

First off the Miami story is fishy. Real fishy. Santorum and Rummy put their tin foil hats on too tight yesterday and all of a sudden there is a terror arrest. Golllly.

Dflatts at June 23, 2006 01:16 PM

Miami story reminds me of the Padilla story .... who fishy story, issued at a time the admin needs to change the subject. Remember Padilla ... the guy the US still hasn't charged. The guy they said was going to blow up malls and apartments and then admitted they had nothing on him as far those charges. This sounds like a similar boondoggle.

You are kidding, right? Granted, it sounds like these dimwits were dumb, but does that lessen their culpability? Plan a bank robbery, but get caught before you pull it off, and you are innocent? Threaten to blow up or hijack a plane while in flight, and you get patted on the back and let go? Don't think so.

You think this is just a diversion... were you asleep in '95 when a small group of idiots blew up the Federal Building in OKC? I guess that was just a diversion created by Clinton and Gore to divert attention from the new Republican Congress. No? Didn't think so.

Your statements show your complete and total ignorance of the times that we live in. On second thought, ignorance is just caused by a lack of information. Stupidity would complete that thought better.

Since I don't particularly ... (Below threshold)
Lint:

Since I don't particularly believe that having this information in public does anything other than increase transparency in government, I commend the NYT, LAT AND WSJ -- all fine newspapers in my opinion.

The other papers obviously didn't just repeat it. they had their own reporters put out the story under their own bylines, in the same edition, on the same day. Different reporters for AP, Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT and LA...all put the story out on the same fucking day.

In any case, kudos to NYT and the others for putting it out.

I don't think OBL has access to a lot of ATMs in Tora Bora in any case.

As for the accusation that ... (Below threshold)
hermie:

As for the accusation that it wasn't being monitored, the NYT story itself said that Congress was kept informed of the program.

This was the NYT who decided that their little group of 'anonymous sources' trumped not only a bipartisan group of members of Congress, but the entire Administration regarding a vital intelligence program which the NYT itself stated was not illegal.

Now the members of SWIFT will be pressured into discontinuing its cooperation with the US because somebody in the government wanted to sabotage the war on terror for political reasons, and couldn't bother to see that they just put more innocent lives in danger.


I said this in another thre... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I said this in another thread and I'll say it again because it applies:

There's a fine line between vigilance and paranoia, and I fear some of us have already crossed it.

Lee,

The problem is if you tell someone "hey, I've got my eye on you" you won't catch them doing anything wrong. By revealing every program we have running to catch domestic terrorists to the general public, you are also revealing it to them, and making it a useless program.

What good would the NSA's codebreaking have done in WWII if we told the Japanese "We broke your code!"? They'd just start using a different code. The same idea applies here.

Going under the assumption that there are all these abuses occuring is a big leap.

Lint and Lee, I see they re... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf:

Lint and Lee, I see they restored computer privileges at the asylum. Free speech, as in the first Amendment, is not an absolute. You are free to shout fire in a theater, but you are free to pay the consequences. Treasonous acts by a newpaper are not what was intended by the founders. Can you imagine (a better question is do you have the capability to understand) what would have happened if a newpaper would have revealed the existance of the Manhattan project?

They would have done so if ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

They would have done so if it was happening today Zelsdorf, and the same people would have thought it was a great idea.

Heralder and Zelsdorf, they... (Below threshold)
ted:

Heralder and Zelsdorf, they only would have done so if a Republican was in the Whitehouse.

To the left, it's worth the USA going down the tubes if that would bring down the GOP.

Would you expect anything l... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Would you expect anything less?
I certainly don't.

Lint,The ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lint,

The other papers obviously didn't just repeat it. they had their own reporters put out the story under their own bylines, in the same edition, on the same day. Different reporters for AP, Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT and LA...all put the story out on the same fucking day.

Of course they use different reporters to get a local twist, but if it's on the AP do you think every paper that prints that story developed it independently from their own exclusive sources and just happened to all publish on the same day? If you believe that you're living in a fantasy world.

You come on here with a smug liberal attitude about how dumb conservatives are, but you can't make well reasoned points yourself. Everyone gets in a logical corner from time to time, but you're not intellectually mature enough to admit your mistake. That says a lot about you. I knew that was the case to start with, but I just wanted to make it clear to everyone else. Go back where you came from, WizBang is for adults.

The debate in this comments... (Below threshold)
Sweetie:

The debate in this comments section smells like landslide in November.

The right has its share of idiots but the left is actively trying to corner the market. And they put their idiots on soap boxes to sell 20 foot waves flooding Florida and the horror of the gov't reviewing financial transactions when many if not most people have conducted financial transactions on the internet, have had spyware dumped into their computer, and have been spammed relentlessly due to private sector data sharing. Or they get a rock singer (the aptly initialed BS - Bruce Springsteen) who sees American life today as something out of the Grapes of Wrath (Bruce is Casey/John Carradine, don't ya know).

Excellent point Heralder ..... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Excellent point Heralder ...

The problem with Lint, Lee and the folks over at the New York Times is that they lack any imagination - all their imaginative energies are concentrated on elaborate fantasies involving Bush entering the bedrooms of gay couples and stopping them from getting it on, etc.

After the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program was revealed, most of them started screaming that the New York Times' revelation of the program did not do any damage because the terrorists must already know they were being watched.

Of course, it has been reported that terrorists have modified their methods of sending information to each other. Nowadays, instead of sending an e-mail, they write it up, save it as a draft and their colleagues at the other end simply accesses the e-mail account through their commonly known password (which they change regularly) and read the draft.

There is no transission from one place to another so there is hardly any chance of interception.

Heck, the fact that the New York Times revealed that the US is aware of a number of terrorist contacts probably caused a significant number of terrorists and their sympathizers to change phone numbers, addresses and contact procedures. Chances are the United States has had a huge amount and source of intelligence rendered useless.

How about just the alerting of terrorists who may have gotten complacent after not being captured despite their activities, not knowing that they were being watched?

The fact is; the Left does not want America to lose the War on Terror. But they believe that the Republican Party is a greater threat to them than Terrorism.

Heralder:The pr... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Heralder:

The problem is if you tell someone "hey, I've got my eye on you" you won't catch them doing anything wrong. By revealing every program we have running to catch domestic terrorists to the general public, you are also revealing it to them, and making it a useless program

You can't be serious. The bad guys didn't think we were looking for them? Lame.

We should start issu... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

We should start issuing information on false programs with false operational procedures for catching domestic terrorists to the newspapers so they can break it.

Then we can go on with the secret programs that actually work because they're secret.

It's a shame we should have to resort to this type of behavior to prevent newspapers from shooting this country in the foot at every turn.

MacThe LAT, AP, NY... (Below threshold)
Lint:

Mac

The LAT, AP, NYT and WSJ are national newspapers. There is no local angle. This was a national story, which was reported by different sets of reporters under different bylines in different newspapers in on the same day.

The SUBJECT of the story is the same. The content is different. Dude, what about this is hard to understand?

You rail and rail against the NYT, but I point out that the WSJ also penned the same story (written by DIFFERENT reporters) on the same day and you don't bitch about that at all. Why?

I'll post an AP wire story about the newspapers covering the story.

No Lee,The point <... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

No Lee,

The point is not that they don't know were looking for them, it's that they don't know how. Every time these programs are revealed they know how and change their operations to reflect that.

This point was covered in my second paragraph.

By The Associated Press<br ... (Below threshold)
Lint:

By The Associated Press
06.23.06

WASHINGTON -- Several major newspapers yesterday rejected Bush administration requests to keep secret a program to track people suspected of bankrolling terrorism.

Treasury Department officials acknowledged that in the weeks immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks they obtained access to an extensive international financial database in order to track down the sources of terrorist financing.

The information was obtained through use of subpoenas, which Stuart Levey, Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, called a "legal and proper use of our authorities."

The existence of the program was first reported last night on the Web sites of The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal.

While confirming the newspaper reports, administration officials expressed concern that disclosure of the program could undermine efforts to track terrorism-related activities.

"We know the terrorists pay attention to our strategy to fight them, and now have another piece of the puzzle of how we are fighting them," said Dana Perino, deputy White House press secretary.

Under the program, U.S. counterterrorism analysts could query an international data base known as Swift to look for information on activities by suspected terrorists as part of specific terrorism investigations, the Treasury Department said. They would do so by plugging in a name or names.

"One of the most important tools in the fight against terror is our ability to choke off funds for the terrorists," Perino said.

The decision to publish was "a tough call; it was not a decision made lightly," said Doyle McManus, the Los Angeles Times' Washington bureau chief.

Treasury Department officials spent 90 minutes yesterday meeting with the newspaper's reporters, stressing the legality of the program and urging the paper to not publish a story on the program, McManus said in a telephone interview.

Disclosure of the program follows intense controversy over President Bush's directive ordering the National Security Agency to monitor, without court approval, calls and e-mails of Americans when one party is overseas and terrorism is suspected. That program, which also began shortly after 9/11, was disclosed by The New York Times.

The New York Times and Los Angeles Times quoted their editors as defending their decision to publish the financial data-tracking effort despite being asked by the Bush administration to withhold publication.

Bill Keller, The New York Times' executive editor, said it considered the administration's arguments but in the end decided to publish. "We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use it may be, is a matter of public interest."

Dean Baquet, editor of the Los Angeles Times, said: "We weighed the government's arguments carefully, but in the end we determined that it was in the public interest to publish information about the extraordinary reach of this program."

News of the program drew protests from Democrats in Congress today, while Republicans defended the effort as vital to waging a global war against terrorism.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. and co-chairman of the Congressional Privacy Caucus, said today that there were disturbing similarities between the bank-monitoring program and the secret surveillance program for telephone calls that was revealed last year.

"Like the domestic surveillance program exposed last December, the Bush administration's efforts to tap into the financial records of thousands of Americans appear to rely on justifications concocted without regard to current law," Markey said in a statement.

"If the administration wants to fight terrorism legally, then it should ask for the authority it needs and then follow the law that Congress passes," Markey said. "Don't claim 'temporary emergency' and then operate in secret for five years."

However, Republicans defended the effort. Amy Call, a spokeswoman for Senate Republican leader Bill Frist, said today that he had been briefed on the program and had "full confidence in the effectiveness of, and the legal authority for, this vital anti-terrorism tool."

The program involved both the CIA and the Treasury Department.

Treasury Secretary John Snow insisted that the effort was not "data mining or trolling through the private financial records of Americans. It is not a fishing expedition, but rather a sharp harpoon aimed at the heart of terrorist activity."

Both Snow and Levey scheduled a news conference for later today to answer questions about the program.

Swift, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is a cooperative based in Belgium that handles financial message traffic from 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries.

The service, which routes more than 11 million messages each day, mostly captures information on wire transfers and other methods of moving money in and out of the United States. It doesn't execute these money transfers. The service generally doesn't detect private, individual transactions in the United States, such as withdrawals from an ATM or bank deposits. It is aimed mostly at international transfers.

In a statement, Swift said it had negotiated with the U.S. Treasury "over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas."

"Through this process, Swift received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas," the service said. "Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with."

"Our subpoena of terrorist-related records from Swift has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks," Levey said.

I think I'm addic... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I think I'm addicted to italics.

Lint,Could you jus... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lint,

Could you just link the story next time?

Healder:The poi... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Healder:

The point is not that they don't know were looking for them, it's that they don't know how. Every time these programs are revealed they know how and change their operations to reflect that.

Prior to today terrorists wires money to AQ, or receives money from them, without any concern about that action being discovered? Still lame, and just downright false.

This is why the NYTs and others went ahead and published the story. That excuse doesn't hold water. Revealing the existence of the program does not compromise national security. Terrorists already knew and were aware that money movement to and from sources and cells was under scrutiny.

It was no secret that Treasury was tracking money. There have been publicized cases (cited by others today as justification for this program) where money movement was used to capture and convict.

You've somehow fallen victim to the right-wing blog's spin - that national security was somehow compromised when the program was revealed.

What was revealed by the NYTs and others was the extent to which innocent, ordinary citizens worldwide are being subjected to the same scrutiny, in secret.

Lee:Revealing t... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee:

Revealing the existence of the program does not compromise national security. Terrorists already knew and were aware that money movement to and from sources and cells was under scrutiny.

So putting it in the news that we're not even tracking the right people is a good idea? The less they know about any program used to to stop them the better. I don't care how arbitrary is seems, knowledge is knowledge and we want them to have as little knowledge of our arsenal as possible.

What was revealed by the NYTs and others was the extent to which innocent, ordinary citizens worldwide are being subjected to the same scrutiny, in secret.

Scrutiny. What's wrong with scrutiny? Isn't that the whole point of the program?

If the government knew which people to NOT put under the microscope I'm sure they'd just cut to the chase and do it. You can't find someone by not looking at anybody...I'm not sure what everyone is up in arms about.
Would I be right to think I'll be sent to a "black gulag" in Eastern Europe and questioned about buying a new video card online with my debit card?

I'm not particularly worried about being linked to Al-Queda, and I don't think you should be either.


The less they know ab... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The less they know about any program used to to stop them the better.

All they learned today is that the program exists, and they knew that already.

I'm not particularly worried about being linked to Al-Queda, and I don't think you should be either.

I'm not worried about that, but I am worried a program which some officials who are intimate with the details of the program, more so than you or I, make statements like

"That access to large amounts of sensitive data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.

While tight controls are in place, the official added, "The potential for abuse is enormous."

and

"Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified. Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization"

You see, if some of the officials who are on the inside have reason to express concerns, then I think you and I should be concerned as well. They know a lot more about this program, and its safeguards, then you and I do.

Lee:"That acces... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee:

"That access to large amounts of sensitive data was highly unusual, several officials said, and stirred concerns inside the administration about legal and privacy issues.

While tight controls are in place, the official added, "The potential for abuse is enormous."

People on the inside have concerns, that's good...it shows they care and that they're thinking about these things.

Good to know tight controls are in place as well.

What struck me as important here is POTENTIAL. You know, the potential for the abuse of your spouse can be enormous as well, but that doesn't mean no one should get married.

I trust that they will not abuse this though, and that's where we don't see eye to eye.

"Nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives discussed aspects of the Swift operation with The New York Times on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified."

Aren't we trying to concern ourselves over legality issues and here we have anonymous people leaking classified information to the public press?

"Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program,

The telling statement here is "Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program". Is "some" quantified by 2 of 20, or 19 of 20? And what did the others that are not "some" have to say? Were they positive about it, and if so, what did they say? I like balanced reporting, it helps me to make informed decisions, which apparently is not the aim here.

saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization

Okay, that's good, it was an urgent measure, but it apparently worked so they wanted to make it permanent. So if it was urgent to begin with, did they want to make it standing in twenty years as opposed to "nearly five years later"?

I'd also like to know what the word "specific" means exactly in reference to Congressional approval.

I guess it's apparent why I don't read the NYT.

You rail and rail ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
You rail and rail against the NYT, but I point out that the WSJ also penned the same story (written by DIFFERENT reporters) on the same day and you don't bitch about that at all. Why?

I never railed against the NYT. Where do you come up with such things?

The SUBJECT of the story is the same. The content is different. Dude, what about this is hard to understand?

I read the story early and I'm well aware that these three news organizations posted this same story on their web sites Thursday night. Only a fool would believe these three news organizations developed their story's independently and then posted the results at the same time. One of the choices I gave you in my initial post is that there was a conspiracy to break this story, and that would have been the correct answer. Dude, what about this is hard to understand?

Lee,What ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

What does George Bush have to do with preventing abuses of this program? Do you think he personally is supervising this program, and personally insuring that abuses don't occur? Of course not.

Yes, Bush is personally supervising this program, but only at a high level. Do judges or members of congress personally supervise clandestine programs they authorize? Of course not.

Now, tell me who is supervising this, and ask me if I trust that person.

Good question. I think we can agree that someone has to authorize and supervise any such program. Should it be someone who is elected or someone who is appointed? I think someone who is elected is a better choice. If it has to be someone who's appointed, then appointed by who? The highest standard would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The lowest standard is someone who appoints themselves, like the NYT editors.

I was trying to make the point that the adminstration's data-gatherers are running amok in general, not specifically referring to this program,

And I was trying to make the point that it's better to trust the President (the highest elected official in the U.S) in general, not Bush specifically.

As I've said before, a door-to-door search of every home in the United States would uncover a treasure trove of terrorist information, but that wouldn't make it ok.

It's also not possible given any practical limitations. Besides that, it's like saying the best computer security is to never turn them on. While absolutely true, it's irrelevant.

So you think there are more programs like this out there we don't know about?

We can only hope so. It's like security in depth. Get past one checkpoint and still catch the bad guy at another checkpoint.

More "potentially abusive" (as described by officials who have intimate knowledge) domestic spying programs? Or are all of them out in the open now...?

If we were to water down everything that is "potentially abusive" it wouldn't be a good place to live. People abuse cars, medicine, food, fire, you name it.

I don't see where merely revealing the existence of the program compromises national security.

The power of investigative programs is degraded when they are exposed in the press. What would you think of the New York Times if it published details of a criminal investigation before the big fish is on the hook? It's the same with these programs and the self-appointed partisans at the New York Times are the least trustworthy to be making the call as to what's best left secret and what's not. I'm hoping for a successful criminal prosecution of the editors.

Yes, Bush is ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Yes, Bush is personally supervising this program, but only at a high level.

Heh. You state that as a fact, as if you know it to be true., but I suspect that's just conjecture on your part, Mr Lorry.

Regardless, the President is way too busy, and is not in a position to catch abuses of the program. Those would have to be reported to him by others - and it's the integrity of the unknown "others" we rely on that is still unknown, and its their integrity and motives that is the present danger for abuse.

Good question. I think we can agree that someone has to authorize and supervise any such program. Should it be someone who is elected or someone who is appointed? [snip]

I want to know who is in charge, and whether they can be trusted to not abuse the process.

Who we think should be in charge isn't really relevant to the question of whether abuses have or can occur.

I said:
As I've said before, a door-to-door search of every home in the United States would uncover a treasure trove of terrorist information, but that wouldn't make it ok.

you replied:
It's also not possible given any practical limitations. Besides that, it's like saying the best computer security is to never turn them on. While absolutely true, it's irrelevant.

The point is that the ends doesn't justify the means. Scoooping up everyone's data, becase you might find a bad guy's data mixed in, doesn't justify domestic spy programs in my mind. Just as searching everyone's house doesn't justify the possible gain...etc.

If we were to water down everything that is "potentially abusive" it wouldn't be a good place to live. People abuse cars, medicine, food, fire, you name it.

Well, I can't really control or be concerned with your abuse of fire, etc. but I have very grave concerns about the White House staying within the lines drawn by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and authorities provided by Congress. Waving you hand and saying we can't be concerned about everything dodges the question about what we can and should concerned with.

The power of investigative programs is degraded when they are exposed in the press.

How? If the only thing revealed was the existence of the program, how was the effectiveness of THIS program been degraded.

That is the question I keep repeating, that isn't being answered by today's critics of the NYTs.

What would you think of the New York Times if it published details of a criminal investigation before the big fish is on the hook?

Strawman argument. That wasn't the case here. No details of a criminal investigation were published.

It's the same with these programs and the self-appointed partisans at the New York Times are the least trustworthy to be making the call as to what's best left secret and what's not. I'm hoping for a successful criminal prosecution of the editors.

That's your opinion. I disagree. I've already explained why revealing the program hasn't helped the enemy, who already knew Treasury was tracking money movement, so I won't repeat it.

As to your hope for criminal prosecution - I guarantee it will NEVER happen under this adminstration. They will NEVER get into a court of law, and be subject to discovery, and testimony under oath. You think Bush wants the internal critics of this program who were interviewed by the NYTs to be put on the stand under oath and forced to testify as to why this program is a bad idea?

It'll never happen. That isn't to say this adminstration is above trying to intimidate the press by threatening or filing such a suit, but the suit would only serve to galvanize the press against the adminstration which, despite the blatherings often heard around here, has given the adminstration a very fair shake, andd they know it.

The MSM gave this adminstration a free ride and a free hand for years. We were at war with terror, and the bad guys hit us hard on 9/11. The administration took full advantage of that free ride, and we're only now finding out the extent to which domestic spying has taken place.

All that's changed is that the facts around the Iraq war (ie no WMDs, it is taken WAY longer than they said, insurgency is not decreasing, there a risk of civil war etc.) have finally caught up with Bush and company, and that is causing public opinion to turn against the President.

The MSM reports on that, and gets blamed for it, but the vlame lies witht hose who lied and spied, not the people who reported that fact.

The MSM reports on that, an... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The MSM reports on that, and gets blamed for it, but the blame lies with those who lied and spied, not the people who reported that fact.

Sorry for the typos in the last paragraph.

Busy at work...missed the w... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Busy at work...missed the whole thread. Read Lee's scree at the end...I'll respond to THAT.

Horseshit.

Ok, let me elaborate.

Lee's, and the Left's, position is that PERFECT crime detection is permissable...indeed the AIM!

We may detain CRIMINALS, we may investigate the records of CRIMINALS, we may listen in on the conversations of CRIMINALS, and check out the bank records of CRIMINALS.

Of course, we don't KNOW if they ARE criminals UNTIL we do those things...hmmm??

WHAT TO DO? Nothing!! Until, of course, they commit a CRIME!! THEN we will cry out loudly against the evil Bush Administration for not KNOWING (through perfect Leftist hindsight) that THAT ONE THERE is the criminal!!

again, HORSESHIT

Personally, I think Rove is... (Below threshold)
megan:

Personally, I think Rove is feeding them these stories... Sure changes the story about the Dems ... is it "a new direction" for them this week? Anyway I think this surely helps the 06 elections as there are quite a few dems who know without their heads . . . they won't need Health Care!

Lee,Heh. ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Lee,

Heh. You state that as a fact, as if you know it to be true., but I suspect that's just conjecture on your part, Mr Lorry.

Of course it's conjecture, but no more so than your conjecture that Bush doesn't supervise this program at a high level.

Regardless, the President is way too busy, and is not in a position to catch abuses of the program. Those would have to be reported to him by others - and it's the integrity of the unknown "others" we rely on that is still unknown, and its their integrity and motives that is the present danger for abuse.

That's true for all clandestine investigative programs. If that's the overriding principle; that some unknown "others" might abuse the program, then no clandestine program could be justified. From what I know of WWII, the very survival of nations depended on clandestine programs. Given the potential deviation of a biological or nuclear weapon, I wonder what liberals have to hide that's so important. Certainly it can't be the principle of protecting our constitutional rights, as liberals have never considered the 2nd amendment or property rights to be worthy of such protection.

I want to know who is in charge, and whether they can be trusted to not abuse the process. Who we think should be in charge isn't really relevant to the question of whether abuses have or can occur.

When you say "Who we think", I assume you're talking about the public. The problem is that the public knowledge of clandestine investigative programs impinges their effectiveness. I know you disagree about that point, yet it's a key issue. What has to be weighed is the potential benefits for such a program being clandestine verses the potential for abuse. That gets to the who is in charge question. The quick answer is that as long as that someone is human there is a potential for abuse. The only thing we have to go on is their reputation of service to the public. You believe self-appointed partisans are best for the job, but I feel elected or at least appointed civil servants are best for the job. We'll just have to disagree on that point.

The point is that the ends doesn't justify the means. Scoooping up everyone's data, becase you might find a bad guy's data mixed in, doesn't justify domestic spy programs in my mind. Just as searching everyone's house doesn't justify the possible gain...etc.

And yet the left thinks it's ok to take guns away from every law abiding citizen because they feel it would reduce the murder rate. Well, the right thinks it's ok to spy on ever law abiding citizen because they feel it would reduce the murder rate.

Well, I can't really control or be concerned with your abuse of fire, etc. but I have very grave concerns about the White House staying within the lines drawn by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and authorities provided by Congress.

Of course it was never about my use or abuse of fire. The principal is that anything with the power to do good can also be abused to do bad. If we only focus on the potential for abuse, then nothing with the power to do good can ever be justified.

How? If the only thing revealed was the existence of the program, how was the effectiveness of THIS program been degraded.

If the terrorists were using encrypted e-mail to communicate and a news paper published details about how the government was able to break particular encryption algorithms, then terrorists either quit using e-mail or switch to a more secure encryption algorithms. One of the reasons the U.S. won WWII was because of our ability to read both German and Japanese encryption. Had the NYT published that informaiton, it likely would have extended the war. Knowing where your advisory is watching tells you more about where he is not watching. The NYT is a beacon of light alright, but one showing the terrorists how to avoid detection.

Strawman argument. That wasn't the case here. No details of a criminal investigation were published.

You're joking. You don't think terrorists are criminals? The anti-terrorism laws passed since 9/11/01 make terrorism a criminal matter and any investigation attempting to find them is a criminal investigation.

That's your opinion. I disagree. I've already explained why revealing the program hasn't helped the enemy, who already knew Treasury was tracking money movement, so I won't repeat it.

Knowing that the Treasury was tracking money movement is not the same as knowing how they were tracking money movement or to what extent. Saying the enemy knew the full extent of the program is pure conjecture unless you're referring to the editors of the NYT as the enemy. If so, then we have a point of agreement.

As to your hope for criminal prosecution - I guarantee it will NEVER happen under this administration. They will NEVER get into a court of law, and be subject to discovery, and testimony under oath.

You are right the administration will never be subject to discovery and testimony under oath, but because the administration wouldn't be on trial in a criminal prosecution. The editors of the NYT would be on trial for breaking numerous federal laws covering disclosure of classified information.

You think Bush wants the internal critics of this program who were interviewed by the NYTs to be put on the stand under oath and forced to testify as to why this program is a bad idea?

Yes, let the NYT identify them so they can be prosecuted. The program is public now anyway.

I was trying to get Lint to say it, but they didn't grasp the significance. Not only did the NYTs reveal classified information, but they conspired with the LAT and the WSJ to reveal classified information. They may never be convicted on the first crime, but conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime itself, and not one covered by the 1st amendment. There are numerous examples of people being convicted on such secondary charges even if they were never charged with the primary offense. At least it's something worth pursuing in my opinion.

Heh. You state that as a... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Heh. You state that as a fact, as if you know it to be true., but I suspect that's just conjecture on your part, Mr Lorry.

Which means he as much behind his statements as you do.

I mean, you can't have it both ways: Either Bush is a moron or Bush is this never-ending cauldron of evil seeking to oppress the world.

Regardless, the President is way too busy, and is not in a position to catch abuses of the program.

He can't do that with social welfare programs, either. Let's cut them, too. They don't save as many lives as this program does.

Those would have to be reported to him by others - and it's the integrity of the unknown "others" we rely on that is still unknown, and its their integrity and motives that is the present danger for abuse.

As opposed to the "others" who leak this info regularly and the ethics of the Times in reporting a program that is not illegal?

Good question. I think we can agree that someone has to authorize and supervise any such program.

That person is the President, not editor-in-chief of the NY Times. Especially since Bush has done a better job at what he does than the NY Times has done.

I want to know who is in charge, and whether they can be trusted to not abuse the process.

The President is.

The point is that the ends doesn't justify the means. Scoooping up everyone's data, becase you might find a bad guy's data mixed in, doesn't justify domestic spy programs in my mind. Just as searching everyone's house doesn't justify the possible gain...etc.

Seeing as how this doesn't impact people's financial records, it is moot.

The left is saying that this war on terrorism can't be fought solely militarily --- then the left fights all possible methods of fighting it.

Well, I can't really control or be concerned with your abuse of fire, etc. but I have very grave concerns about the White House staying within the lines drawn by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and authorities provided by Congress.

Seeing as how Congress, Constitutionally, lacks the power to reign in the White House (they are EQUALS --- the President can't limit Congressional powers as well), quite moot.

Waving you hand and saying we can't be concerned about everything dodges the question about what we can and should concerned with.

How about showing concern when a valid reason is ACTUALLY presented? Paranoia is not proof.

How? If the only thing revealed was the existence of the program, how was the effectiveness of THIS program been degraded.

How was it degraded?

I'll give you an OBJECT lesson: The press leaked that the gov't has the ability to intercept emails sent from terrorists years ago.

SO...the terrorists simply wrote drafts of emails in email programs, left them there, and got passwords out to their collective cells with the info.

Since the email was not sent, it could not be intercepted.

The program was effectively killed.

Thanks to the press.

And, I'll go ahead and say it: The press whines about how "secretive" Bush is. They haven't seen ANYTHING yet. A President would be an idiot to be as open as Bush has been. It'd be wise for them to simple refuse to EVER speak to the media.

Strawman argument. That wasn't the case here. No details of a criminal investigation were published.

Seeing as how this program DID catch terrorists, then yes, it is exactly what happened here.

That's your opinion. I disagree. I've already explained why revealing the program hasn't helped the enemy, who already knew Treasury was tracking money movement, so I won't repeat it.

Except they didn't know it for certain. They assumed it --- possibly --- but didn't KNOW it (again, we captured the mastermind of the Bali bombing thanks to this). Now, it's known and they'll find a new way to finance themselves.

As to your hope for criminal prosecution - I guarantee it will NEVER happen under this adminstration. They will NEVER get into a court of law, and be subject to discovery, and testimony under oath.

You don't have to reveal top secret info in court. You have to prove they printed top secret info, which is what they did.

Keep in mind that the Pentagon Papers case ONLY dealt with prior restraint: It said NOTHING on punishment for violating the law in printing the info.

You think Bush wants the internal critics of this program who were interviewed by the NYTs to be put on the stand under oath and forced to testify as to why this program is a bad idea?

It would be immaterial as it is not their power to declassify info. The moment they say "It was a bad idea because..." it will be struck down as irrelevant.

It'll never happen. That isn't to say this adminstration is above trying to intimidate the press by threatening or filing such a suit, but the suit would only serve to galvanize the press against the adminstration which, despite the blatherings often heard around here, has given the adminstration a very fair shake, andd they know it.

You're patently blind to reality here.

The MSM gave this adminstration a free ride and a free hand for years. We were at war with terror, and the bad guys hit us hard on 9/11. The administration took full advantage of that free ride, and we're only now finding out the extent to which domestic spying has taken place.

The same press that bitched about Afghanistan --- BEFORE WE WENT THERE?

All that's changed is that the facts around the Iraq war (ie no WMDs

Factually incorrect.

it is taken WAY longer than they said

Bush said it'd take years.

insurgency is not decreasing

Based on what?

there a risk of civil war

And Bush said this wouldn't happen when?

The MSM reports on that, and gets blamed for it, but the vlame lies witht hose who lied and spied, not the people who reported that fact.

They report lies that people like you are either too ignorant or --- more likely --- willing to deny lap up eagerly.

They tried to take away his 2000 election win with some REALLY questionable calls, including FL before it closed and when Gore never led, at any point, in the count. They tried to blame him for Enron. For 9/11. For the recession.

They failed. Repeatedly. But, hey, when a group votes about 90% of the time with one particular party, assuming a potential for bias IS silly, I suppose.
-=Mike

BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT

I mean, you can't have i... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I mean, you can't have it both ways: Either Bush is a moron or Bush is this never-ending cauldron of evil seeking to oppress the world.

I agree that it pretty much boils down to those two choices - but then again - it could be a mixture of the two also.

'The New York Times has not... (Below threshold)
914:

'The New York Times has nothing to fear but fear itself.."

We should be praising the N... (Below threshold)

We should be praising the NYT! I refuse to live in a country where the press isn't truly free. As much as I despise FAUX News- who I think is basically a propaganda arm of the Bush white house. I still believe that they have the right to co-exist with other stations and news outlets that are more left leaning.

Without real journalist, many of the atrocities that took place during the civil rights era would not have been exposed; and we wouldn't have had Watergate,-which forced a crooked President to resign- and a philanderer coming clean. [No pun intended]

Just remember that the next time you want to muzzle the NYT. I understand that living in a democracy poses certain risks, but that's a price I will pay for my freedom. Anyone who feels otherwise, should hop on the next boat down to the land of great rum and cigars; where a certain leader with a funny beard agrees with your point of view.

Hey, Nixon normalized relat... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Hey, Nixon normalized relations with China and ended our involvement with Vietnam.

I guess we should ignore all of the other problems he caused.
-Mike




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy