« Let freedom rock | Main | Quote Of The Day - French Technology Victories Edition »

President Bush Responds to the New York Times

The president called the Times' report detailing the terrorist banking records program "disgraceful."

President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," he said.


"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror."

The program has been going on since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. It was disclosed last week by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times.

Using broad government subpoenas, the program allows U.S. counterterrorism analysts to obtain financial information from a vast database maintained by a company based in Belgium. It routes about 11 million financial transactions daily among 7,800 banks and other financial institutions in 200 countries.

"Congress was briefed and what we did was fully authorized under the law," Bush said, talking with reporters in the Roosevelt Room after meeting with groups that support U.S. troops in Iraq.

"We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America," the president said. "What we were doing was the right thing."

"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do," Bush said. He said that to figure out what terrorists plan to do, "You try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."

Watch the video of President Bush making these statements. He is justifiably angry. The Times has tried to undermine his national security efforts over and over again: first with the disclosure of the NSA terrorist surveillance program, then the phone records database program, and now the terrorist finance tracking operation.

As we have already heard, the Times has argued that the information was in the public interest. This argument is not only weak but frightening as well because the definition of what is in the public interest is so subjective that almost anything could be classified in that manner. E.D. Hill made a similar argument this morning on Fox and Friends. She argued that if the NY Times of today had existed in the days of WWII and received leaked information about the Normandy invasion, the Times would have published it under the guise that it was in the public interest to inform the American people of an invasion that was expected to cost so many of our servicemen's lives.

E.D.'s argument is theoretical, of course, but it puts the Times' "public interest" argument into perspective.

Ed Morrissey also commented on President Bush's remarks about the New York Times and has excerpted part of the 9/11 Commission Report which recommended going after the terrorists' finances.

Update: Check out Instapundit's response to Bill Keller's defense of the New York Times. Here's a portion:

A deeper error is Keller's characterization of freedom of the press as an institutional privilege, an error that is a manifestation of the hubris that has marked the NYT of late. Keller writes: "It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. . . . The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly."


The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry. (A bit more on this topic can be found here.)


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference President Bush Responds to the New York Times:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Bush slams leak of terror finance story

» Joust The Facts linked with It's Always Been A Matter Of Trust

Comments (61)

Still no specifics about ho... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Still no specifics about how it harmed the program!

Oh well, what do you expect from Bush besides more partisan rhetoric....

Anti-American liberalism ca... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Anti-American liberalism can be easily dismissed when it is a few peaceniks with nonsensical protest slogans, but it is time to awaken when their actions so blatently risk their fellow countrymen. "Freedom of the press" does not offer immunity from crimes.

Any mention of the LA Times... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Any mention of the LA Times or the Wall St. Journal? Should they be prosectued as well?

Should freedom of the press be in our Constitution?

If you yell "Fire" in a cro... (Below threshold)
chsw:

If you yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, you will be prosecuted for the potential danger to which you have subjected others. However, if you are the NYT, there apparently is no penalty for the potential danger to which you have subjected others. Whatever precedents may apply to penalize the NYT's conduct should be pursued. If there are none, new theories of criminality should be considered.

chsw

And I'm sure the liberals w... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

And I'm sure the liberals will say, no harm, no foul!

They will never get it, they will never understand, because they don't want to.

On Sept. 20, 2001, President Bush said that this would be a different kind of war, fought in the shadows. Well, until the New York Slimes blabbed, this program was in the shadows, and--even as the Slimes admitted--doing its job.

There was NO REASON to publish this story.

If Hillary were president, and she had this program in place to catch terrorists, I would not want to know about it, nor would I need to know about it.

The moonbats don't give a sh!t. Hey, as long as it tears down Bush another notch, it's A-OK in their books.

Too bad for the libs that the soldiers in the field don;t think that way.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014515.php

"However, if you are the... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"However, if you are the NYT, there apparently is no penalty for the potential danger to which you have subjected others"

What danger, chsw?

chsw,The Espionage A... (Below threshold)
McCain:

chsw,
The Espionage Act of 1917 gives government the authority to prosecute newspapers for divulging national security secrets. It was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court although a related Sedition Act was thrown out. A couple of editors of soclalist newspapers went to prison for violating it, socialist editors like those currently at the New York Times. The prosecution of those editors occurred during a time of war.

The New York Times defense ... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

The New York Times defense that the Treasury Department has been trumpeting exactly what it does and its successes in aggressively folwing the money trail of the terrorists' through its own press releases from its web site(Office of terrorism and financial intelligence US Department of the Treasury) seems as detailed at first blush at the 'treasonous' Times article.

jp2,I think <a hre... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

jp2,

I think Glenn Reynolds explains away your idea of what freedom of the press actually means quite nicely.

And as far as the LA times and WSJ, yes, the DOJ should go after each and every reporter who wrote about this and find out who their sources were. Maybe not prosecute the paper, but go after the reporters and the sources.

The revelation of this program puts us out much more than the revelation of a so-called undercover operative of the CIA did. And look how the left went bat-sh*t crazy about that! Why the difference in reactions? Could it be that both are perceived to hurt Bush and the left is only interested in making him look bad, even if that is at the expense of our national security?

Bush looks pissed in... (Below threshold)
Lizzie:

Bush looks pissed in that video. I hope that means the leakers will actually be punished.

"E.D. Hill made a simila... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"E.D. Hill made a similar argument this morning on Fox and Friends. She argued that if the NY Times of today had existed in the days of WWII and received leaked information about the Normandy invasion, the Times would have published it under the guise that it was in the public interest to inform the American people of an invasion that was expected to cost so many of our servicemen's lives.

More partisan rhetoric, but no specifics. I guess if the President can't cite specifics, you can't expect his supporters to do anything more than spout grandstanding BS, instead of thoughtful examples and discussion.

E.D. Hill's comment shows the american people just how far these desperate republicans will go to in order to try to hold onto power.

One can hope that perhaps s... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

One can hope that perhaps several people will end up with terms in the big house as examples of what it means to violate the law. Starting with the reporters and editors at the NYT who seem so cavalier about disseminating secret information.

Still no specifics about... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Still no specifics about how it harmed the program!

I'll try and make it easy for you:

IT REVEALED HOW THE PROGRAM WORKED AND HOW IT TRACKED THE MONEY.

You have to have some serious head trauma to have NO clue how it could have caused a problem.
-=Mike

Nice puffy clouds Mike, but... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Nice puffy clouds Mike, but nothing I read has revealed anything more than the existence of the program. Can you provide a link to anything the Times has published that gives details of how the program worked? Or just a quote a sentence or two.... that should be simple enough, right?

You see, it'll take "specifics" to take this into court and prosecute, so what better time then now to start looking at the specifics?

Mike, what Lee is doing is ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Mike, what Lee is doing is typical of liberals' irresponsibility for their actions. Unless you prove directly that they literally kill someone with their words, which is never possible, they think they are free to do anything that they want. Just like teenagers.

Lee, your unwillingness to ... (Below threshold)
McCain:

Lee, your unwillingness to read the article itself while perfectly willing to comment upon it says something rather peculiar about yourself. Read it. It is very specific.

Nice puffy clouds Mike, ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Nice puffy clouds Mike, but nothing I read has revealed anything more than the existence of the program. Can you provide a link to anything the Times has published that gives details of how the program worked?

Hmm, the whole "TRACKING THE MONEY THROUGH THE SWIFT SYSTEM" is pretty clear-cut. I'm not sure if The Wiggles have produced a sing-a-long about this, so I'm not sure what I could post that you'd be able to grasp.

I know, the Times is tough to read --- but you can at least PRETEND to know what you're talking about.

You see, it'll take "specifics" to take this into court and prosecute, so what better time then now to start looking at the specifics?

Seeing as how ALL the gov't has to prove is that they printed classified material --- which they freely admit they did --- you might want to stop trying to play lawyer, K?
-=Mike

ED actually used the wrong ... (Below threshold)
Tim McDonald:

ED actually used the wrong metaphor. If the London Times had revealed that Winston Churchill had known in advance about the Conventry bombings, but did nothing in order not to compromise the breaking of the German codes, that would have been equivalent. They knew, but never published.

Or if the NYT had revealed that that dastardly Roosevelt had used MAGIC information to cowardly assassinate Yamamoto, that would have been equivalent.

This is the result you get when the editors and publishers see no difference between us and them. After all, the USA is no better than the Taliban in their fevered imaginations.

Folks, you're wasting your ... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Folks, you're wasting your time. Somebody told Lee that it was cute to play "devil's advocate" when he was little. He injects his obnoxious "brilliance" into nearly every thread as if his opinion is the only one that matters, and never concedes anything -- he's always right, and you're always stupid and pathetic. Bow before his superior intellect now, won't you?

You'll make more progress knocking down a stone wall with your forehead than to try to reason with him. And a stone wall, at least, won't fricking twinkle at you while you do it.

Obnoxious twit.

I'll keep checking back for... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I'll keep checking back for something more than vague references to something that you apparently can't quote or link to fellas. Feel free to engage in meaningful debate if and when the mood strikes you, or you can just continue to throw stones if you wish.

Bush couldn't cite specifics as to how this has damaged the effectiveness of the program, so it's no suprise you guys can't either.

Lee, what is life like with... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Lee, what is life like without any ability to think?

Lee, circa 1944: Sure, I told the Nazis where and on what date the invasion of Normandy would begin. So, how, exactly, does this hurt the invasion?

Eisenhower: You mean besides the whole "they know exactly where and when it'll happen" thing?

Lee: I want specifics. What, SPECIFICALLY is the problem?
-=Mike

Still no specifics about... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Still no specifics about how it harmed the program!

Geezus H. Christmas, how is splashing the news of how we track terrorists' transactions and the people who help finance them all over the front pages of two major newspapers NOT doing harm to a covert program!? The program is completely compromised; terrorists and their financiers, who now know how--maybe not with step-by-step instructions--to circumnavigate our tracking and tracing efforts. They will now make concerted efforts to do so.

Here are some "specifics", according to the Times:

Hambali, the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombings was captured through the program.

A Brooklyn man who financed and laundered $200K through a Karachi bank was tracked.

And, according to the WSJ, the London subway bombings were investigating via SWIFT.

And this doesn't compromise the program in your eyes? Maybe YOU need to explain how it doesn't--and that should be good for a few laughs.

got my haircut today, this... (Below threshold)
Vero:

got my haircut today, this was the one and only subject folks there was wanting Keller and any other NYT employee involved,taken out in the streets and shot. I didn't agree with that statement, but I would like to see him in prison. This has pissed off so many people that they angry- I have never seen so many people this angry.

Should the day ever come wh... (Below threshold)
jerry:

Should the day ever come when some Islamist pieces of shit blow up the NYT's HQ, I would shed no tears for that would be poetic justice. That day, of course, will never come because the NYT and international terrorists are allies in the war against G.W. Bush and this country.

"Bush couldn't cite specifi... (Below threshold)
lowmal:

"Bush couldn't cite specifics as to how this has damaged the effectiveness of the program, so it's no suprise you guys can't either."

Why the hell would the President site specifics of a classified program to prove it's worth if he believes the leaking of said classified program was wrong?

How about this:

Name ONE fucking innocent person who's "civil liberties" have been damaged by this program..

Name ONE fucking innocent person who's "civil liberties" have been violated by the NSA terrorist wire tapping program..

Name ONE fucking innocent person that has been wronged due to the provision contained within the Patriot Act that allows someone's library records to be examined..

And don't give me some farcical bullshit from one of your leftist sewer sites..

It's just like the fear-mongering tactics used during the 2004 election.. If Bush is elected, the DRAFT will come back..

What a crock of shit..

You people are nothing more than shallow, rabid liberal dogs.. You sneer, froth, bark and bite at ANYTHING the Bush administation does, even if it is good for you..

Tell me Lee, what in God's name do you suggest we do to protect ourselves from these animal, islamo-pigs?? How do YOU propose we find information??

We can't track their phone calls, e-mails, financial transactions....

What do we do?? None of your liberal, democrat bretheren has proposed ANY tools to deal with this plague of scum we are confronting..

Should we invite them for tea and crimpets??

You all just bitch delusional about some god damn conspiratorial shroud concerning EVERYTHING our government is doing to protect us..

You are pathetic..

All you do is trumpet bullshit rhetoric from your liberal rags..

Moo, my friend, because you have outed yourself as cattle..


Here are some... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Here are some "specifics", according to the Times:

Hambali, the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombings was captured through the program.

A Brooklyn man who financed and laundered $200K through a Karachi bank was tracked.

And, according to the WSJ, the London subway bombings were investigating via SWIFT.

And this doesn't compromise the program in your eyes? Maybe YOU need to explain how it doesn't--and that should be good for a few laughs.

The fact that were tracing money transfers was already public knowledge.

From the Times article:

The Bush administration has made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts.

Nothing you cited demonstrates the program has been compromised, because the fact that bad guys were being tracked through covert means was already public information.

Bush should be pissed.... (Below threshold)
audrey:

Bush should be pissed.

Lee, don't you have a job or something to keep you occupied???.... how can you spend all day lurking here?

And here's the ironic part:... (Below threshold)
John S:

And here's the ironic part: Times editors will be among the first to die when Al Qaeda lights off an Iranian nuke in mid-town Manhattan.

More partisan rhetoric, ... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

More partisan rhetoric, but no specifics.

Just wait a couple more days. I am sure the Times will be publishing something of our next secret program.

And here's the ironic pa... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

And here's the ironic part: Times editors will be among the first to die when Al Qaeda lights off an Iranian nuke in mid-town Manhattan.

And they'll bitch about someone not connecting the dots....

Nothing you cited demons... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Nothing you cited demonstrates the program has been compromised, because the fact that bad guys were being tracked through covert means was already public information.

That doesn't tell them who they did it, but this was a big help.

Lee, you are amazing. Specifics? How about the names of all the agents and bankers involved so they can be killed? Maybe it'll just be the children who get killed. How about the code for the entire program, Lee? How about the times of day that they search?

How imbecilic can one be?

For the record, Wizbang is ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

For the record, Wizbang is the only political blog/site I read.

Tell me Lee, what in God's name do you suggest we do to protect ourselves from these animal, islamo-pigs?? How do YOU propose we find information??

We can't track their phone calls, e-mails, financial transactions....

We can't? We are, clown, or don't you read the New York Times, etc. We ARE doing that, just doing it in secret. Now that I know Bush is listening in on my phone calls to my grandmother, where I tell her that the cookies she sent are delicious, I feel much safer - don't you?

I haven't said the SWIFT program isn't an effective means to combat terror. What I've said is that NY Times did nothing wrong by publicizing its existence.

If the SWIFT/Banking records program has been rendered ineffective by the publication by the NYT, as many of you suggest, do you think Cheney will shut it down? I don't -- because its effectiveness is unchanged.

One of the ways Republican apologists try to discredit critics is by suggesting that the critics are somehow un-american, or that they are against our war on terror. Bullfeathers.

We can't? We are, clown,... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

We can't? We are, clown, or don't you read the New York Times, etc. We ARE doing that, just doing it in secret.

Not any more. Thanks to the NY Times.

One of the ways Republican apologists try to discredit critics is by suggesting that the critics are somehow un-american, or that they are against our war on terror. Bullfeathers.

They clearly are.

Hmm, the Times thinks revealing the name of an "agent" whose identity was already common knowledge was worthy of a special prosecutor --- but this? Nah, this isn't vital.

Come on, Plame-ites, defend NOT prosecuting this.
-=Mike

They clearly are.</p... (Below threshold)
Lee:

They clearly are.

One of Mike's more convincing arguments....

Now that I know Bush is ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Now that I know Bush is listening in on my phone calls to my grandmother, where I tell her that the cookies she sent are delicious, I feel much safer - don't you?

Oh give us a goddamn break on this BS. Unless Gramma is in cahoots with AQ she (and you) don't have a damn thing to worry about and you know it. Talk about hyperbolic fear-mongering.

What I've said is that NY Times did nothing wrong by publicizing its existence.

It's all in a matter "public interest", right? Great, so the Times gets to determine--oh so arbitrarily--what is in MY best interest? Well, f*** that. I consider what they've done to be OUT of my best interest. And while it may have been a matter of some public record--as congressional leaders and the 9/11 commission were made aware of this program's existence--it's a completely another matter to splash it across the front page in detail where every Tom, Dick and jihadist from here to Tehran can get the details of how we're tracing their transactions!

Again, the bad guys may know we're tracing them, but they didn't really know how. Well, not until last Friday. Not compromised? BS. Prove that it's not.

I think the press is still ... (Below threshold)

I think the press is still pissed at being used to mislead the arab world into thinking we'd do a beach invasion of kuwait, when instead we crawled over the desert through saudi arabia in the first gulf war. Maybe that's what we need to do, start misleading and "leaking" [false] information some more.

"We can't? We are, clown, o... (Below threshold)
lowmal:

"We can't? We are, clown, or don't you read the New York Times, etc. We ARE doing that, just doing it in secret. Now that I know Bush is listening in on my phone calls to my grandmother, where I tell her that the cookies she sent are delicious, I feel much safer - don't you?

I haven't said the SWIFT program isn't an effective means to combat terror. What I've said is that NY Times did nothing wrong by publicizing its existence.

If the SWIFT/Banking records program has been rendered ineffective by the publication by the NYT, as many of you suggest, do you think Cheney will shut it down? I don't -- because its effectiveness is unchanged.

One of the ways Republican apologists try to discredit critics is by suggesting that the critics are somehow un-american, or that they are against our war on terror. Bullfeathers"
------------------------------------------------------------


I was trying to figure out which part of your "retort" to qoute, and than rebut, however, none of it has any reasonable merit..

"We can't? We are, clown, or don't you read the New York Times, etc."

No, I don't, Einstein, (squirts fake flower lapel in your cock-eye), precisely because of the dangerous, shallow propaganda it belches up daily, which you swallow as tasty liberal gospel..

Your delusional mindset renders you incapable of discerning reasonable debate from a pissing contest..

Despite all of the bluster contained in your response, you did not provide ANY factually-based arguments to any of my simple questions..

I'll ask again, a SECOND time:

"Tell me Lee, what in God's name do you suggest we do to protect ourselves from these animal, islamo-pigs?? How do YOU propose we find information??"

This is a dirty business, Lee.. If you can't run with the big dogs, don't try to bark..

"One of the ways Republican apologists try to discredit critics is by suggesting that the critics are somehow un-american, or that they are against our war on terror. Bullfeathers."

Nice strawman, dipshit..

I never insinuated any such thing in my post..

Wish I did..

The NYT committed no surpri... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

The NYT committed no surprises here...they do what they do. As far as I am concerned:
1) The leaker is the primary culpable party here.
2) Classified information is just that and to make it public without proper authorization is subject to prosecution of the leaker.
3) The President alone has the executive privilege to choose to have leaked whatever classified information he wishes by declassifying it with his signature.
4) The reporter is an American citizen first and a member of the press second. Therefore, the reporter understands that if an authorized investigation requires it, he/she is obligated to reveal the sources under penalty of prosecution for obstruction of justice or contempt of court or whatever.

Please do not interpret my feelings as being friendly to the NYT but I have grown weary of us expecting the Times to behave otherwise and taking the focus away from the disaffected within the administration who feel privileged to disseminate this information beyond the normal grievance channels.

(I posted another comment s... (Below threshold)
F15C:

(I posted another comment similar to this that appears to have been eaten by a spam filter due to a link to SWIFT I included - I apologize to everyone but Lee for the duplicate...)

Lee: "I haven't said the SWIFT program isn't an effective means to combat terror. What I've said is that NY Times did nothing wrong by publicizing its existence."

The program is classifed at least to a level of secret. Disclosing secret information to the enemy is illegal.

SWIFT is a financial co-op that allows easy transfers of large sums of money - for a fee. It is used voluntarily so firms can decide not to use it.

If SWIFT stops working with the Treasury Department, then SWIFT becomes completely safe and secure for transfer of large sums of money for terrorists and their supporters. That will aid terror organizations and the New York Times is well aware of that fact - yet they published anyway.

"If SWIFT stops working ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"If SWIFT stops working with the Treasury Department, then SWIFT becomes completely safe and secure for transfer of large sums of money for terrorists and their supporters. That will aid terror organizations and the New York Times is well aware of that fact - yet they published anyway."

Yes, and if my car breaks down it will be difficult to get to the grocery store tonight.

Or are you suggesting by implication, without any factual information to back it up, that now SWIFT will stop working with Cheney and company?

If that happens, could it be because the governments of the people on whom we were spying weren't aware that we were spying on their citizenry?

Well, that a policy problem F15C. Take it up with the White House. It would be a shame if our national security efforts were compromised by the choice made by Bush and Cheney to secretly spy on our allies - what a terrible blunder in foreign policy that would be.... I would have thought they'd have cleared this with our allies! How stupid can they get? Surely our allies would have cooperated. You mean none of allies were informed? That's absurd!

You see folks, it isn't that the Times published secret information such as details on who has been nabbed and the like that's the problem. F15C is suggesting that this was a secret to the very countries who we count as allies -- and it's that blunder that will cook this program.

Even if Bush "classifies as secret" his foreign policy blunders like that, NTY did the right thing.

Lee, if someone published y... (Below threshold)
epador:

Lee, if someone published your home address, the route you take to work each day (assuming you work somewhere), the times of day you traveled, your mode of transportation, and what kind of locks you have on your doors, I guess we'd have to wait until something bad happened to you and prove it was because the information was published before you could say it was wrong?

epador,The NYT did... (Below threshold)
Lee:

epador,

The NYT didn't publish the information without first talking, at length, with the White House.

the choice made by... (Below threshold)
the choice made by Bush and Cheney to secretly spy on our allies
Perhaps you consider terrorists to be your allies, but I don't. Read the article. (But you won't, so here's the pertinent quote):
The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda
So, if I talk to you and ig... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

So, if I talk to you and ignore your request for privacy, you'd support me printing it?

After all, the people have a right to know.
-=Mike

I was trying to figure o... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I was trying to figure out which part of your "retort" to qoute, and than rebut, however, none of it has any reasonable merit.

I stopped reading there. If the rest of your comment had anything you want to discuss with me, feel free to repost your comment without the insult first.

The program i... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The program is limited, government officials say, to tracing transactions of people suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda

Were that the case why would there be any reason to spy secretly? Why not tell Spain, for example, that we are tapping into the transactions of Juan Tu Killmericans, a suspected AQ operative?

Smells fishy to me. Good thing we got this out in the open, I bet our allies have lots of questions for Cheney. No wonder Bush wanted to keep this a secret.

I really want some of what you guys are smoking, because your hallucinations are really vivid, and almost lifelike.

Were that the case why w... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Were that the case why would there be any reason to spy secretly? Why not tell Spain, for example, that we are tapping into the transactions of Juan Tu Killmericans, a suspected AQ operative?

The Spanish gov't HARDLY supports the war and there were fears of leaking.

Smells fishy to me. Good thing we got this out in the open, I bet our allies have lots of questions for Cheney. No wonder Bush wanted to keep this a secret.

Personally, I OPPOSE things that can lead to American deaths.

But that's just me.
-=Mike

Lee, I hope that you're jus... (Below threshold)

Lee, I hope that you're just being disingenuous and that you aren't honestly asking these naive, ridiculous questions in any sincere way. I mean that.

Why would there be any reason to spy secretly? Because spying is to publicly what leftist is to patriotism. Hope that clears it up for you.

Do you think Spain's administration, given their reaction to the bombings that changed the outcome of their election, should be entrusted with our classified national security programs? Can you envision a scenario where they might use that info to help themselves in some way, maybe get a hostage released with it or just get al Queda off their back a while? Is that at all possible in your universe? How about the concept that info on a classified program should be shared with the absolute minimum number of people who absolutely *have* to know it in order to implement it? Check adj. #8, here. Although I guess to you that's just a n. #2.

I'm frankly embarrassed to have to explain this to a grown person. That's why I'd rather believe that you're disingenuous, and accordingly speak to you in this sarcastic manner.

We weren't spying on a country (although we DO spy on our allies, and they spy on us, and there's nothing wrong with that), we were investigating potential terrorists, and no notice was owed to those countries.

And you wonder what *we're* smoking.

Lee. You really excel at sp... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Lee. You really excel at speaking stupid to truth.

And, as usual, you invented something I didn't say, and that is not true, then took off on one of your patent-pending LeeSpew's about allied governments not knowing what we were doing in the grocery store... Or something like that.

"Were that the case why would there be any reason to spy secretly? Why not tell Spain, for example, that we are tapping into the transactions of Juan Tu Killmericans, a suspected AQ operative?"

Gawd you are entertaining. In the same way sh*t-flinging monkeys are entertaining. Actually, that's an insult to sh*t-flinging monkeys.

"Smells fishy to me."

Brushing your teeth will fix that.

And you've still failed to acknowledge that you were dead wrong when you wrote that there was nothing wrong with the NYT breaching national security. Geez, even Jack Murtha tried to talk them out of printing the story.

You truly seem to be psychologically incapable of having a reasoned discussion and have never added an iota of value to anything in your Wizbang life. But, at least you have a modicum of entertainment value. That's something.

Yeah, that and His good jud... (Below threshold)
914:

Yeah, that and His good judgement is just the kind of thinking Al Quaeda absorbs.

"Lee, I hope that you're... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Lee, I hope that you're just being disingenuous and that you aren't honestly asking these naive, ridiculous questions in any sincere way. I mean that."

Gee, thanks Laura, Ive always admired your sincerity.

"Why would there be any reason to spy secretly? Because spying is to publicly what leftist is to patriotism. Hope that clears it up for you."

Laura, I've seen the light. You've done such a wonderful job of clearing that up for me....

"Do you think Spain's administration, given their reaction to the bombings that changed the outcome of their election, should be entrusted with our classified national security programs? Can you envision a scenario where they might use that info to help themselves in some way, maybe get a hostage released with it or just get al Queda off their back a while? Is that at all possible in your universe? How about the concept that info on a classified program should be shared with the absolute minimum number of people who absolutely *have* to know it in order to implement it? Check adj. #8, here. Although I guess to you that's just a n. #2."

Roger that, Laura, and a big 10-4. Are you in personal contact with Jack Bauer, by any chance?

"I'm frankly embarrassed to have to explain this to a grown person. That's why I'd rather believe that you're disingenuous, and accordingly speak to you in this sarcastic manner."

Laura, I so sorry for your embarassment, and thank you for sharing what you truly believe because, as you know, your opinion is very important to me.

"We weren't spying on a country (although we DO spy on our allies, and they spy on us, and there's nothing wrong with that), we were investigating potential terrorists, and no notice was owed to those countries."

Really? Well, in the coming weeks I suspect we'll see what those other countries have to say about that. Hopefully they will read your well thought out comment, and if they do - well we both know that they will see the logic and clear-minded thoughts you've written, and not feel as if they don't have to cooperate with the United States on terorists matters in the future -- but hey, we don't give flying fuck what those other countries think anyway!

Wow, I feel more Republican already! Thanks Laura!!!

Oh, OK Lee, then if someone... (Below threshold)

Oh, OK Lee, then if someone talks extensively to you about releasing all this information, and then decides to do so against your objections, until something bad happens to you its OK?

epador - If nothing bad hap... (Below threshold)
Lee:

epador - If nothing bad happens to me my argument that what they did was harmful to me is merely republican rhetoric designed to get my sorry *ss poll numbers up from the basement.

You have reached End of Thr... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

You have reached End of Thread.

Nothing more to see here, folks. Move along, and mind the Troll Crap.

Excellent response by Treas... (Below threshold)
Jason McClain:

Excellent response by Treasury Secretary Snow to Keller over at The Corner

Hey stupid unbathed LEE, ... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Hey stupid unbathed LEE,

"Still no specifics about how it harmed the program"!

Just like you and the traitor democrats being oblivious to the near 3 millon slaughtered for killing the funding and failing to leave the South Vietnamese with the essential means to at least be able to defend itself , put up a fight rather that just being outright ran over and slaughtered.

How about those specifics asshole? Where's the LSM , Red Cross and Amnesty Internationals response to the guaranteed disaster and human suffering should the democrat cowards pull another Cut n Run like Vietnam all in the name of scoring political points in attempts to smear a President in a time of war who has accomplished more than the incompetant and corrupt democrats can even lie and dream about.

This is like the democrat adult leadership giving a kid a bucket of ping pong balls to toss in the little bowl to win them a goldfish at the local carnival. They can't even to that themselves but will take all the credit for it. Liars and Losers, that is all they are good at.

What gives the US the wrigh... (Below threshold)
AUSSIE:

What gives the US the wright to look into the accounts of people from other country's. Your not the world Police and definitely not the POLICE in AUSTRALIA. Look after your own backyard.

We ARE looking after our ow... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

We ARE looking after our own back yard, pal, by tracking down the money trail of the bastards who want to harm us--and YOU. I guess you haven't been paying attention, because this program caught the one of the chief bastards responsible for the Bali bombing. You know, the one that killed a bunch of your fellow Aussies.

Oops.

Aussie,The correct... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Aussie,

The correct response from you about this program should be "thanks."

This is like ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

This is like the democrat adult leadership giving a kid a bucket of ping pong balls to toss in the little bowl to win them a goldfish at the local carnival. They can't even to that themselves but will take all the credit for it.


Thanks for your contribution Rob. Enlightening, as usual.

What gives the US the wr... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

What gives the US the wright to look into the accounts of people from other country's. Your not the world Police and definitely not the POLICE in AUSTRALIA. Look after your own backyard.

It's how they caught the guy who blew up all those Aussie's. I am assuming you care.




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