« Sometimes the crime is its own punishment... | Main | The LA Times' McManus and Baquet Need to Get Their Stories Straight »

How quickly they forget...

Rob over at Say Anything has an amazing discovery. Well, I shouldn't have been amazed, but I was. You'd think I'd know better now.

The full text of the editorial in question can be found here.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How quickly they forget...:

» Don Surber linked with Not every newspaper has lost its mind

Comments (25)

I note these two sentences:... (Below threshold)
pennywit:

I note these two sentences:

The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold hearings this week on a bill providing for such measures. It should be approved and signed into law by President Bush.

Unfortunately, the current program appears to have been implemented unilaterally, without congressional approval.

--|PW|--

...and, unfortunately for t... (Below threshold)

...and, unfortunately for the Times, it didn't need Congressional approval.

The program is (by pretty much everyone's admission, including the Times) legal, and had plenty of oversight along the way (including by members of Congress).

So we have a legal, effective counter-terror operation that was outed by someone who can't come up with any really good reasons for telling everyone about it, other than "we felt like it."

As one far-left whacko gadf... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

As one far-left whacko gadfly here loves to say, flip-flop!

The president asked them not to run this story.

Members of Congress asked them not to run this story.

The Secretary of the Treasury asked them not to run this story.

The co-chairs of the bi-partisan 9/11 commission asked them not to run this story.

The New York Slimes even admitted that the program has done what it was supposed to do and there was nothing illegal about it.

There was only one reason to run this story: to take a swipe at Bush.

Absolutely disgusting, and their lame exuses for running it are insulting and offensive. Boycot the Slimes, revoke their press credentials and prosecute the bastards who leaked the info to them.

Sorry, but I'm going to go ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Sorry, but I'm going to go wild here and actually post the text of what the NYT said - after all, you guys pretending they said something different is about the only way the right can get anywhere these days (look! We found Saddam's WMDs!!!), lol.

Here is the third sentence from the NYT editorial in question.

Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists. The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists.

Three specific suggestions. How many were followed? None. Bush and Cheney run amok amid secrecy, and without the cooperation of their allies or Congress, and end up with a program that inside officials say was faulty.

Once again, the White House failed.

Hurrah for the NYT for exposing their incompetence again.

Hey Lee,You're a s... (Below threshold)
Brad:

Hey Lee,

You're a smug stupid asshole. Here's your fucking EO, dickface...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-1.html

And the new laws are easy to find, too. The one that was working well and legal was just exposed by shitheads like you. Go fuck yourself.

It could be caffeine withdr... (Below threshold)

It could be caffeine withdrawl, but trying to make logical connections between information as presented in Lee's post is making my head hurt.

I stand corrected on the Ex... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I stand corrected on the Executive Order, and in fact the NYT editorial says that it (EO) was already being prepared.

But Brad couldn't stop there - his Tourette's was in full bloom.

And the new laws are easy to find, too. The one that was working well and legal was just exposed by shitheads like you. Go fuck yourself.

So there was a law connected with the program revealed by the NTY story? Naw - now you're just playing with yourself Brad. Cheney was running this in total secrecy, and while some emmbers of Congress had been briefed, there weren't any open laws relating to the Swift program. You lied.

OW OW OWPlease Lee... (Below threshold)

OW OW OW

Please Lee, please make some logical connections in your sentences.

OW OW....

[head bursts]

Lee:Everybody invo... (Below threshold)

Lee:

Everybody involved - and that includes the New York Times - has admitted that the program was legal and had more than sufficient oversight. It was being run well, without any noticeable abuse.

It needed to be kept secret (or at least low profile) to work correctly.

So the NYT had a big story on it.

That's what you're defending.

and end up with a progra... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

and end up with a program that inside officials say was faulty.

Since you put the inside officials in bold, I'm sure there is a link referencing that allegation. I know you wouldn't just drop that nugget without something to back it up except your deranged anti-Bush theories. Right Lee?

I mean, we're all here to learn from your infinite wisdom, since you seem to know everything.

Man Lee Your unbelieveable?... (Below threshold)
914:

Man Lee Your unbelieveable? Cheney was running this program in secret? then which member of Congress leaked to the Times? hmmmn.

Lee, are you a token lefty ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf:

Lee, are you a token lefty given to us to demonstrate the utter stupidity of those who share your opinion are? I hope so, because you cannot be serious. Lee, you cannot, without penalty, yell fire in a theater, without there being a fire, and in time of war, which whether you agree with it or nor, we are in, you cannot give information to the enemy without jeopardy. Bill Keller committed treason. In time of war he aided the enemy. There is no justification for that. Though you will try.

J.R. - read the NYT article... (Below threshold)
Lee:

J.R. - read the NYT article moron. It's what we've been discussing for the last day and half! Inside officials, inimtelay familiar witht eh program, expressed grave concerns.

914: Yes it was a classified secret, remember? lol!

Zelsdorf: I don't have to try. All of this talk about prosecuting is nothing more than right wing puffery. It's designed to make ill-informed citizens, like J.R. and 914, outraged enough to remember to vote this november.

I am fascinated by the fact... (Below threshold)
Bostonian:

I am fascinated by the fact that not a single apologist for the NYT has been able to admit that this country does have laws against revealing classified information.

We're not just making this up as we go along. We elect people, who write laws. Those people wrote laws against revealing classified information. Now do we enforce those laws or not?

Lee, oh intellectually supe... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Lee, oh intellectually superior one, which is it grave concerns or faulty? I kind of figured based on your prior posts that you were stretching the truth to fit your argument. The grave concerns elaborated upon in the NYT article, were officials concerned about the legality of the program because it had been going on for so long, not about its effectiveness which is was I thought you were referring to.

I wasn't referring to its e... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I wasn't referring to its effectiveness J.R. I've stated that I support the program and it's successes but, hearing that officials within the program and intimately familiar with the program have expressed grave concerns regarding the safeguards and potential for abuse, I supported the NYTs decision to bring these concerns to light.

Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

Albeit illegal in this case... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Albeit illegal in this case and helpful to the terrorists this program is intended to capture.

So they are concerned with the potential for abuse. The potential. That means it has not been abused in the 5 years it has been in use and for some reason the Times and others choose now to expose this classified program against the wishes of the President. And you find no problem with that.

And you call me ill-informed.

"Sunlight is a great disinf... (Below threshold)

"Sunlight is a great disinfectant."

...and can burn you when you don't need it.

I wasn't referring to it... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

I wasn't referring to its effectiveness J.R. I've stated that I support the program and it's successes but, hearing that officials within the program and intimately familiar with the program have expressed grave concerns regarding the safeguards and potential for abuse

And clarify something for me informed one. So, are you saying that you supported the program's effectiveness until you read page 2 of the NYT article?? I mean that's where the grave concerns (well reservations, I don't believe the word grave is ever mentioned, nice exaggeration though) are first listed right?

Wow, you must have approved of it for all of a minute or so!!

I referred to my approval o... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I referred to my approval of the program. Still do. I was well aware that the adminstration was tracing money of suspcted AQ ops. Bravo! Good show.

I also also approve of the NYT article. I suspect that this scrutiny will result in tighter safeguards.

It's too bad that these better safeguards and oversight, which some insiders say are badly needed, weren't imposed at the onset of the program. Then the NYTs wouldn't have had a story. Too bad the adminstration didn't do it right the first time.

No, Lee, the NYT itself adm... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

No, Lee, the NYT itself admitted that the safeguards already in place were effective. That clearly did not stop them from running it, so noting was going to. They were going to run it no matter what. They've made that very clear.

So stop being two-faced. You really hate it. You hate that we had something that was working, and you are glad it was exposed. "Better safeguards" are immaterial because the program is now dead. The NYT killed it. And you've made it clear that you are very happy about it.

I'm not questioning your patriotism. I'm dissing it. You are a terrorist sympathizer. You very clearly hate America and you want to see us defeated. And you support anything that leads to that, no matter who gets killed because of it.

But you support the troops, right?

Cousin dave - Since you've ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Cousin dave - Since you've got me all figured out why are you asking me any questions? Whatever I say will be corrected by you, so answer it yourself.

This is a recurring theme, ... (Below threshold)
jp:

This is a recurring theme, they defended Clintons Echelon program which is more invasive and than the terrorist survelliance program...absolutely amazing

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5150

http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html
"Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers and terrorists...."

Curious, why are you arguin... (Below threshold)
Pothus:

Curious, why are you arguing with Lee when you know he's just another mouthpiece for Kos? Sheesh don't you people learn? Anything good for the country is BAD if done by Bush! Because they say so.

One other possibility - the... (Below threshold)

One other possibility - the NYTimes doesn't think that the West will be able to win against Islamofacism. So they're positioning themselves accordingly.

After all, why wait until late in the game to prove allegiance to their new masters?

J.




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