« GOP Reacts to Disclosure of Secret Terror Finance Operation | Main | Immigration roundup »

The Terrorist Finance Tracking Program is Over

Byron York writes in National Review that Tom Kean, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, fears that the terrorist finance tracking program, which was very effective and completely legal, is over:

Thomas Kean, the co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, was briefed several weeks ago about the Treasury Department's terrorist-finance program, and after the session, Kean says, "I came away with the idea that this was a good program, one that was legal, one that was not violating anybody's civil liberties...and something the U.S. government should be doing to make us safer."


Kean tells National Review Online that the New York Times's decision to expose the terrorist finance effort -- Kean called Times executive editor Bill Keller in an attempt to persuade him not to publish -- has done terrible damage to the program. "I think it's over," Kean says. "Terrorists read the newspapers. Once the program became known, then obviously the terrorists were not going to use these methods any more."

There are a variety of ways to transport or transfer money; electronic transfers are just one means of doing it. Now the terrorists will find other ways to make their financial transactions, which will make it more difficult for us to track them.

The exposure of the terrorist-finance program was particularly troubling to Kean because the 9/11 Commission had given high marks to the administration's efforts in the area of terrorist financing...the only area in which the administration scored an "A" -- actually an "A-" -- was in its efforts on terrorist financing. "The U.S. has won the support of key countries in tackling terrorism finance," the commissioners wrote, "though there is still much to do in the Gulf States and in South Asia. The government has made significant strides in using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool."


Now, a major part of that effort appears to have been compromised. "That's the way it is in this war," says Kean. "There are a number of programs we are using to try to disrupt terrorist activities, and you never know which one is going to be successful. We knew that this one already had been."

Not anymore, thanks to the New York Times and other media outlets.

Let's not forget that shortly after 9/11 the editors of the New York Times demanded that the Bush Administration follow the terrorists' financial records as one method of fighting terror:

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. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies....If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.

Isn't interesting that the New York Times killed the very program it demanded President Bush create. And how will the Times react if the US were to be hit by terrorists again? How else - by blaming the Bush Administration for failing to prevent the attack.


Comments (176)

Chalk up another win for th... (Below threshold)
ted:

Chalk up another win for the Democrats.

And the terrorists!<... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

And the terrorists!

"F**k em'."... (Below threshold)

"F**k em'."

Before you shut down the pr... (Below threshold)

Before you shut down the program, perhaps some of the large paper syndicates deserve a little SWIFT scrutiny as well?

I'm waiting for our liberal... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

I'm waiting for our liberal geniuses to show up and lecture us on how there was no harm done here.

Big mo, liberals will have ... (Below threshold)
ted:

Big mo, liberals will have no problem, no harm was done to the terrorists.

There are a v... (Below threshold)
Lee:

There are a variety of ways to transport or transfer money; electronic transfers are just one means of doing it. Now the terrorists will find other ways to make their financial transactions, which will make it more difficult for us to track them.

You mean we weren't already looking at the means other than electronic transfers that terrorists use to move money?

And where is it written that "this will make it more difficult", or was that just more rhetoric from the party behind in the polls?


Lee: What will your respons... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Lee: What will your response be when the same traitorous bastards next divulge the other methods we use to track terriorist money? Is this just a game of "gotcha" for you and your ilk?

Big MoCall for a idi... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf:

Big MoCall for a idiot, and they appear. Thanks Lee, right on time.

The NY Times interpretation... (Below threshold)
JJ:

The NY Times interpretation of the First Admendment is that it is a death warrant for the rest of us. (...or prohibiting...freedom of speech, or of the press...)

"Or was that more rhetor... (Below threshold)
914:

"Or was that more rhetoric from the party behind in the polls"

Lee, you unimaginable dipshit!!

"What will your response... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"What will your response be when the same traitorous bastards next divulge the other methods we use to track terriorist money?"

Hopefully our other programs don't have the shortcomings that this one had, and then the NYT won't feel the need to expose them.

But if there are more programs equally faulty, it wouldn't be surprising to see them revealed by the NYTs, would it? It doesn't take a genuis to figure out that the NYT won't hesitate to reveal other faulty programs.

So now would be the time for the adminstration to clean up their act and address the concerns their critics have over the way we spy. Think they will? Do you think the GOP will call for a bi-partisan commision on "secrecy and privacy concerns" that will solicit and address concerns officials have over the way we spy?

Neither do I. It'll take a wake-up call in this fall's election to get this adminstration and the republican party back on the right track.

I wonder what Gen. William ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

I wonder what Gen. William T. Sherman would think of today's version of the New York Slimes? Back then, Sherman considered reporters to be spies, and treated them as such.

He once remarked that if he killed them all, there would be news from hell before breakfast.

My guess is he'd consider today's Slimes' editors to be no better than the crap that comes out of the rear of his horse.

He'd probably have the same opinion of the Slimes' cheerleaders on this board.

"You mean we weren't alr... (Below threshold)
cmd:

"You mean we weren't already looking at means other than electronic transfers that terrorists use to move money?"

We'd damn well better be, Lee. But unlike your worthless ilk, I have no great desire to be briefed on every last detail so as to render those programs useless.

"And where is it written that 'this will make it more difficult'"

The co-chairman of the September 11 commission - remember, that 'bipartisan' commission you lefties had such a hard-on to establish - says "terrible damage" has been done to the program. Good enough? Or is he just a partisan Bushbot?

"or is that just more rhetoric from the party behind in the polls?"

Polls, schmolls. And there's the difference. Clowns like you worry about polls and getting back in power. We worry about killing terrorists. But hey, don't ever change, ya loveable treasonous lug.

Old Coot: "is this just a game of 'gotcha' for you and your ilk?"

It has been ever since the second tower fell, OC. Slavery, sodomy and sedition - the founding pillars of the Democrat party.

and it doesn't take a "geni... (Below threshold)
Lee:

and it doesn't take a "genius" to mispell "genuis" does it - lol!

Lee doesn't understand the ... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Lee doesn't understand the simple logic that everytime you nullify a tool, you have less tools to work with, and that makes things MORE DIFFICULT.

Thanks to turds like Lee and the NY Times, we'll soon be limited to collecting intelligence by our ambassadors out to ask the terrorists nicely what they're about to do.

Lee, I have been reading yo... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Lee, I have been reading your comments here the past several days regarding this matter. For those out there (and I suspect you are one of them) who feel we should have never gone into Iraq, I feel it is still safe to assume that tracking terrorism can be considered an issue discussed independently of any reference to the Iraq war. If you, yourself, were responsible for monitoring terrorism threats to the USA and it's allies, what measures do YOU feel are constitutionally permissible to effectively do this? Do you feel it can be effectively done in the public domain absent any classified operations of any kind? And when I mean classified operations I mean those that are effective only because they remain classified. I just want to get a sense from you what YOU think is permissible.

My previous post was simply... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

My previous post was simply to determine if Lee had any boundaries or even a tiny amount of common sense. His/her response tells me that he/she does not and I henceforth will ignore the fool, the only way to treat a person that is beneath contempt.

...we'll soon be limited... (Below threshold)
Lee:

...we'll soon be limited to collecting intelligence by our ambassadors out to ask the terrorists nicely what they're about to do.

True, until we get enough democrats in power to do this job correctly.

Democrats are utterly incap... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Democrats are utterly incapable of doing the job at all, much less doing it correctly.

Where was it written that t... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Where was it written that the MSM telling the world that we were using Osama Bin Laden cell phone to track him hurt our ability to track him? It was just a coincidence that he stopped using it a short time later.

Old Coot -- Good call. I've... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Old Coot -- Good call. I've already decided as such. Lee is so far gone over the edge that it's not even worth expending the minute amount of brainpower needed to refute his sheer idiocy -- or even read his garbage.

You're all swimming in your... (Below threshold)
Pat:

You're all swimming in your own bile. In fact, you have no idea whether the NYT disclosure has damaged government capability to track terrorists or not. Unless you are part of the intelligence community, you lack the context and expertise to assess this matter accurately.

Lee your ignorance knows no... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Lee your ignorance knows no bounds. Watching you mindlessly defend the reporting of this story has really exposed your utter lack of seriousness on the war on terror. As well as your total belief that anything perceived to hurt the Bush administration, regardless of how it hurts national security, is a good thing.

You say this program was faulty, but you're the only one. According to every report out there, this program was working and working well. Yeah, some former and current officials say there was potential for abuse, but no abuse was ever cited. In fact, more safeguards were put in place. Now the head of the bi-partisan 9/11 commission says this program is no longer useful and you call his statement more party rhetoric.

You have more faith in the New York Times than in GWB's attempts to protect our country. That is unbelievable. You are easily the most partisan person that comments on this website.

Pat you can join Lee on the... (Below threshold)
914:

Pat you can join Lee on the irrelevant ignore list.. Goodbye... have a tortured life.

Lee at June 28, 2006 01:38 ... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Lee at June 28, 2006 01:38 PM

Hopefully our other programs don't have the shortcomings that this one had, and then the NYT won't feel the need to expose them.

Please, Lee, in all of your wisdom and that of the Times, please list the shortcomings. Please, because it was a legal program with oversight, where were the shortcomings?

Now Lee, I'm asking nicely, so try to address the question please.

Oh, and I would love to see your response to DaveD's post of June 28, 2006 01:49 PM. I know your realyy busy, so when you get a chance.

BigMo. It was Hooker that a... (Below threshold)
serfer62:

BigMo. It was Hooker that arrested and was going to hang a "reporter" for releasing military secrets. Lincoln saved the clown but Gen Hooker for the "byline" on all reporting.

Freedom of Speech! Try saying a prayer in a public place. A big NO NO with the Kommiecrats. But get troops killed, release secrets is OK.

Our 2 representatives of the Kommiecrat hate league illustrate this. Say I wonder if they have recently deceased relatives in Pali???...

Too bad this was in the pub... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Too bad this was in the public domain before...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/28/terrorist_funds_tracking_no_secret_some_say/?page=1

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

Sorry, but this administration doesn't have the trust of the American people to not have info like this in the public domain. Especially since it's been disclosed numerous times previously.

From JP2's same article: </... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

From JP2's same article:

``I worked this stuff and I can guarantee that [revealing the SWIFT] information made a difference," said Dennis Lormel, a retired FBI special agent who helped establish the bureau's Terrorist Financing Operations Section before leaving government in 2003. ``The disclosure will have an adverse impact on investigations. It was used in two specific instances where it helped to track terrorists. We also used it for lead value."

Also, the Boston Globe is o... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Also, the Boston Globe is owned by the New York Times. So of course, they'd use one of their proxies to cover their asses.

Nice snip there jp2.<... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Nice snip there jp2.

You carefully left out the part that all of the public references prior to the Times publishing were contained in government references and not plastered all over the media.

Also that those public references may have contained information about what the government wanted to do, but no specific details.

But then that wouldn't fit the talking points then, would it?

Jeez Lee! Before you were ... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Jeez Lee! Before you were in the depth of it and responding within minutes. Now someone asks you a straight forward question, actually a couple, and you disappear?

It's been and hour and a half Lee, all I hear are crickets . . . .

I gotta reiterate the quest... (Below threshold)

I gotta reiterate the question, there, Lee.

What shortcomings. Feel free to be somewhat specific.

The problem with the NSA deal was no warrants, right?

This used warrants. Signed by a judge and everything.

I really hate to see so man... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

I really hate to see so many good Republicans fall into the well like this. It is just a shame.

Y'all are being led down the primrose path and have no clue.

Our President refered to SWIFT (not by name but in context) and the data mining program in no less than a dozen speeches across this nation beginning in 2004.

It has been established US DOS policy for over three years. A number of easily accessable articles, press releases and other information services have been available regarding the financial data front in the war on terror on the info.us.gov site and elsewhere...

Here is a good one. The Money Trail:

Focusing on and attacking terrorist money flows is important for several reasons. Financial records and audits provide blueprints to the architecture of terrorist organizations. By following the money trail through financial information sharing worldwide, we can save lives by unearthing terrorist cells and networks. The maintenance of terrorist networks and the acquisition and development of lethal weapons is expensive -- even if a particular attack does not prove costly in isolation. Identifying and isolating the sources of funding for terrorist groups incapacitates not only their execution of attacks, but also their ability to maintain international alliances, create infrastructures around the world for recruitment and training, and purchase or develop deadly weapons.

What we know is that global networks of terrorist groups like al-Qaida and Hamas have used a variety of means to raise and move money. They have taken advantage of charities, front companies, deep-pocket donors, and crime of all types to raise money. They have relied on banks, informal remittance networks known as hawalas, wire remitters, currency exchangers, and couriers to move money or value across national borders. ... There has been important success to date. We have made it harder and costlier for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups to move money around the world and have built more stringent barriers in the international financial system to prevent its abuse. The success has resulted in part from important international engagement and cooperation. International understanding, collaboration, and capability are clearly necessary in this effort given the global nature of both the financial system and terrorism.

The entire argument y'all are going on about stands upon the idea this information was "secret" when it was clearly not.

All you have left is the idea that no one, terrorists as well, knew about SWIFT until it was in the NY Times.

That seems rather unlikely, since SWIFT is the largest financial data broker in the world.

It has its own website.

It has a magazine. (Which is prominently displayed at my brokerage actually.)

The mining of financial data was not a "secret".

I am deeply disheartened that so many obviously smart people have fallen for this obvious ruse.

Has your hatred blinded you so thuroughly?

And, before you start calling me a liberal and other "nasty words"...

Keep it to yourself. I've probably voted for more Republicans in my lifetime than most of you have seen birthdays. Including Dubya, twice, for which I've come to deeply regret.

The country is in danger, and flag burning is all they can talk about. And, y'all sit around and support them.

God have mercy on our souls.

Lee can't bring it up, exce... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Lee can't bring it up, except to cite the NYT's claims that they had anonymous sources express 'concerns'.

Probably they used the very same source who provided the details on the SWIFT program.


Here's another <a href="htt... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

Here's another one. This stuff is all over the web and released via press release.


Treasury is completing a number of regulations aimed at terrorism finance, he said, including the final regulation requiring U.S. financial institutions to monitor correspondent accounts of foreign financial institutions as well as private banking accounts of wealthy foreigners. An interim rule has been in force since 2002. ...He discussed parts of the Treasury strategy for improving international cooperation against terrorist finance. One way is for key countries to develop international standards as member countries of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) have already done for some aspects of fighting money laundering, he said.

This is a non-story. But, y'all want it to be because all you see is red.

Old Time Religion - The lou... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Old Time Religion - The louder critics of the NYTs action have chosen to ignore the facts. This is all about political and polls and elections.

Old Coot, I asked Lee point... (Below threshold)
Cousin Dave:

Old Coot, I asked Lee point blank in a previous thread whether or not he was a terrorist sympathizer. He refused to answer. So I have no problem branding him as a traitorous idiot (if not just an outright troll).

Thanks, Old Time Religion. ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Thanks, Old Time Religion. I was trying yesterday to tell these wingers that the program was not as "classified" as Bush et al were making it out to be. Apparently they think the terrorists don't know how to use them internets, they only read the NYT.

Lee, my mother had her 96th... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

Lee, my mother had her 96th birthday last April. She is as sharp and sentient as she always was... Thank the Lord. I grew up in a proud GOP household. Two years ago November I voted with my mother in her 19th consecutive election for President of the United States. Every single one of her votes was for the GOP candidate. All of them. (I must admit I voted for Truman in my very first election. He was the President in my eyes. He should remain so.)

Two months ago my mother was watching Bush speak on the television after a meal together. My wife was cleaning up and my mom looked at me and said: "I've only regreted voting for two Presidents. Hoover... and Bush. He's not right in the head."

It was an extrordinary admission actually. One I have only come to myself in the past few weeks.

I do not know when hatred became so rampant. I have a good and true life long friend who I am embarrassed to say, is just obsessed with Liberals and hating them. He sends me email after email of proof that they are "Godless" or "traitors"...

And, it scares the pants off of me. He is not the good man I knew. He is angry and mean.

He goes on and on about 9/11 and terror.

I regret my good father is not around. He was born in Austria and left with my mother in 1933. (They adopted me two years later. I was 6 years old.)

All those years, when I asked my dad why they left, he always said the same thing. "They weren't right in the head." "Who wasn't right in the head Pa?"

"Everyone."

channeling and summarizing:... (Below threshold)

channeling and summarizing:

'the terrorists already knew we were monitoring their financial activities - this is no big deal'

'these aren't the financial records we went to war over'

'these aren't the financial records that committed 9/11'

'the chimp-in-chief lied about the financial records'

'it wasn't effective anyway, we'd have caught the people we caught with it regardless'

'if we leave them alone they'll leave us alone'

'everyone has already heard of SWIFT - therefore everyone already knew about our use of it to find terrorists'

'everyone already knows of these telephone devices, therefore the terrorists already knew we were listening in on their calls, and you're shocked that the Times printed it!'


have I pretty much summed it up?

wait, thought of another:</... (Below threshold)

wait, thought of another:

'this wasn't even real-time financial record monitoring, they were old financial records obtained via subpoena, so they weren't even dangerous or useful anymore!'

Hey Old Timer:Do y... (Below threshold)
Doug L.:

Hey Old Timer:

Do you get the difference between discussing the finance monitoring program in general (the sources you cite) vs. revealing details of said program via leaks provided by insiders (the NYT article)?

If that's not good enough, try this one on for size: why would the co-chairs of the bilateral 9/11 Commission both urge the NYT not to publish? If the articles you cited were so damaging, don't you think that the co-chairs (or administration officals) would have protested??

You know, in a war, there's a BIG difference between telling your enemies "we're keeping an eye on you" (not very specific; keeps them guessing) and telling them "we're keeping an eye on you with our night vision goggles every night between 1:00--4:00 AM" (very specific information). Which kind of info did the NYT provide our enemies?

You guys that support the left's position say: "revealing this info wasn't THAT big a deal." Oh really. How do you know that?? I think I'd rather believe the people who have more information about this than we'll EVER have. If they say that this monitoring and tracking system is now worthless (when prior to the NYT story it was valuable), then I'll go with their assessment of the damage done.

Oops. I forgot. We can't believe ANYTHING the Bush administration tells us, right?

Chalk up another win for th... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Chalk up another win for the Democrats.
Posted by: ted at June 28, 2006 12:59 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------
And the terrorists!

Posted by: The Listkeeper at June 28, 2006 01:03 PM


Damn guys, I didn't know there was a difference.

Falze, your analysis of Lee... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Falze, your analysis of Lee, OTR, and JP2 utterly retarded analysis is dead on.

I asked Lee point blank ... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

I asked Lee point blank in a previous thread whether or not he was a terrorist sympathizer. He refused to answer. So I have no problem branding him as a traitorous idiot (if not just an outright troll).

Cousin Dave, I'm an old man, but if Osama bin Laden was in front of me I'd muster the strength to put him to his final rest.

That said, your statement is certainly perflexing. You presume a great many things by Lee's silence. Perhaps he reacted as I did and thought "what an arrogant ass."

Is that all you see?

I'm ashamed more and more to call myself a Conservative, it you are one too.

Truly. Do you have any idea what you are saying? Because someone disagrees with you they are a teerrorist sympathizer?

Shameful.

There's a pretty huge diffe... (Below threshold)
Thrush:

There's a pretty huge difference between talking about watching finances in a general matter, and naming specifics.

Not harmful: "We're trying to track the movement of money between terrorist parties around the world." This has been general knowledge for a while.

Harmful: "We're tracking terrorist money transfers that utilize the SWIFT program." Why? Because it names specifically what tool is used, and if you're trying to elude notice, then you won't want to use the banks in that program for your finances. While it may be one the most common program, not all banks are part of it. Use a non-SWIFT bank.

The devil's in the details. Much like the difference between "We are going to liberate France." and "We're going to liberate France on June 6th by storming the beaches of Normandy, utilizing Naval Bombardment, Paratroopers, Rangers, Amphibious Crafts and a large number of soldiers."

Why the NYT would go ahead and publish secret material (which it knew was secret) for an effective, lawful program with safeguards against abuse is just baffling. Since the previous leaks of classified intel haven't been prosecuted, I guess they figured it's all fair game in their war against the administration.

Lee's claim that the democrats would do it better reeks of the Kerryesque "same but better" vagueness. How doesn't matter. It'd magically be better just because a democrat was behind the wheel. Such tripe.

I asked Lee point blank ... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

I asked Lee point blank in a previous thread whether or not he was a terrorist sympathizer. He refused to answer. So I have no problem branding him as a traitorous idiot (if not just an outright troll).

Cousin Dave, I'm an old man, but if Osama bin Laden was in front of me I'd muster the strength to put him to his final rest.

That said, your statement is certainly perflexing. You presume a great many things by Lee's silence. Perhaps he reacted as I did and thought "what an arrogant ass."

Or perhaps Lee did not even read your comment. Thought of that have you?

But, to start calling others traitors... You shame this great nation Cousin Dave. You shame it greatly.

I served my country in Korea, and saw many a thing which no man should ever had to witness. That's a fact.

But call a fellow American a traitor for his beliefs? That's un-American sir.

Is that all you see?

I'm ashamed more and more to call myself a Conservative, it you are one too.

Truly. Do you have any idea what you are saying? Because someone disagrees with you they are a teerrorist sympathizer?

Shameful.

Thanks, Thrush.You... (Below threshold)
Doug L.:

Thanks, Thrush.

You said what I was trying to say in a much better manner.

Thrush,Your analog... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

Thrush,

Your analogy is just wrong.

Not harmful: "We're trying to track the movement of money between terrorist parties around the world." This has been general knowledge for a while.

Harmful: "We're tracking terrorist money transfers that utilize the SWIFT program." Why? Because it names specifically what tool is used, and if you're trying to elude notice, then you won't want to use the banks in that program for your finances. While it may be one the most common program, not all banks are part of it. Use a non-SWIFT bank.

This is wrong because when you use the SWIFT service, every transaction comes with a disclaimer which you have to sign. It reads: "SWIFT has a history of cooperating in good faith with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and appropriate international organisations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), in their efforts to combat abuse of the financial system for illegal activities."

And, I've seen it in Arabic as well. (In the Holy Land of all places.)

You are grasping at straws.

This story just gets more and more ridiculous every second.

And, ummm, just for the record, the FATF program does not use only SWIFT. It monitors transfers by point of origin and destination as well from non-SWIFT services.

SWIFT was the one mentioned in the NYT articles.

Old Timer:First of... (Below threshold)
Doug L.:

Old Timer:

First of all, THANK YOU for your service to our country. I really and truly mean that.

Second, while you call this story "ridiculous," I must disagree. If everything the NYT published was already out there in the open for all (including the terrorists) to see, why publish it on the front page in the first place? Why rely on leaks from insiders?

Third, I'd be interested in hearing your response to what your fellow soldier T.F. Boggs wrote to Bill Keller:

"Your recent decision to publish information about a classified program intended to track the banking transactions of possible terrorists is not only detrimental to America but also to its fighting men and women overseas," Boggs wrote. "Terrorism happens here every day because there are rich men out there willing to support the . . . terrorist who plants bombs and shoots soldiers. . . . Without money, terrorism in Iraq would die because there would no longer be supplies for IED's, no mortars . . . and no motivation for people to abandon regular work in hopes of striking it rich after killing a soldier. Thank you for continually contributing to the deaths of my fellow soldiers."

Again, if the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission asked the Times not publish this story, and if by doing so a soldier on the ground in Iraq says that it will contribute to the deaths of his fellow soldiers, then this story is NOT ridiculous.

Only those who have never w... (Below threshold)
Lint:

Only those who have never worked in a bank have some mystical vision of SWIFT.

Publicly announcing that banks use SWIFT is about as big of a secret as saying that cops drive police cars.

Not really a big deal.

Old Time Religion,... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Old Time Religion,

I hear you. I've noticed the same shift in my father's political perspectives. By the way, he served in Korea also. He's in his 80's now, but still going strong. He is a straightline republican voter who now regrets having voted for Bush and Cheney. I think the same realization and political shift is happening everywhere, in all age groups and demographics. More and more people I talk to are turned off by the politics of hate.

Thanks also for standing up for me re: Dave above. It's pretty rare around here for anyone to speak up against folks like Dave. I know others think he's a hateful looney, but they choose to not say it. No balls.

It takes guts to go against a crowd and speak your mind, thanks for having the intestinal fortitude.

Lee

Disclaimer or not, the prog... (Below threshold)
Thrush:

Disclaimer or not, the program worked. The NYT's own article listed some of the successes.

Perhaps the terrorists didn't think they US had access, or simply didn't read the disclaimer. I've seen some rather large disclaimers in my time.

Either way, confirming on the front page of the NYT that we do indeed have access and are using it against them isn't the way to go.

So the FATF program uses more than just SWIFT. Great. Hopefully those will still help gather information on the terrorists. The point is that the Time's disregard for national security cost us a tool.

Lose enough tools and you can no longer do your job. If I ask you to drive nails, and then start removing tools from your toolbox (starting with your hammer), there will come a point where you will be unable to drive a nail.

Besides, if it's such a non-story why publish it?

My sincerest hope in life i... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

My sincerest hope in life is that Lee loses loved ones in a terrorist incident that could have been prevented through this or any of the other programs his kind have rendered useless. The schadenfreude would be delicious watching those he's so sympathetic to turn on him.

Lee:You said: "Mor... (Below threshold)
Doug L.:

Lee:

You said: "More and more people I talk to are turned off by the politics of hate."

Are you REALLY going to tell us that the "politics of hate" is only a right-wing problem? For every single example of this "hate" you come up with on the conservative side, I could give you ten on the liberal side.

To everyone else:
I know, I know, I'm wasting valuable blogspace... Sorry.

I'm not sympathetic towards... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I'm not sympathetic towards terrorists Listkeeper, quite the opposite. I think we need to be much more effective than we have been in fighting terrorism.

And this is the last time I will respond to you, since anyone who wishes that more American's die at the hands of terrorists is not worth my time.

You don't sympathise with t... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

You don't sympathise with them, yet you choose to do everything you can to enable them. I see.

Doug - You posted your que... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Doug - You posted your question to me about liberals and hate without addressing Listkeeper's comments towards me and my family, and you expect a response from me?

Here's your response.

...............

What, you can't see it? I'm holding my right hand in front of the computer monitor, with my middle finger extended.

Any more questions Doug?

When the next big terrorsit... (Below threshold)
gozorak:

When the next big terrorsit attack comes I really, really hope that the NYT main building and everyone in it is at ground zero...will serve them right.

Listkepper wrote:<... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

Listkepper wrote:

My sincerest hope in life is that Lee loses loved ones in a terrorist incident that could have been prevented through this or any of the other programs his kind have rendered useless.

This is exactly the type of attitude which is sad and Un-American.

As someone who lost a friend in the South Tower, (My wifes ex-boss' son from Merril Lynch) what you just said, simply in order to prove your point, is just plain obnoxious, arrogant and disgusting.

You fearful litlle person. You would have Americans die to prove your point!!!!!!!!???????

When the next big terror... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

When the next big terrorsit attack comes I really, really hope that the NYT main building and everyone in it is at ground zero...will serve them right.

Wishing for the terrorists to succeed?

Hmmm. Interesting.

Based on the willingness of... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Based on the willingness of shitheads like yourself to cripple our ability to prevent such attacks in the future based on your pathetic partisan politics rather than the reality of such programs, I would, yes.

Based on the willingness... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

Based on the willingness of shitheads like yourself to cripple our ability to prevent such attacks in the future based on your pathetic partisan politics rather than the reality of such programs, I would, yes.

"I want the terrorist to SUCCEED so that my beliefs might prosper above those of the opposition."

Interesting.

or"I want the terr... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

or

"I want the terrorists to SUCCEED with another attack which takes the lives of innocent Americans (perferably liberals) so that my belief system may prosper."

It's not that I want them t... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

It's not that I want them to succeed, OTR.... It's that pathetic retards like yourself, Lee, and the rest have guaranteed that outcome, and I want you to suffer for it.

Call me crazy... but, I thi... (Below threshold)
Republican Lurker:

Call me crazy... but, I think that response qualifies to call ListKeeper a bonifide died in the wool traitor.

Imagine that.

t's not that I want them... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

t's not that I want them to succeed, OTR.... It's that pathetic retards like yourself, Lee, and the rest have guaranteed that outcome, and I want you to suffer for it.

But, they are one and the same.

Or, are you simply incapable of seeing such a complicated reality?

sounds like the chickenhawk... (Below threshold)
billy:

sounds like the chickenhawks who cried wolf?

who got killed by this?
noone. what big claims you have with no evidence to back it up.

bush reveled this program in 2003. i call for his trial on treason charges now, well deal with the right wing media later.

It's you who have chosen to... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

It's you who have chosen to ignore reality in favor of your politics. May you suffer greatly for what you have chosen to bring about.

>>>>It's not that I want th... (Below threshold)
Republican Lurker:

>>>>It's not that I want them to succeed, OTR.... It's that pathetic retards like yourself, Lee, and the rest have guaranteed that outcome, and I want you to suffer for it.

How right-wing of you!

You see, you dumb turd, terrorists are not that decerning. They don't give a shit about conservative or liberal. We all have a big fat target on our backs.

It's because extremist losers like you who have turned everyone into an enemy that we are in such dire straights.

You idiot. Your world is falling apart and all you can do is throw hatred at your fellow citizens.

How extremist of you.

Besides, if it's such a ... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Besides, if it's such a non-story why publish it? Thrush

Because Bush/Cheney are trying to expand the power of the executive branch without oversight. The Republicans in Congress are not doing their jobs, and the press are only people left to keep a watchful eye on them. ~60% of the country doesn't trust this President, and for good reason.

Now I know you're going to say "but there were checks and it was not being abused." Maybe, but that's only because people on the SWIFT end were uncomfortable with how much the US wanted. The Administration would have been more than happy to turn on the vacuum and suck up every transaction if they could (and apparently were immediately after 9/11). But this leads us back to the NSA warrantless surveillance, how big a vacuum are they using?

That's the story the wingers still don't get, probably cause they don't care. But some of us still have an interest in checks and balances, openness in gov't, yada yada yada, all that liberal foolishness the Founders were so adamant about. What a bunch of moonbats they were, right?

Unfortunately Listkeeper yo... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Unfortunately Listkeeper your wish against Lee and his family is just awful, moronic, stupid, and etc. I cringed just reading it. Whatever point you were trying to make is lost when you wish harm on someone's family in some possible future terrorist attack just so you could say "I told you so."

You've rendered yourself moot in this discussion. The noble thing to do now would be apologize and try to start making sense.

As much as I disagree with Lee (and for that matter newcomer OTR, sorry your voting stories don't pass the smell test IMHO) I wouldn't wish harm, let alone death, on his innocent family. Think about what you're saying here.

May you suffer greatly f... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

May you suffer greatly for what you have chosen to bring about.

I suspect my dear Listkeeper that it shall be you who shall suffer for choosing to hate rather than to find a true path to the Lord.

I suspect that your desire to see others suffer for your own mistaken idealogy shall see you roast in the sight of the Lord's mansion, seeing all it's Glory but knowing none of it. Ever.

I suspect my angry hate filled fellow American, that your desire and lust for vengence upon those who wrought such destruction and fear upon us that day of 9/11 has been turned towards your fellow Americans in a way that is not only unpatriotic but history shall prove, cost us lives.

Rather than making any real attempt to united our nation to fight a common foe, you and those like you have spent countless energy on hating your fellow Americans.

Rather than finding any middle ground, allowing democracy to work, you have chosen to fight them with accusations of "traitor" and worse.

For that, my dear Listkeeper, and for wishing for the deaths of your fellow citizens, you shall roast in the deep fire of Lucifer's belly.

I'm old enough to know a sinner and a fool and a traitor when I see one.

And, you are one.

Not uncommon for an agent of the Devil to cloak himself in the robes of the Lamb whilst doing the work of his Master in Darkness.

You dear Listkeeper are Legion. But, of the foolish army.

Good day to you. May the Lord Save you.

Fortunately for me, I'm not... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Fortunately for me, I'm not a Christian and won't be going to any Hell.
And it's you who are the traitor, OTR... You, who open the doors for OBL and Al Qaeda by ensuring the blindness of those who are tasked to defend you.

All because of your willful, partisan ignorance.

sean:From the NYT ... (Below threshold)
Thrush:

sean:

From the NYT article:

Among the safeguards, government officials said, is an outside auditing firm that verifies that the data searches are based on intelligence leads about suspected terrorists. "We are not on a fishing expedition," Mr. Levey said. "We're not just turning on a vacuum cleaner and sucking in all the information that we can."

While at the beginning they did get a complete copy of the database, they quickly realized this was dangerous and began to limit the requests. (This was also covered in the article.)

While I'm sure the CIA would love to keep getting the entire database, the administration is trying to walk the fine line between giving our people enough information to "connect the dots" while protecting the rights of innocents.

Listkeeper - sorry, buddy, ... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Listkeeper - sorry, buddy, but you're on your own with that one. Lee may throw dispicable lies and twist the truth into unrecognizable goo, but I would never wish harm on him or his loved ones.

Lee, I never agree with anything you say, but despite that, you'd be welcome in my house, as shelter from the storm.

Listkeeper, you are WAY out of bounds here.

Big Mo, I don't want you or... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

Big Mo, I don't want you or anyone else to defend me... My hatred of Lee and his ilk took a long time to develop and I had to see a lot lost for it to get there.

So if a fellow American bel... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

So if a fellow American believes in making as much money as he can or doesn't like the U.S. and sells U.S. secrets or tells a lie to hurt the U.S. war effort, that we shouldn't call him a traitor?

"You fearful litlle person. You would have Americans die to prove your point!!!!!!!!???????"

Many think that what liberals and MSM actions will succeed in doing just that to hurt Bush.

You claim to be a conservative but don't sound like one to me. It takes more than just voting GOP or claiming so to be a conservative. However I don't like making judgments off of one set of post. I will make that decision by watching your future post to see if you truly are a conservative or just pretending to be.

My hatred of Lee and his... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

My hatred of Lee and his ilk took a long time to develop and I had to see a lot lost for it to get there.

That's YOUR fault, not their fault.

Stand up. Be a man for God's sake.

You're the ones opening the... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

You're the ones opening the gate for them, OTR.. Not I. Your ignorance and stupidity is going to cost our country. May you rot in hell for it.

We don't have to share all ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

We don't have to share all the same points of view, Wayne. I have differing political views on many things and yet consider myself a conservative.

As far as the direction this thread is heading in, it's bad. Why don't we take it down a notch and have a discussion, instead of wishing death upon others. I think you're better than that Listkeeper.

Oh, and the talk about Hell... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Oh, and the talk about Hell? This is politics, not Sunday school.

Heralder, as I recall We di... (Below threshold)
914:

Heralder, as I recall We did not talk about Hell in Sunday school. It was singing songs like "Jesus loves the little children".

What was this thread about again? oh yeah the NYT ending a terrorist surveillence money funneling program. needless to say, nothing will be done about this and it will be off to the next Bush undermining story by next week? if they even wait that long.

At the risk of having my co... (Below threshold)
Lee:

At the risk of having my comment deleted because it's off-topic, I'd like to say something about what transpired on this thread today.

We've seen some excellent examples today of those individuals I call the "terrorized right", and what horrible, horrible examples at that. Judging from Listkeeper's earlier remarks, it is clear that his rational thought process has surrendered to the hatred in his heart.

The fact is that in the White House, on Capitol Hill, and in cities and states all over this country there are millions of terrorized Americans of all ages and faiths who hate those who attacked us on 9/11 so much, that their hate just spills over into many other areas of their lives.

They hate the Democrats.

They hate the New York Times.

They hate the gays.

They hate the illegals.

They hate the judges.

They hate CNN.

They hate the liberals.

They hate the person standing next to them in line at the grocery store just because that person has a peace sign on their t-shirt.

They hate their next-door neighbor merely because of the bumper sticker on their car.

They hate protestors who are using their first amendment rights to speak out about ways they feel this country can be better, and stronger.

Terrorists have taken away from these individuals the strengths in them that make this country great, and turned them into a pack of rabid dogs who, like the terrorists we're fighting, know nothing but hate, hate, hate.

These are not the people we need to lead the fight on the war against terrorism. These are people who have already surrendered to terrorism.

However I don't like mak... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

However I don't like making judgments off of one set of post. I will make that decision by watching your future post to see if you truly are a conservative or just pretending to be.

Wayne, I am a life long conservative. Both economically and socially.

But, I am a Christian first. It is my life. And, many people, both conservatives and liberal, often mistake my desire to be a good Christian with being a liberal. That is how it goes. Make your own conclusions.

I have found that the past ten years that as my belief in God has become more profound, and my life more complete, that my perspective, without really knowing it, has drifted away from the more recent so-called conservative ideals.

I believe in my country. I love my country. But, if I suspect that my government is doing something that I can not reconcile with my CHristian beliefs, then my allegience to that government is not a bonafide. My government serves my country and its people. And, as a conservative, I have always worked to ensure that government does not goet too big, too overpowering of the people.

I've also been a conservative financially. I beleive that the government should work on a fixed and balanced budget just as any successful business should. I also believe that government spending should be as minimal as possible, except in cases where it has been proven it is necessary.

Alas, the current administration has been anything but conservative. I voted for Bush for the same reasons I voted for Truman. And, I feel they were both failures.

Bush's economic failures are important. We are sailing into massive debt. That is incredibly worrisome. My wife comes from the financial sector and she will tell you that the reality out there is shaky at best. No matter what sunshine the politicians in power blow up our legs. (And, that's what they always do, right?)

So, I've seen the great Reagan values go south in a big way. Bush is no Reagan. And, those values have been sold out for something I have not seen since the late 50's.

Americans openly calling for the death of other Americans over a difference of opinion?

My Lord. That is just heartbreaking to hear and witness. And, it is just all over the place.

As a Christian, what I see is very un-Christian.

Very hate filled. And, hate is the fuel that gives Lucifer his power. I've learned a handful of things in my years - that is one of them. (How to make the best pancakes in the world is the other.)

Something has happened in this country. People ahve been consumed. It's not right. It's hatred I've never seen before. Even the sixties was never this bad.

In those days, it was bad to be a conservative. I had a job where I had to wear a suit. I was proud to be a conservative. But, there was a lot of hate going around. On both sides. I would get called a "baby killer" just walking down the street to my job. And, I'd see conservatives beating up hippies in the back alleys of bars. And, I'd stand idle by and do nothing. "They deserve it. " I'd think to myself.

Years later, I was in a bar with some friends celebrating a wedding (pre-bachelor party) and one of the guys at the party was also one of the guys who was kicking the stuffing out of that skinny hippie. I only knew him a little bit. We'd see each other around town, but I always thought of him as one of those guys in the alley that night.
Everyone called him "Sally", cause he had a great 1966 Mustang ragtop... anyway...

So, this other guy at another table walks over at one point and looks at Sally really hard and says: "You are one of the guys who broke my ribs that night in 1967." Of course, Sally doesn't own up to it at all. I looked at his accusser and he was dressed in a nice suit and tie. This is in 1978, ten years later. The guy looks at Sally really hard. "I just want you to know that I spent a month in the hospital, and that because of the injuries I received that night I lost my job, and got kicked out of school for a low GPA, because I missed too many classes. When I got out of the hospital, I got a job but then I was drafted and did a tour. Caught a grenade in the leg, two shards of shrapnel later, I was back stateside."

Sally had avoided 'Nam by attending college and getting married and having kids. He was always really vocal about supporting the war, but like a lot of people, didn't want to die. Sally looks around at us for some type of help, we're all staring at our beers. I'm just staring at it all...

Sally says: "Well, you know, that was a long time ago."

The guy just looks at Sally and says: "I just want you to know that I forgive you." And he walks away.

Sally tried to laugh it off. But, that was the end of the party.

About five years ago, Sally was sick with cancer and he asked a mutual friend if I would come over to talk to him. He was dying. (I'm AA and a deacon in my church, so I do a lot of counseling.)

Sally (RIP) basically, without going into details confessed to me that night. How he had hated that hippie for years. How that hippie was such a highlight of his hatred and his focus of hating liberals and hippes and all of them. He was proud of it. And, when that guy said "I forgive you." well, Sally's world just sorta when upside down.

He wanted me to find the guy and give him a letter. I still have the letter. I've never read it. I haven't been able to find the guy. But, maybe I will. I spent a lot of time at first, but he's a phantom.

True story.

Old Time wrote:"Th... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Old Time wrote:

"This is exactly the type of attitude which is sad and Un-American".

This is something that is "CAUSED BY" and repeated over and over again by the perpetual fraud(democrat party)(liberal Media)(liberal blowhards in Hollywood).

Here is some more perpetual fraud from the bed wetters and sore losers who think themselves as Americans.


"Wishing for the terrorists to succeed"?

"It's because extremist losers like you who have turned everyone into an enemy that we are in such dire straights".

"60% of the country doesn't trust this President, and for good reason."

"That's the story the wingers still don't get, probably cause they don't care. But some of us still have an interest in checks and balances, openness in gov't" BULLSHIT! HAVE ANOTHER BLOWJOB LOSER

"Maybe, but that's only because people on the SWIFT end were uncomfortable with how much the US wanted" WHO THE F**K ARE YOU? "MAYBE" YOU SHOULD LEARN TO PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS BEFORE YOU SPEAK.


sean wrote:
"The Republicans in Congress are not doing their jobs"

HA HA! wishful thinking loser. The pepetual fraud that is the democrat party can't stand the fact that Republicans are competant and doing the job that they are incapable of and have no intentions of doing period.

The corrupt and criminal democrats are have been going insane since they were exposed for what they are and thrown on their incompetant asses where they now whine like infants 24/7. STFU!


We don't need democrats period.

"Because Bush/Cheney are trying to expand the power of the executive branch without oversight"

LIE!

REALITY IS THAT DEMOCRATS KNOW THEY ARE FAILURES AND AMERICANS SEE THEM AS SUCH. THIS IS ALL THE TRAITOROUS PISSANTS CAN COME UP WITH TO DECEIVE AMERICANS AWAY FROM THE SIMPLE FACT THAT Bush/Cheney ARE DOING THEIR JOB IN A WAY THAT SHOWS JUST HOW SCREWED UP AND PHONY THE DEMOCRATS ARE.

The pathetic call for oversight but not when there is a democrat president commiting adultery
and collecting his spoils of blowjobs on demand. Hope all you democrat POS's have wonderful day knowing your the reason for your being in the MINORITY.

Lee,As much as I h... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

As much as I hate to hate, I hate hate. Does hating hate make me a hater?

*squints at the screen*

What the heck did I just write?

2 points:1. I tho... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

2 points:

1. I thought the considered wisdom here was to ignore Lee who is clearly just a bomb-thrower with no redeeming value to this blog.

2. SWIFT was not well-understood or widely know. Not widely, but it was not secret, nor a secret "program."

The "program" was our monitoring of it. Since it was a private firm run in another country, this was significant in our ongoing intelligence efforts.

The "logicians" on the left who are posting that since you could find SWIFT in the public domain, it didn't matter that we were monitoring, are making a specious argument.

Our monitoring a poorly understood (reference the libs' comments above) program, and doing it in another country, secretly, is the significant thing. It's troubling to see these folks not able to exercise the most basic reasoning skills to discern the difference.

Well, from my perspective, ... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

Well, from my perspective, all the hatred is leading to something very frightening to even and old coot Republican like myself. Very frightening.

And, it is contained in this simple statement above by Rob LACa:

We don't need democrats period.

Therein lay the rub. It's an attitude I see more and more among conservatives on the internet. (And, admit it people, it occurs to you more than you admit.)

And, it's just un-American.

One party rule in the greatest democracy the world has ever known?

It's laughable, except some out there, many out there, believe in it.

Are we Red China? Are we a banana republic?

As Republicans, we need to stand up for the idea of the REPUBLIC. No matter we disagree.

There are those amongst us though, I fear, who have other plans.

Big Mo wrote: "... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

Big Mo wrote:

"Lee, I never agree with anything you say, but despite that, you'd be welcome in my house, as shelter from the storm.

Listkeeper, you are WAY out of bounds here"

I respect your opinion Mo , But I got Listkeepers back on this one without hesitation.

Your opinion might differ if you have walked in my shoes for I have done the above mentioned only to be have a gun held to my head and robbed. Given shelter to people on the street , fresh out of prison after doing years. I know about blind hatred and have experienced it first hand. I see the hatred and complete stupidity from all sore losers on the left.

Democrats are criminals , frauds , liars and yes they are the worse POS human being by their own actions , lact there of and most convincingly by their own stupidity in being incapable of stutting their whiny and lying traps. Democrats can't help it , they are emotional based incompetant freaks who must make themselves feel good by criticizing those that are better than them or those that get "ELECTED" INSTEAD OF THEM.

I got no problem with listkeepers comments because democrats mostly being a bunch of pussies would love to see harm come to the Republican Leadership but are too cowardly to admit it, however there are certifiably insane democrats , lots of them that would scream it from the highest mountain.

Ah see, Mitchell, you are m... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

Ah see, Mitchell, you are making stuff up. In intel circles, and generally, it is well understood not only that the US has been monitoring financial data, but it is also known that the terrorists know we are monitoring financial data.

Again, the real meat and money and manpower in inveestingating the financial dealings of terrorists has NOT been in regard to using services such as SWIFT but rather in actually getting a foothold into the Hawala systems used by the terrorits.

So, your analysis is simply not really informed.
You write:

Our monitoring a poorly understood (reference the libs' comments above) program, and doing it in another country, secretly, is the significant thing.

If you go to Jane's, or Stratfor, or THe CounterTerrorisim Blog, (all conservative and quite respected sources) you'll see a reacurring point made: They all agree it's ABSURD to think that the terrorists we are after- who are managers of well run, sophisticated networks with a lot of money - are NOT aware that we are monitoring traditional lines of financial data nets.

They aren't dumb.

That is why this entire issue with the NY Times is a RED HERRING.

It's doesn't take a liberal to see that. But, it does take a conservative who doesn't listen to the nonsense apparently.

We don't need democrats ... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

We don't need democrats period.

Hey folks, how does it feel to know that a man who advocates totalitarian rule by the Republicans AND advocates the killing of the opposition in order to achieve that rule is out there within our ranks?

Old Time ReligionI... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Old Time Religion

I appreciate your views. Maybe I was reading too much into your comments but it sounded like you had some hate in your heart toward Bush. Hate can be in passive forms as will. You did more attacking of Bush as a person than you were attacking his policies.
I like Reagan but he ran up deficit worst than Bush has (either in percentage increase or as percent of GDP). Some will argue Reagan did it to get us out of a recession and to win the Cold War. Similar comments could be said about Bush. Clinton fought hard against the budget that the GOP gave him but relented in the end. Also his supposedly great accomplishment was for budget forecasting and not accrual saving. It the same Hollywood philosophy " perception is everything, reality is nothing". OP has gotten spend happy but has been improving on it. The Dems have champion a great deal more spending than GOP and have in fact force due to the GOP not having a super majority in the Senate far more spending then Bush had in his budgets.

I have read many of Lee's post and he accuses many of being hateful but Lee has shown he has plenty of hate as well. What's the old saying, clean up your own back yard before you complain about mine.

Old Time. You stated above... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Old Time. You stated above that you were, or had been a Republican. I seriously doubt that.

You are telling us that some websites, and you don't actually name any current intelligence people, think the program is bogus and not worthwhile.

Ok, that's fine. But I'll take it from sources who actually know--the 9/11 commission, the Treasury Secretary, ex-FBI agents on record having worked the program or programs like it,
the President, Negroponte, Dems. and Repubs. on the committees of Congress who were briefed.

Your argument also misses the mark re the terrorists. How do you know that all terrorists already know the program? That's something you can't possibly know. Several intelligence officials have indicated that we've caught terrorists with this very program.

Thanks, Old Time, I think I'll stick with the adults, and those who actually know, in this one.

That is absolutely correc... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

That is absolutely correct OTR and the more you write the more you sound , well like a fraud as noted by others. I make that comment after having been voting straight democrat for nearly 20 yrs. I woke from my political coma just in time to proudly vote Republican for the first time Nov. 2 2004. It's funny that I have never had person ask me to vote Republican , ever. All that can be heard today are desparate lies being told by democrats , BEGGING FOR YOUR VOTE , EVEN IN TEARS.

WE ALREADY HAVE TERRORIST'S WHO WANT TO KILL AMERICANS. Democrats being democrats believe they can do it faster , better and smarter than the terrorist's. Zell Miller said it best about his democrat party and he is the last and only democrat leader worthy of respect.

Wayne, I don't hate Bush at... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

Wayne, I don't hate Bush at all. I don't know the man. That's another thing. Why is everyone so darn sensitive about people hating Bush? People hate Clinton and y'all don't get uptight about it?

I did say that I think he is a failure. But, I don't hate him for that. You obviously reacted to that. We have to stop being so overreactive about criticism of the President. I can remember a time when Presidents took criticism like grown men and listened to it and used it or rejected it.

Sometimes, good ideas come of criticism. It's called being an adult and a professional.

I agree with your points on Reagan, but some of that was due to the Dem Congress too!

But, I've watched the GOP run the Congress for over a decade with no better results.

I'm fast coming to the opinion that both Dems and Repubs are incapable of doing what needs to be done fiscally, legislativetly, and in the war on terror.

Hate is the dark road. Simple. Ever seen Star Wars? It's popular because it's true.

I had a friend tell me I sound like a liberal. And, I told him: "That ain't hate. That's Jesus pal."

Saying We dont need democra... (Below threshold)
914:

Saying We dont need democrats period is not advocating Totalarian Rule by repubs or the death of democrats? You are leaping to conclusions OTR?

Your right Rob in LA, Zell ... (Below threshold)
914:

Your right Rob in LA, Zell Miller is a great American and unfortunately the last of a dying breed of democrat..

Listkeeper: "My sinceres... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Listkeeper: "My sincerest hope in life is that Lee loses loved ones in a terrorist incident that could have been prevented through this or any of the other programs his kind have rendered useless. The schadenfreude would be delicious watching those he's so sympathetic to turn on him."

While I don't see how anyone could possibly love Lee, wishing for the death of his family members and/or friends, who for all you know may be good folks and may disagree with Lee as much as you do (and whether they do or not makes no difference), does no possible good and is simply wrong.

And I'd bet that if it really happened, you wouldn't be as happy about it as you indicated in your writing. At least I hope not.

In all of Lee's inane, blitheringly stupid comments that I've ever read, and as far as I know, he's never wished death on the family of any commenter. That is certainly the only redeeming trait he has shown, but it is something.

From my perspective, you've given Lee the moral highground in the discussion between the two of you.

Plenty of people hate other... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Plenty of people hate others that they never met. I don't mind if certain people hate Bush. If many on the left didn't, I would be worry. I will defend what he stands for if it is what I stand as well. If not, I will disagree with it as I've done in the past.

Reagan fought hard with the Dems to keep the budget beyond defense down. The GOP did well from 94 to 98 then seem to decide if the Dems who are in the minority get to have all these Pork project then we as majority should too. The last two years they have done better but have plenty of room to go. Not only have they cut some program growth but have actually cut some programs. When was the last time the Dems cut anything except for the military?

The problem with the GOP is they are still scared of the MSM and the beltway politics.

P.S. As for hating p... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

P.S.
As for hating people, I doesn't bother me a whole lot if people hate others just be honest about it. Those who sling mud but then complain when it get sling back, perturbs me. I try not to let first impressions influence my lasting opinion. Clinton struck me as an opportunist from the get go and unfortunately his actions back it up. He did some good things as President but only after the poll change in that direction. He also did plenty of lame things as well. Over all he did not strike me as a good person.

Carter struck me as a good person but he was lousy as a President.

I can now say with litt... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

I can now say with little doubt in my mind that OTR you are full of shit and the fraud that was the first impression that I got of you.

"Hey folks, how does it feel to know that a man who advocates totalitarian rule by the Republicans"

Asshole , you graduated quick from possible fraud to outright liar.

"AND advocates the killing of the opposition in order to achieve that rule is out there within our ranks"

Here is what I said:

"I got no problem with listkeepers comments because democrats mostly being a bunch of pussies would love to see harm come to the Republican Leadership but are too cowardly to admit it, however there are certifiably insane democrats , lots of them that would scream it from the highest mountain".

"We don't need democrats period".

Only a BDS suffering idiot would and do assume to know they know what thousands of individual Americans think , believe and feel. You have proven worthy of the perpetual fraud that is the democrat party.

THAT IS EXACTY WHAT WE DON'T NEED.CAREER POLITICAL FRAUDS AND LIARS.

Thanks for playing and showing for all what I have been saying now for a while. I can't think of a clearer example of how democrats use words of others to give themselves justification to make false accusations , display phony and desparate outrage and when they have tire of making complete asses of themselves on national TV they can always fall back on what they are truly good at. PLAYING DUMB. Uhh uhhh well that's what he really meant to say.

Democrats , lying frauds in the MINORITY. Todays Reality period.

OTR has reminded me why I h... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

OTR has reminded me why I hold self-professed "Christians" who make it a point to advertise their beliefs in such contempt... They're often frauds who've never cracked open a bible. As I said before, my hatred is for those who've earned it...and the willful ignorance of OTR, Lee, and their ilk makes them no better than OBL in my book. Granted, I shouldn't wish their families ill, but such bastards who willfully blind those who are tasked with the defense of our country in pursuit of their political agendas must suffer GREATLY when the inevitable outcome of their treasonous stupidity comes to be. You're traitorous filth, nothing more.

I think I listkeepers co... (Below threshold)
RobLACa.:

I think I listkeepers comment about Lee's Family members suffering death at the hands of terrorist's so he would pull his head out of his ass and keep it out and accept reality and live in the Real World rather than wankering for a pathetic bunch lying frauds is a view that I have heard countless times.

Compare that to a bunch of opportunistic frauds knowing that many more thousands will die as a direct result of their despicable greed and thirst for power , scoring political points like winning a goldfish at a carnival and for no other reason than to smear those they cannot beat at the ballot box.

Democrats have already accomplished this grotesque and disgraceful act upon the human race and are at it again. They have brought the needless slaughter of nearly 3 million people and are all to eager to do it again. Only a democrat would complain and cry about a persons supposed wish as being worse than their party's actual selfish and calculated decision that led to countless deaths. Ya! they really care.

Hear! Hear!... (Below threshold)
914:

Hear! Hear!

To All the ranting Wizba... (Below threshold)
mak44:

To All the ranting Wizbangers

This evening, Roger Cressey, a former Bush Admin. advisor on terrorism, said categorically on MSNBC that the revelation by the NYT of this financil operation did not in the slightest way reveal anything that the terrorists had not already known.

So get unbent & stop using this nonevent as the path to censorship of the media. Those of you who persist down this path are showing that they don't give a damn whether the media is government controlled or simply intimidated enough that it doesn't matter.

All that you are revealing about yourselves is that a free & unfettered media is anathma to you folks and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what that adds up to.

I can now say with littl... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

I can now say with little doubt in my mind

Don't you mean doubful little mind?

OTR you are full of shit and the fraud that was the first impression that I got of you.

"Hey folks, how does it feel to know that a man who advocates totalitarian rule by the Republicans"

Asshole , you graduated quick from possible fraud to outright liar.

"AND advocates the killing of the opposition in order to achieve that rule is out there within our ranks"

Here is what I said:

"I got no problem with listkeepers comments because democrats mostly being a bunch of pussies would love to see harm come to the Republican Leadership but are too cowardly to admit it, however there are certifiably insane democrats , lots of them that would scream it from the highest mountain".

"We don't need democrats period".

Let's break it down for your angry noodle, just so you understand.... Now, think before you react.

As noted right above, you said "We don't need no democrats period." Now, what the blazes do you THINK that means Einstein? It means ONE PARTY RULE. Get a grip son. Your brain is oozing all over the Wizbang website.

And, you also wrote:

Listkeeper, you are WAY out of bounds here"

I respect your opinion Mo , But I got Listkeepers back on this one without hesitation.

So, what do you "got Listkeepers back on"?

This gem of a comment by Listkeeper where he wished that another terror attack would strike the United States so that some people might be taught a lesson and "suffer" to use his exaxt word.

And, you agreed with that didn't you Rob? Yes, you did.

Thus, it is rather easy to see why you are a totalitarian stooge hungry for power you'll never ever have. You don't need no opposition party!

And, wooo hooo! Let's have them terrorists bomb the hell out them people in New York, them libruls. They deserve it anyway and that'll teach them a lesson!

I'm not the only conservative in this thread to note that your words are a bit... shall we say...

Strong.

OTR, you're lying. I never ... (Below threshold)
The Listkeeper:

OTR, you're lying. I never said I wish another attack would happen. The stupidity and willful ignorance of those like yourself have guaranteed that outcome.

Lee,Still waiting ... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Lee,

Still waiting . . . 7.5 hours and you still haven't answered the simple questions that were asked.

Kinda shows your hand, troll with no substance.

File/play crickets.wav

7.75 hours and counting? ti... (Below threshold)
914:

7.75 hours and counting? tick tick tick tick...

Mak "Ak" 44: Roger Cressey... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Mak "Ak" 44: Roger Cressey was Richard Clarke's deputy under President Clinton, and then for a short period under Bush.

He had no responsibility or oversight, much less exposure, to this program.

So, your pals at Olbermann or Hardball cite him as a National Security expert. They get the kind of expert they're looking for.

But this guy didn't work the program, so how is he opining as to its usefulness. Is this like Old Timer giving his opinion that nothing happened under the program without any factual basis.

That's not what our intel people and the President are telling us. Clark and Cressy have much to answer for.

MitchellYou... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Mitchell

You're just blowing out your ass. A simplistic attack on Cressey (who by the way makes many appearances on more than MSNBC as an expert on terrortism) is totally unfounded. The SWIFT operation even had a website about the program.

Moreover, Bush, from shortly after 9/11, has said that the US will use every avenue possible to track financial transfers.

That the terrorists were being watched w/ their financial transactions should come as no surprise to anyone other than the fools here on Wizbang who want to use this incident as a pretext to censor the press.

Your rant, Mitchell, just reveals how little you give a sh_t for the 1st Amendment. Perhaps you prefer an American edition of Pravda.

OTR, you're lying. I nev... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

OTR, you're lying. I never said I wish another attack would happen.

Listkeeper, you're right. You didn't say you "wish another attack would happen." You said, it's your "sincerest hope"... specifically your exact words were:

My sincerest hope in life is that Lee loses loved ones in a terrorist incident that could have been prevented through this or any of the other programs his kind have rendered useless.

So, you are saying that it is your sincerest hope that another terror attack hit the USA, that is, if it proves your ideological point.

Either way you slice it, it is, in your own words: your "sincerest hope in this life that Lee loses loved ones in a terrorist incident..." the rest is just your evil hearted excuse to justify the deaths of people whom you obvious hate with a passion.

You have indeed made it clear that it is your "sincerest hope" that a "terrorist incident" would happen.

It is YOU who are the liar. Here, for all to see.

You understand that people can go back and READ what you have written above, yes?

Just checking.

mak44 @ June 28, 2006 10:21... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

mak44 @ June 28, 2006 10:21 PM

The SWIFT operation even had a website about the program.

Link please . . .

Mak44: "All that you are re... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Mak44: "All that you are revealing about yourselves is that a free & unfettered media is anathma to you folks and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what that adds up to."

No, an irresponsible, partisan group of journalists that will do anything to take down a president even to divulging secret government intelligence operations during time of war is anathma to us.

Whether or not the disclosure by the NYT actually told our enemies anything they did not know is moot point relative to the culpability of the NYT. They broke the law and had you or I done the same thing, we'd be sitting in jail facing serious prosecution right now - and justifiably so.

One of the most powerful fundamentals of intelligence gathering is that you do not tell the enemy what you are doing and you do not tell them what you are not doing either. Any information that tells the enemy about what you are doing or verifies their pre-held suspicions should not be disclosed. Otherwise the integrity of the program and then entire system is compromised rendered at least less effective.

By printing the story, the NYT gave classified information to the enemy - no question. Whether the information was already known to, or useful to, the enemy has no bearing on the guilt of the NYT. Releasing such information was wrong morally, ethically, and legally.

If the highly paid, solidly lefist staff of the NYT and the leakers who supplied them with information are able to take the law into their own hands and without any due process, accountability, or oversight act as judge, jury, and executioner to classifed and necessarily secret operations then we as a nation are in deep trouble.

The NYT has no more right to divulge that information than you or I do - especially during time of war.

F15CMy unde... (Below threshold)
mak44:

F15C

My understanding of the matter is that the NYT had numerous sources who revealed this classified information to them. If anyone is to be prosecuted, it is the leakers.

As to the "leftist" NYT, that was a real Lefty hit not long ago on the Clinton marriage story.

What people who think like you do is label any element of the media that doesn't print news that squares w/ your preferred view of the world.

On the other hand, a news medialike Fox & the Washington Times are your preferred vehicles because their motto is: "All the news that's fit to Fabricate."

www.swift.comreal ... (Below threshold)
Dipshit DavidB:

www.swift.com

real hard one to find.

There is some severe cognit... (Below threshold)

There is some severe cognitive dissonance involved in believing 1) A free press is utterly vital to a free society, and 2) Nothing the press does actually has consequences in the real world.

Oh, and it was vitally important to run a story that was *completely irrelevant*.

Because that's what mak44 and others are claiming... nothing in the story was actually *news* to anyone... right?

What a freaking waste of paper.

David BSorr... (Below threshold)
mak44:

David B

Sorry, no link. But if you want to hear it, tape or TIVO Olberman's Countdown on the West Coast edition or tomorrow's morning repeat. It's in the first segment, so you won't have to watch long enough to get seriously ill.

Course, if you hasve a strong enough stomach for the truth, you might stay on for the piece about the swiftboating of Murtha re his purported statement in FL & the retraction printed today by thw Sun Sentinel as an antidote to Paul's horsesh_t hitpiece thread on Murtha this past Sunday. Paul didn't have the cajones other than to make an equivocatinbg retraction buried back on his Sunday poost where no one is likely to see it.

Apologies for the latter thread hijacking.

O.K. mak44 you seem to be a... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

O.K. mak44 you seem to be a little challenged on understanding your own dribbling, so let me help you a little, and please read slowly so your whittle brain can keep up.

You said

The SWIFT operation even had a website about the program.

Notice the keyword there simpleton, you said that the SWIFT website had information about the program.

Again, you moron, provide the link to the portion of the web site that describes the program.

Or, like Lee, are you showing your hand as a troll with no substance? You made the statement, back it up with fact.

Who's the dipshit now Skippy?

Apologies to mak, I assumed... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Apologies to mak, I assumed you posted the comment about dipshit . . .

But no apologies to the oth... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

But no apologies to the other moron, learn to read you tool.

Thanks mak, I'll take a pas... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Thanks mak, I'll take a pass on Olberman, it was bad enough when he was a slobbering sportscaster, now he just foams at the mouth to much for me.

I hate to say it Old Time R... (Below threshold)
UncleZeb:

I hate to say it Old Time Religion but at 96 maybe it aint Bush that aint right in the head!

David BNo p... (Below threshold)
mak44:

David B

No problem, but if you want a source, you'll have to hold your nose & watch Countdown.

I understand that a lot of people here despise Olberman, but this is a factual report & not his opinion or editorial comment.

Thanks for that brave admis... (Below threshold)
914:

Thanks for that brave admission. editor in chimp mak 24.

914Why 914,... (Below threshold)
mak44:

914

Why 914, you are too kind.

BTW Is your "Pass" valid thru the 4th?

44 is Your self absorbsion ... (Below threshold)
914:

44 is Your self absorbsion a terminal condition?

Wow, Lee and OTR have some ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Wow, Lee and OTR have some old, non-existant caricature family members.

I just wish the NY Times had the same respect for nat'l secrets as they expect us to have for their reporters' sources.

Start locking up journalists until they give up their sources. Risen in a jail cell would be a hoot.
-=Mike

Lock up the Aristocrats tha... (Below threshold)
914:

Lock up the Aristocrats that look down on all of us mere Americans? Why thats prepostrous...They have our best interests at heart, and our collective need to know all balanced perfectly.


PUKE

Course, if you hasve a s... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Course, if you hasve a strong enough stomach for the truth, you might stay on for the piece about the swiftboating of Murtha re his purported statement in FL & the retraction printed today by thw Sun Sentinel

See, HERE is where somebody would include a link to back up their point.

Just a piece of advice.

This evening, Roger Cressey, a former Bush Admin. advisor on terrorism, said categorically on MSNBC that the revelation by the NYT of this financil operation did not in the slightest way reveal anything that the terrorists had not already known.

Of course, if he was a believable source, he'd have been on a channel people ACTUALLY watch. You go to MSNBC when Hee Haw happens to kick you off your usual slot.

You're just blowing out your ass. A simplistic attack on Cressey (who by the way makes many appearances on more than MSNBC as an expert on terrortism)

A better debator, of course, would have put a link to back up his/her claim HERE as well.

Moreover, Bush, from shortly after 9/11, has said that the US will use every avenue possible to track financial transfers.

This is like saying a teacher who tells his class to study for a test and a teacher who hands his class a test are doing the same thing.

Your rant, Mitchell, just reveals how little you give a sh_t for the 1st Amendment. Perhaps you prefer an American edition of Pravda.

And you demonstrate a desire to let an elite crowd of unaccountable people make decisions for the country as a whole.

There is a reason why the left embraces the courts and not the legislature.

My understanding of the matter is that the NYT had numerous sources who revealed this classified information to them. If anyone is to be prosecuted, it is the leakers.

As a member of the public with a vested right to know --- I want to know who these sources are.

Sorry, no link. But if you want to hear it, tape or TIVO Olberman's Countdown on the West Coast edition or tomorrow's morning repeat. It's in the first segment, so you won't have to watch long enough to get seriously ill.

So, all you have is Olbermann's demented ramblings?

Sorry, if I didn't take Keith seriously when discussing the blocking scheme of the 1994 Buffalo Bills squad, I don't think I'll take him seriously about something that he is even MORE clueless about.

I know, you think "Hey, he's wearing GLASSES!" and all --- but that doesn't actually equate to any intellectual weight.

No problem, but if you want a source, you'll have to hold your nose & watch Countdown.

So you have no source, then. Got it.

Would you take "Well, you'll have to listen to Sean Hannity's show for the source" seriously?

I understand that a lot of people here despise Olberman, but this is a factual report & not his opinion or editorial comment.

Gee, why would anybody possibly doubt you on this one? The Bush/TANG story on 60 Minutes was not an opinion or editorial comment either, right?
-=Mike

You know the part that real... (Below threshold)
ExSubNuke:

You know the part that really gets me? It's the part where the Times and their sympathizers say "they already knew it was going on... what's the big deal?"

The "big deal" would be the difference between knowing there are police on the interstate that will give out tickets for speeding. And knowing the exact locations they like to hide and the shift rotation schedules for all the patrol cars so you can now completely avoid all the speed traps.

The "big deal" would be the difference between knowing that nuclear weapons exist and work, and finding a tech manual with exact schematics, a list of the materials needed (and the tolerances they would have to be manufactured to), and electrical diagrams to actually build one.

Of course the disclosure hurt the program. Before, they knew it was going on. Now, they know exactly what to do and what NOT to do to fly under the radar and make it that much harder to find them and root them out. Maybe just that much harder that they now have enough time to actually pull off some of their plans.

Way to go Times Two.

Former Republican Rep. Joe ... (Below threshold)
Cannon Mouth:

Former Republican Rep. Joe Scarborough gets it right as he takes the wood to Peter King for calling for prosecuting the NY Times:

SCARBOROUGH (6/26/06): Do you not trust yourself with this information, do you not trust your peers? You are the head of the Homeland Security Committee, for God`s sake. I would hope that you-- Listen, what if Hillary Clinton is president two years from now, three years from now, and she is conducting these type of programs? Aren't you going to demand to have that type of knowledge ahead of time? [...]

CARBOROUGH: Friends, here`s the bottom line. OK? Let`s bottom-line this one for you.

For me, it comes down to double standards. I always apply the test of what we Republicans would have done had this happened during the 1990s. During the Clinton administration, when I was sitting on the Judiciary Committee, I'll tell you what would have happened--we would have raised hell. We would not have trusted Bill Clinton with this type of unlimited power. And we have not trusted--we never would have trusted Janet Reno as attorney general with this type of unlimited power.

This is a fight, not just between Republicans and Democrats, not just between the New York Times and George Bush, but it`s a fight between conservative Republicans who believe in limited government--those Jeffersonian Republicans--and establishment Republicans that want to give this administration whatever they ask for.


Nuff said.

Except nobody fought about ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Except nobody fought about Clinton's widespread domestic spying program.
-=Mike

MikeSCGod h... (Below threshold)
mak44:

MikeSC

God help you, you pompous ass, if you think yopu offered any debating points above.

Simply dismissing a news piece on Countdown because you despise Olberman does not invalidate a truthful report, you dumb sh_t.

You couldn't succeed in Forensics were your opponent a rock. Slinging sh_t is not a rebuttal.

However, you might change the "SC" in your user to "SS;" it would be far more apropos.

God help you, you pompou... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

God help you, you pompous ass, if you think yopu offered any debating points above.

So, ya got nothing, eh?

Nothing at all, huh?

No evidence whatsoever?

Well, at least you were makkk enough to admit it.

Simply dismissing a news piece on Countdown because you despise Olberman does not invalidate a truthful report, you dumb sh_t.

Gee, Countdown has built up SUCH a level of trust that I take their word seriously without, you know, CORROBORATION OF ANY SORT WHATSOEVER.

Again, if I said "Listen to Hannity's show for the source", you'd be just a bit skeptical, too.

Provide a link. Just one. Heck, be industrious, go to Olbermann's site, and find the link there.

...of course, I doubt he has one, either.

You couldn't succeed in Forensics were your opponent a rock. Slinging sh_t is not a rebuttal.

Thank you for demonstrating this so effectively here. I mean, yeah, it's your usual non-reply --- but it's universally demonstrative of your point here.

Shame you can't back up your OTHER points with anything so concrete.

However, you might change the "SC" in your user to "SS;" it would be far more apropos.

Oooh, did makkk get upset?

Channel that anger into backing up a point of yours for once. What do you say, sport?
-=Mike

Mak What is Yopu? a ... (Below threshold)
914:

Mak
What is Yopu? a new flavor of yogurt?

Mak44, you then believe the... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Mak44, you then believe the NYT staff is centrist or maybe slightly even right of center politically? I'd like to understand what makes you think the NYT is not a group of lefties. Though nowhere near the DU, the NYT is significantly left of center. That is not hardly news.

The synchophantic support coming from you and some others indicating that the NYT story did no harm is baseless - you have no possible way of knowing that. If the program was known to terrorists one and all, and it was legal, and it was not harming Americans, then why put the story on the front page and make such a point about the program being secret?

You would have us believe the story was no big deal, yet the NYT saw fit to talk to the government departments involved, current and former politicians of both parties, and the two chairs of the 9/11 commission (who asked that the NYT not print the story). Even Jack Murtha asked them not to publish the story. So, regardless of what you think, the NYT, those government officials, and I think the story was a big deal.

This is an excerpt from a CIA report about leaks of classified information:

"While leaks of classified information are often intended to influence or inform US audiences, foreign intelligence services and terrorists are close and voracious readers of the US press. They are keenly alert to revelations of US classified information. For example, a former Russian military intelligence officer wrote: 'I was amazed--and Moscow was very appreciative--at how many times I found very sensitive information in American newspapers. In my view, Americans tend to care more about scooping their competition than about national security, which made my job easier .'

"I call this the Lunev Axiom: Classified intelligence disclosed in the press is the effective equivalent of intelligence gathered through foreign espionage. Importantly, more than just Russian intelligence officers understand this. Key adversaries of the United States, such as China and al-Qaida, derive a significant amount of their information on the United States and US intelligence from the media, including the Internet. What we need to understand are the legal implications of this key principle.

The NYT's exposure of the NSA and SWIFT programs did not help American citizens, our soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, or our intelligence agents here and abroad one single iota. But the information did help somebody and I'm sure they are grateful to the NYT for their assistance just as the Soviets were.

I wish the NYT would work half as hard (or work at all acutally) to gather and release valuable classifed information about our enemies as they do releasing information to that enemy about our fellow Americans who are working to find and stop them.

914Sorry Sy... (Below threshold)
mak44:

914

Sorry Sybil- I misspelled "yoda."

914I forgot... (Below threshold)
mak44:

914

I forgot that these cold nites up thar in Minnesota probably slow down your reptillian nervous system.

F15CYea. th... (Below threshold)
mak44:

F15C

Yea. they got such a bunch of Libs at the NYT; like the recently retired Wm. Saffire & the resident David Brooks, not to mention the former Judith Miller who carried the Bush Water for hyping his war of choice.

A real hotbed of Lefties, exclusively.

Yes and I guess I can blame... (Below threshold)
914:

Yes and I guess I can blame Gore for not bringing His inconvienent truth up to My neck of the woods..its like 40 degrees out right now. brrrr

914You migh... (Below threshold)
mak44:

914

You might consider moving to Cincinnati, where reptiles thrive in the heat & humidity & can pound the keyboard even thru the nite. Plus, while we're not the buckle on the bible belt, we certainly are the 1st notch.

And of course, it's the home of probably your most admired woman, Jean Schmidt

Lee lee was laughing at som... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Lee lee was laughing at someone for spelling something wrong. One thing is certain-you can't spell lee lee wrong because it is so easy. Just in case someone has forgot how to spell it, this is the how it is spelled--ASSHOLE

"So this is kind of strange... (Below threshold)
Cannon Mouth:

"So this is kind of strange, then. Both Snow and Dick Cheney have explicitly said that the Times has put the nation's security at risk - and presumably they think the paper continues to do so, since it won't back off its right to publish such stories. Yet by all indications the administration is unlikely to take any real action against the paper, mainly because it could be politically disastrous for Bush. Either the administration is putting politics ahead of national security and won't act aggressively against an institution it says is endangering American lives - because it would be bad for Bush. Or the administration's claim that The Times endangered national security is just the latest in a long string of lies it has told to the American people. Which is it?"

No, it's called having othe... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

No, it's called having other things on your plate and trying to find out the agents leaking.

Though, I could use that logic and ask Dems why in the heck they'd want abortion to be "rare", since it's only a common surgical procedure and all.
-=Mike

Mak44: "Yea. they got such ... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Mak44: "Yea. they got such a bunch of Libs at the NYT;"

So you agree with me. The NYT staff is predominately leftist. Big of you to concede the point.

Have you no semi-witty rejoinders about the statments made in the CIA report about how some of our newspapers helped the USSR, and currently are read 'voraciously' by our current enemies? I'd really like you to counter what they said.

I think the quote in that article, "Classified intelligence disclosed in the press is the effective equivalent of intelligence gathered through foreign espionage." sums up the current NYT/NSA/SWIFT matters quite nicely and accurately.

I don't have enough information to know if the NYT is purposefully trying to help the enemy - I'd like to thing they are not, but the available evidence doesn't support that conclusion. But whether on purpose or as a side effect of trying to 'get Bush', they are providing aid to the enemy.

jhow66 You ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

jhow66

You posted; "Just in case someone has forgot how to spell it, ( Lee's name ) this is the how it is spelled--ASSHOLE

How erudite; I am in awe. Your forensic skills are so razor sharp, I imagine poor Lee has bled lifeless on the floor.

Wouldn't dare think of taking you on in an exchange of ideas.

BTW Weren't you one of those bitching about posters on the "Troll thread?"

BULLSEYE.... (Below threshold)
914:

BULLSEYE.

F15C BULLSEYE I meant..44... (Below threshold)
914:

F15C BULLSEYE I meant..44 always has bad timing.

F15CYou pos... (Below threshold)
mak44:

F15C

You posted: "Have you no semi-witty rejoinders about the statments made in the CIA report about how some of our newspapers helped the USSR, and currently are read 'voraciously' by our current enemies? I'd really like you to counter what they said."

No, I don't. But I do question the reference to helping the Soviets, given that they obviously did win the Cold War and we all are now speaking Russian.

BTW Curious, the reference to the Soviets. Who are they & where are they now?

914: No probz. 44 *is* bad ... (Below threshold)
F15C:

914: No probz. 44 *is* bad timing. :)

F15CLike... (Below threshold)
mak44:

F15C

Like you said, "But whether on purpose or as a side effect of trying to 'get Bush', they are providing aid to the enemy."

I can just imagine George III saying the same thing after the publication of Common Sense an the Declaration of Independence.

Pretty poor response Mak. I... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Pretty poor response Mak. I expected better. If you don't know who the Soviets were and their importance in 20th century history, google the terms. You should have done that before typing that last repsonse. It might have helped your credibility.

A sarcastic response, to be effective and not make you look incapable of addressing the point, must actually - well address the point. Your attempt to say that the leaking of classified information by American newspapers did not stop the Soviets from losing the cold war and collapsing as a nation is ridiculous on the face of it.

But at least you acknowledge the obvious that American newspapers do help the enemy by exposing classified information. The only question we need to debate is to what degree they help the enemy.

Mak: "I can just imagine... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Mak: "I can just imagine George III saying the same thing after the publication of Common Sense an (sic) the Declaration of Independence."

Huh-what? You lost me on that one...

Are you saying that the NYT are trying to break away from George Bush's rule or something...?

Also, do you seriously want us to believe that you believe the NYT is not doing everything in their power to 'get Bush'?

News Flash: Of course they are. I don't have a problem with that per se. They can write nasty things about Bush all they want. But I draw the line at trying to undermine the president by undermining the work of the good people who have been tasked with doing the real day-in and day-out work of tracking and finding terrorists to stop them before they can kill more people. That is simply wrong.

No, I don't. But I do qu... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

No, I don't. But I do question the reference to helping the Soviets, given that they obviously did win the Cold War and we all are now speaking Russian.

As pointed out in another thread here --- incompetence is a REALLY poor excuse.

It was the NY Times that basically lied about Stalin's show trials and purges.

I can just imagine George III saying the same thing after the publication of Common Sense an the Declaration of Independence.

Considering that, in both documents mentioned, they were specifically trying to "get" George III, you aided his point.

I'm sure it was intentional, though.
-=Mike

F15C and Mike "SS... (Below threshold)
mak44:

F15C and Mike "SS"

You both are oblivious to either satire or sarcasm.

Add irony, as well... (Below threshold)
mak44:

Add irony, as well

F16CApart f... (Below threshold)
mak44:

F16C

Apart from your CIA quote, just illustrate how the American press gave aid & confort to the Soviets.

And who made that CIA statement? Was that the conclusion of some panel study, and if so, from where did it come and upon what is it based?

Let's have a little more documentation of and justification for that statement rather than simply a citaion as a CIA statement rendered in quote marks.

F15CWent ba... (Below threshold)
mak44:

F15C

Went back & read your CIA quote and see that it is from some report.

What I'd say in response to that is, had the CIA been operating in the Soviet Union, they wouldn't have had that problem. It's part of the risk of living in an open society.

I'd rather live in a free society than leave the choice of what I can read or know to a KGB.

If you want an unfettered intelligence agency making the absolute determination as to what info you are entitled to have, then welcome to the Totalitarian State. I'll trust the Press before giving up all control to a secret agency.

Mak: "Apart from your CIA q... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Mak: "Apart from your CIA quote, just illustrate how the American press gave aid & confort to the Soviets."

(First, to clarify, I stated they provided aid, not aid and comfort. And for the record, I don't believe the NYT is guilty of treason.)

So, you mean apart from them exposing classifed information to the Soviets for which "Moscow was very appreciative". Here's the link to the CIA report (which I tried to put in the last comment, but Wizbang's comment checker barfed on it for some reason...)

www.odci.gov/csi/kent_csi/docs/v47i1a04p.htm .

Here is another exerpt to illustrate an actual example of how the American press aided America's enemies:

"Soviet ICBM testing, 1958. A New York Times story on 31 January 1958 reported that the United States was able to monitor the eight-hour countdown broadcasts for Soviet missile launches from Tyuratam (now Baykonur), Kazakhstan, which provided enough lead time to dispatch US aircraft to observe the splashdowns and, thus, collect data used to estimate the accuracy of the intercontinental ballistic missiles. Following publication of the article, Moscow cut the countdown broadcasts to four hours, too little time for US aircraft to reach the landing area. Occurring in the midst of the missile-gap controversy, the publication of the press item left President Eisenhower livid, according to Wayne Jackson in Allen Welsh Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence (July 1973, declassified history, Volume IV, pp. 29-31, in Record Group 263, National Archives). According to the same source, some intelligence was lost forever, and, to recoup the remainder, the US Air Force had to rebuild an Alaskan airfield at a cost of millions of dollars"

You are quibbling. Big time. (defn: an evasion of the point of an argument by raising irrelevant distinctions or objections) That is a primary trait of the common blog troll. You can do better.

You can try all you want to vapidly deconstruct everything I or anyone else supply as supporting data, but it changes none of the facts of the matter. The cited event above is but one of many. The hard, cold reality is that American newspapers have provided classified information to the enemy that has undoubtedly aided said enemy to some degree. I know you don't like that, and neither do I, but that is reality.

So, if you have proof that the American press has never helped our enemies by releasing classified information, then please explain.

Mak44: "What I'd say in ... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Mak44: "What I'd say in response to that is, had the CIA been operating in the Soviet Union, they wouldn't have had that problem. It's part of the risk of living in an open society.

I'd rather live in a free society than leave the choice of what I can read or know to a KGB."

What a load of specious crap.

We live in the most open society on the planet and in the history of the world. But that does not mean you or I have a right to know everything the goverment is doing. There are laws and regulations (all constitutional and copasetic) that support that concept and for good reason. This is kindergarten level stuff and certainly not news. What is that so difficult for you to understand? Your response would have us believe that you just found out day-before-yesterday that some of what our government does is not available for public viewing and you are righteously indignant about that.

Our founding fathers believed in strong intelligence operations and I bet you'd be surprised how involved they were in those operations. Google George Washington (our first intelligence officer), John Jay (the father of counterintelligence), and Benjamin Franklin (a master of covert action).

And that's just for starters. Our history is rife with spys! Run like your hair is on fire!


"There is nothing more necessary than good intelligence to frustrate a designing enemy, & nothing requires greater pains to obtain."
--George Washington

F15CLet me ... (Below threshold)
mak44:

F15C

Let me say, I appreciate someone who wants to debate/discuss rather than trade slams.

What I would respond with, altho he didn't live in a nuclear age, is a quote from ole Ben Franklin: " Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

I do not mean to dismiss what you reference & I acknowledge that it created a problem for US security at that time. Likewise. the offending media did not make that report w/ the intention of undermining American security.

It occurs to me that the distinction is that in the Soviet Union that sort of security exposure would never have occured, and if it had, it would have been the first & last time.

In the US it did occur and it has not been the last time, not because the press was muffled or eliminated, but because what we are and what we have is far stronger than a Totalitarian State,if we have the courage to believe that.

When a people respond as in the Franklin quote, we move ever closer to the essence of the quote, namely, make the trade off & you get neither.

We are alive and well and free and the Soviet Union is in the "ash can" of history that Kruschev boasted back then would be our fate.

I think the gamble paid off. Regretably, the tenor of this nation today is such, that w/ another 9/11 or worse, there would be no limit to what Americans would give up for security.

The bashing and thrashing of the media, or at least some of the media dubbed callous to America's cause, is a faltering & frightening step in the direction of Totalitarianism.

That is a fear at least equal to the fear that the media might be inadvertently aiding the enemy.

F15CUnfortu... (Below threshold)
mak44:

F15C

Unfortunately, my last post was in response to your 2nd last post. Had i seen the latter, I wouldn't have wasted my time.

I write it off to simultaneous posting & reading out of sequence. Sorry for the waste of your time.

Wait, wasn't this thread ab... (Below threshold)

Wait, wasn't this thread about American Idol?

In response to the, frankly... (Below threshold)

In response to the, frankly, fatuous remarks made by "Old Time Religion" [et al] who equate vague descriptions with [potentially] classified details and conclude "no harm no foul" let me give Mr "Religion" an example he may be able to relate to ... having "served in Korea" as he claims:

When Churchill gives a speech saying "We will fight them on the beaches" he is not giving away the plans for D-Day ... is he?

The answer, my good -- if senile -- friend is: no he is not.

You know this as well as I do, my fellow American Veteran. Your disingenuous statements above I can only conclude were made to deliberately and dishonestly mischaracterize the situation.

Saying "we will track the international finances of terrorists" is not the same as detailing how and when such tracking took place.

Now, since you know this, and since you can't publically admit to it, my conclusions are that you are:
1] a liar and a knave, or
2] a senile liar and knave.

Being as I'm in a concilliatory mood so far today, I'll let you pick.

Mak44. I appreciate your co... (Below threshold)
F15C:

Mak44. I appreciate your comments. I sincerely do want to discuss, not slam, but as you know it is sometimes difficult to tell who else wants to have that kind of discussion as well.

Unfortunately, I can't continue with this right now due to work and real life, but I'd like it if the next time we're both commenting on a thread like this and don't see eye-to-eye that we can try to have a vigorous, productive, but mutually respectful discussion. I'm sure I can learn something from you.

rwilymz, One of the great m... (Below threshold)
Old Time Religion:

rwilymz, One of the great many things which has distressed me over the past few years is the pure willingness, nay, righteousness, of so many of my fellow conservatives to "swiftboat" veterans. Something which you seem all to willing to do with me, a man you've not met, nor know very much about, save for the words I've placed on this website.

For that rash judgement, you sir are most obviously not a man of honor. For, if you disagree with someone, does that give you the right to question their life because it does not fit into your views?

It disgusts me more and more every single day.

I'm old and too settled in my ways to care what someone such as you cares about me, whether you question my life and my experiences and my beleifs.

I simply do not care what you think. Simple as that.

You obviously think that by impuning my life as a conservative and as a weteran that you thus somehow make my points less important.

For that, sir, you are a man without honor.

That is the only way I can put it without rushing into words I will regret.

?Saying "we will track the ... (Below threshold)
Cannon Mouth:

?Saying "we will track the international finances of terrorists" is not the same as detailing how and when such tracking took place."

Of course not. But, if it is stated repeatedly in speech after speech by the President of the United States, it thus goes ot follow, common sense really, that one, say a terrorist, would thus understand that "the details" -SWIFT being only one - would therefore be of import.

Your logic is simplistic and infantile. You presume that the terrorists are idiots (projecting?) and can not make logical assumptions based upon available information.

It goes to reason that if the President is announcing this from the hillops for three years that it was a message to those very terrorists. It also goes to reason that is that information is out there, that the terrorists will responsd to it in some fashion.

It also goes to reason that if the terrorists are responding to that knowledge that they will become aware of the workings of the financial network, if they are not already, including SWIFT and the other two dozen wervies used worldwise.

Your logic is just absolutely idiotic.

I love how Fwilymz falls ri... (Below threshold)
Cannon Mouth:

I love how Fwilymz falls right into good ol right wing form: attack the messengers sanity and integrity. don't discuss anything that is said.

Bravo! Take a bow fool!

"If indeed the existence of... (Below threshold)
Cannon Mouth:

"If indeed the existence of the financial monitoring program was well known, then there was no point in the New York Times' release of the information, was there? There was no scoop. So, why would a star reporter waste his time on it?"

The story wasn't the existence of the program, or of the monitoring. The story was how, once again, the administration has made an end run around oversight.

The article had 2 purposes:

(1) It disclosed that the Bush administration obtains these records by administrative subpoena and therefore with no Congressional or judicial oversight; and

(2) It highlighted for its readers the fact that the Bush administration implemented this program in the aftermath of September 11 and then never bothered to have Congress provide any legislative authority or mandate any oversight framework for the intelligence-gathering program.

As was true with the December 16 NSA story, what the Times disclosed was the lack of oversight and safeguards in our intelligence-gathering operations - thereby prompting important public debate on those matters -- but not any non-public operations details that could help The Terrorists evade detection.

Yeah, the Times didn't reve... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Yeah, the Times didn't reveal anything that might harm the program.

Well, provided one ignores the comments of the head of the 9/11 Commission and all.

I wonder where the courage was when a few cartoons caused riots? The NY Times will only publish info that will make sure terrorists kill Americans alone.
-=Mike

Old Time Religion said:... (Below threshold)

Old Time Religion said:

Lee, my mother had her 96th birthday last April. She is as sharp and sentient as she always was... Thank the Lord. I grew up in a proud GOP household. Two years ago November I voted with my mother in her 19th consecutive election for President of the United States. Every single one of her votes was for the GOP candidate. All of them. (I must admit I voted for Truman in my very first election. He was the President in my eyes. He should remain so.)

Two months ago my mother was watching Bush speak on the television after a meal together. My wife was cleaning up and my mom looked at me and said: "I've only regreted voting for two Presidents. Hoover... and Bush. He's not right in the head."

Now, let's see...OTR's mother was 96 last April. That means she was born in 1910. And in 2004 she voted in her 19th consecutive presidential election. Which means that the first one must have been the one in 1928. When she was eighteen. Or three years short of what was then the minimum voting age of 21. Which means that either OTR's mother committed vote fraud (I wonder what the statute of limitations is for that) or else OTR is lying through his teeth. Wanna take bets on which it is?

Listen to yourselves. You s... (Below threshold)
Pat:

Listen to yourselves. You so-called conservatives are attacking fellow Americans. You are a shameful disgrace to your country. Further, your mean spirited bigotry serves no useful purpose and is exactly the effect that terrorists wish to achieve.

Shut off your computer and study history. Your ignorance is extreme.

Cannon Mouth: The program i... (Below threshold)
Marshall1:

Cannon Mouth: The program is legal ("was" legal - it's effectively dead now), was disclosed to Congress, has been effective in apprehending terrorists (the Bali terrorist, for example), and is most certainly supported by the American public. Where in this does the public's right to know trump the public's right to be protected?




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