Still waiting for someone to explain how the NYT article hurt our national security.

Still waiting....

Thank God Bush is finally starting to speak up on things like this. I wish he had also chastised the House for its wimping out by refusing to name the newspapers but simply settling for a generic rebuke.

I'm hoping that the Snow leter, and now this, are just the first two salvos from the White House. Remember, when we started fighting back against the FOREIGN terrorists, they learned that we had teeth and could and would fight back. Now it's time to teach this lesson to the domestic terrorists, who think they can sacrifice national security with impunity, if it will just weaken the President.

I'd like to see a vigorous investigation into this. If the invented Plame thing can warrant a special investigator, how can we not appoint one for this?

And while I stop short (at least for now) of advocating prosecution of the papers for printing the stories, I would not hesitate to throw anyone from any paper in jail for refusing to divulge sources.

Don't you think it would get the attention of the agenda-driven radicals if Congress were to pass new laws laying down very strict penalites for doing what these leakers did? And to have a special prosecutor appointed to find out who revealed this information? Let's drag these lying cowards out of the shadows and let them stand in front of the country and try to defend their actions. And then fire them.

I'd also pull the White House press privileges for any paper which ignored formal requests from the White House to honor the classified status of information.

steve, this is simply way over your head. We've tried, and you are simply incapable of processing anything which does not come to you predigested and ready for instant regurugitation, from your selected sources. It takes the capacity to understand how such an operation would work to be able to understand how exposing it would make it unworkable. And you simply don't have it.

So, steve, cling to your fantasy that absolute freedom to move money from one terrorist group to another,in total secrecy, cannot possibly have a negative impact on national security. Because certainly having the ability to follow such transactions couldn't possibly help find terrorist groups, now, could it? Of COURSE NOT!! You heard it on Air America.

"Bush said the program had been a vital tool in the war on terror when it was reported last week in the media."

The only tool I see is Bush.

I hope the NY Times editors are tried, convicted, and shot for their treason.

Steve, still waiting for your apology to Rove for your slander.... Still waiting... still waiting... maybe try admitiing you were dead wrong..... still waiting

Leaving Iraq is victory....

Or do we continue to throw young men and women into a meat grinder and spend $10 Billion every month....

What is the plan? What is victory? Bush's war is without a plan and without an end....

Americans and Iraqis want our troops home sooner rather than at some later "mission accomplished" point in time.

When are we going to have responsible leadership in D.C. again?

Wade

"Let's drag these lying cowards out of the shadows and let them stand in front of the country and try to defend their actions."

Almi, Almi, Almi -

Pray tell, what "lies" did the leakers, or the NYT, tell? I'd love to hear these. Or did you just happen to string together "lying" and "coward" because it sounded so nice, even though the *factual accuracy* of the NYT has NOT been called into question.

Steve is right. I *still* have not heard one clear argument from anybody, Bush included, as to HOW revealing this program will "damage our national security." More fearmongering, I presume - so typical of you wingnuts to try to silence the press and public by using fear tactics.

You wingnuts (not you specifically, exactly) want to prosecute and "bomb" the NYT for releasing a factually accurate story about our government. *That* is a scary thought. And I'm still waiting for you to rip into the WSJ for this too.

By the way, you want to see an investigation into this??? I want to see an investigation into Bush's manipulation of Iraq pre-war intelligence ... his continual trampling over the Constitution ... and his staggering abuse regarding his signing statements.

I guess I'll have to wait for the impeachment hearings.

maf53
Are you still waiting on DeLay and Rove as well?

So let me make sure I understand your point. George Bush thinks that Gen. Casey is waving "the white flag of surrender" with proposals that would bring the troops home from Iraq"? So to be clear, President Bush thinks that the military is incompetant to make decisions that concern them, and he is a better judge of strategic deployments? Are you guys really demeaning the Democratic proposal while ignoring that our own Generals have proposed precisely the same thing?

I want to see an investigation into Bush's manipulation of Iraq pre-war intelligence

The Senate Intelligence Committee hearings/report and the Silbermann-Robb Commission report weren't enough for you? They both concluded that there was no manipulation. I realize that doesn't fit in with your BDS mindset, but, you know what? Tough Sh.t!!

Jeff Jarvis' dissection of the NYTimes' defense regarding the publication of how funds are tracked is devastating to the Times, because of its restraint in tone:

http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2006/06/27/tell-all/

I'll attempt to keep this rather simple for the simple minded here...

There were 3 papers competing on the release of the "banking" story.. NYT, WSJ and the LA Times..

The government went to all 3 asking they not print the story...after visits from various agencies, calls including two of the 9/11 commissioners (one dem/one repub) and others including John Murtha... The LA Times and WSJ agreed not to publish the article...

The NYT as we know refused.

AFTER (key word) learning the NYT was publishing the story the LA Times and WSJ subsequently ran theirs....

In other words it still lay with the NYT to have basicly said...sod off.. we know better...

Thus the people are pissed off with the NYT..

As to long term effects on catching terrorists.. no one knows other than to say... there goes that method of tracking them... so don't bitch when we don't catch some of them...

Having said that it has had an immediate with our Allies..or those countries helping with the tracking of financial data... As of yesterday 13 countries stated they will no long help with the financial tracking..today Canada joined that list. So that is one immediate and extremely damning effect..

But the even greater effect is other countries won't be inclined in the future to help the USA gather data even if their interests are served..

Why be exposed due to leaks from the USA intelligence services that put your own country at risk or greater risk depending upon which country..

It comes down to...why co-operate?

One former CIA analysts specifically stated that is the chilling effect...

and guess what that will effect every administration whether democrat or republican ..

in other words the NYT just screwed us even further with the world community...one's that were helping us...

The tragedy is..some of you have so much hatred for President Bush and Dick Cheney.... your thinking if they lose or publicly embarrassed... we (you) win...

Your politics may have won..but the country lost..

Mark - can you open up a string about Gaza? Interesting things going on there....

Still waiting....

Why don't you go wait over at Daily Kos, jerk...

The demorats are allied on all the wrong issues from the Al Qaeda Bill of Rights; today's Supreme Court Decision, which is a mess (see Pelosi's Comments; illegal immigration; the war on terror; the leaks; etc.

They have fallen in the generic ballot polls from 15 to 20 points to now 3 to 5 points in all the latest polling.

Black Sheep,
As Victoria Toensing stated, after we promise we won't release the information of those that cooperated in tracking these terrorists, their cooperation is splashed on the front page of the New York Times! Truly an inducement to cooperate in the future; help America, become a target. Nice!

The only tool I see is Bush.

Barnacle, you really ought to be careful what you say, because with Bush's illegal domestic warrantless wiretap data mining surveillance program, he already knows who you are and where you live. In the fall of 2008, he may engineer yet another 9/11 attack so he can declare martial law and become dictator. When he does, he's gonna need a HMFIC, Dissident Apprehension. He also knows who I am and where I live, through his illegal data mining telephone finance transfer program. He's gonna probably make me HMFIC, Dissident Apprehension, and send me to get you first, because he wants the dumbasses rounded up fast so's they don't hurt themselves and others.

So you be careful what you say, Barnacle--my President is watching you, listening to you, and above all, laughing his ass off at you. Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!

think he'll have to go look up HMFIC?

He may have to look up dumbass!

"you really ought to be careful"

*you should be careful.* Don't use words that aren't needed. Clumsy writing, keebler. You have set expectations high with your criticisms of other writers.

*HMFIC* When you use an acronym that is not immediately identifiable by a majority of the readership, you should spell out the first usage. After that an acronym is perfectly acceptable.

He may have to look up dumbass!

Why don't you tell him boon. You know, a first person account?

"said there was "no excuse" for newspapers to disclose a secret government program that tracked millions of financial records in search of terrorist suspects.

Uh, wrong. First amendment rights. The publics right to know. All safeguards against government corruption, which of course is why this administration wants to keep it hush-hush.

Okay, DUMBASS!

I didn't take the bait dumbassbane. Bwahahahaha

"Uh, wrong. First amendment rights. The publics right to know."

So Ash, you saying the press can print ANYTHING it wants, no matter how many American deaths the disclosure will cause? I.e., that the first amendment prohibits Congress from putting ANY limits on the press?

To take a couple examples, how about a law prohibiting the press from announcing troop movements or battle plans? Or a law prohibiting the press from announcing that the U.S. has broken the enemy's code? Think either of those laws would be constitutional?

No I am not saying the press can print anything it wants. It gave the administration a long time to make their case that the Times should not run the story. They didn't make a case, so the story ran.

Are you saying the press should just take the Presidents word that a story shouldn't run?

Are you saying the President should in fact be the editor of the NYT? The Washington Post? The Wall Street Journal? Faux News (whoops, he already programs Faux).

Can you prove American deaths will occur as a result of the story?

Do you really believe a newspaper would print troop movements?

Steve...still waiting how the NY Times article helped national security and didn't help the terrorists....still waiting.

We've actually answered this question about ten times. We now have groups like the ACLU, and others that are petitioning the banks involved (many of them foreign) to pull out of the SWIFT program. If some of them do then that means terrorists can use those banks to funnel funds through.

GET IT? I knew you could!

steve,

I answered you on the "Perhaps The New York Times Has Just Forgotten About 9/11" thread. What are you doing, jumping around from thread to thread asking the same question and never reading the responses?

"You ask how this affects our national security?

Try this: Terrorists would be incapable of planning and executing any terrorist attacks, either here or abroad, if they had no financing. They need cash for purchasing weapons and explosive components, travel, flight lessons, bribes, etc. When we cut off their funds, they are impotent. Thanks to the NYT, they now know how we have been tracking their financing. We have been successful in disrupting terrorist attacks and capturing terrorists using this program. Now the terrorists will change their tactics for financing.

As SGT T.F. Boggs (USAR) wrote to Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, from Mosul:

"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."

And from LT Thomas Cotton, a Harvard Law School graduate who practiced law in Washington before becoming an infantry officer, from Baghdad:

The people trying to kill him and his men "require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs . . . You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here."

The blood of every US service member killed by a terrorist (insurgent, freedom-fighter, whatever you liberals want to call them) is on the hands of the NYT and all you liberals who defend them for committing treason.

By the way, those who gave the NYT the classified information need to be hunted down, arrested, tried, and if convicted, publically executed for treason."

Actually Ash... yes I do... for the scoop...

Hell... newspapers published our capabilities of knowing where our enemy troops and deployments for.

Thank Goodness the Japanese and Germans didn't get newspapers...

In 2006, all Al Qaeda has to do is have a laptop and a wireless internet card.

But that's cool... as long as the most cherished of Freedom of Press (regardless of the fact that with freedoms come responsbilities)is worshipped by the Left... and if they keep at it, I just might have to sue them and the ACLU for worshipping it like they do... separation of religion and all.

Ash and others: How can you possibly continue to defend the NYT after those helping us to track terrorist funding are NO LONGER GOING TO HELP? Unbelievable!!

Oh please, phone records, bank records, from millions of americans? The information gathered is being used for political reasons, not security reasons. Terrorists knew years ago not to make calls or lead money trails. They're evil, not stupid.

Priceless

Steve, Ash, and Maf are waiting. Waiting...Maf is still waiting for impeachment. In the year 2020, he'll still be waiting...like the Japanese soldiers in the jungle who exited years later after WWII was over..only to find the world had passed them by. For Maf its an instant breakdown after finding the Democratic Party was dissolved by mental disease, and the liberals all shipped to California for experiments being done on global warming. Kennedy and Gore would still be living with the Republican doctors there, prolonging their misery by necessary stomach stapling procedures. Kennedy's didn't work however, they found out he was secretly stuffing food up his arse.

The left does not care about national security. They see everything through hate colored glasses. They are willing to sacrifice "short term" security if it hurts Bush. Never mind that he can't run again anyways. There is not a lot of logic involved. Once you drop to the level of blind hatred they feel, everything revolves around it - like an addiction.

That hits the nail right on the head, warriornation.

Captain's Quarters blog has found a lovely mate for the Canadian apologists, AQ disciples on this board. Her name is Nada Farooq, a wife of one of the Canadian martyrs! Best of luck axis and Canadian Observer! Watch your back though, Third Eye Blind is very interested as well.

Make a bid on EBay for Thank You Card to NY Times

Imagine a young diary writer...a Miss Frank

"No I am not saying the press can print anything it wants."

Good. Then eventually perhaps you'll be able to understand why the Times shouldn't have printed its exposure of the Swift program.

"[The Times] gave the administration a long time to make their case that the Times should not run the story. They didn't make a case, so the story ran. Are you saying the press should just take the Presidents word that a story shouldn't run?"

Of COURSE the press should make up its own mind on the wisdom of printing a particular story. But that doesn't free them from responsbility for their own bad decisions. After all:

#1: The Times is still required to obey the law. Section 798 of the Espionage Act of 1917 provides as follows:

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits...or PUBLISHES ...any classified information...concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States...shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

It's IRRELEVANT whether the Administration failed to convince the Times to obey this law. If the Times broke this law, it should be prosecuted (unless perhaps the crime caused no harm).

#2: If the Times thought publication wouldn't hurt national security, but the Times turns out to have been WRONG, then the Times stupidly assumed a risk it shouldn't have taken, and must now take responsibility for its stupidity.

From everything I've read, the Times' story DID damage national security, which means they clearly should be prosecuted.

"Can you prove American deaths will occur as a result of the story?"

Yes, I CAN pretty much prove that with about a 100% certainty. We already know that the Swift program SAVED lives in the recent past because of its secrecy. FYI, we know this because the NY Times itself SAID SO. Quote:

'The Swift data has provided clues to money trails and ties between possible terrorists and groups financing them, the officials said. In some instances, they said, the program has pointed them to new suspects, while in others it has buttressed cases already under investigation.

'Among the successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. The Swift data identified a previously unknown figure in Southeast Asia who had financial dealings with a person suspected of being a member of Al Qaeda; that link helped locate Hambali in Thailand in 2003, they said.

'In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said.

'The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said. The man, Uzair Paracha, who worked at a New York import business, aided a Qaeda operative in Pakistan by agreeing to launder $200,000 through a Karachi bank, prosecutors said.'

But with the program details now known by every terrorist in the world -- thanks to the New York Times -- FEWER terrorists will be caught, and MORE victims will die. It's inevitable.

"Do you really believe a newspaper would print troop movements?"

What are you, born ysterday, Ash??? Of COURSE a newspaper would print troop movements if it knew about them, and if publication advanced the newspaper's agenda. How do I know? Because it's happened before. During WWII the Chicago Tribune was a HUGE opponent of America's involvement in the war. Because of its opposition, the paper INTENTIONALLY published an article in the middle of the war revealing that the U.S. had broken the Japanese naval code. FDR was so furious he impaneled a grand jury to indict the Tribune. So get this through your thick liberal skull, Ash: Journalists are ambitious, arrogant assholes, who are no more -- and probably much less -- trustworthy than politicians. Your willingness to give so much power to journalists is frightfully naive.

Warriornation,

Those links are right on the money! Speaking of money, does anyone know how many NYT subscriptions have been cancelled since they published this (latest) treasonous story? I've heard the number is in the thousands, but I'm not sure.

kimberly, where did you get your information that those banks cooperating with us would no longer help?

I still support the NYTimes. Given the choice of a government with no newspapers and newspapers with no government, I'll take the latter. Hat tip to T. Jefferson.

Frankly Kimberly from my vantage point I can't see how you can still support an administration that has lied regularly and tiptoed the line between legal and illegal.

That's unbelievable to me. Just my (and 65% of the countries opinion)

Okay, DUMBASS!

Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at June 29, 2006 07:59 PM

Bane, are you doggin the ass that ash keeps in his closet? how wooooooooode! lol

Okay, DUMBASS!

Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at June 29, 2006 07:59 PM

Bane, are you doggin the ass that ash keeps in his closet? how wooooooooode! lol

That's unbelievable to me. Just my (and 65% of the countries opinion)

Posted by: Ash at June 30, 2006 01:29 AM

You doing polls now ash? Wow, that makes them so much more credible in my eyes!

"Because it's happened before. During WWII the Chicago Tribune was a HUGE opponent of America's involvement in the war."

You contadicted your own statement with that. The NYT's is NOT a HUGE opponent of our involvement in the war. They reflect the thinking of 70% of the citizens who now think it is a mistake to be there, but that would not move them to treason. It may print things that don't please you but that doesn't give you the right to slander them.

"Yes, I CAN pretty much prove that with about a 100% certainty."

Oh, I'll just take your word for it, then.

"Ash: Journalists are ambitious, arrogant assholes, who are no more -- and probably much less -- trustworthy than politicians"

Of all the things you said this is probably the most ignorant. Most are hard working, creative and idealistic people. It is the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'reillys, Ann Coulters, and Michelle Malkins that give the profession a bad name.

No, jpl, it is you who are naive to believe crap from the likes of Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and W. S

Someday you will thank me and those like me for saving this democracy by being advocates for a free press. It is our last line of defense against those who aspire to being a dictator. (A dictatorship would be a lot easier. As long as I'm the dictator.- W.)

You just can't let greedy, power hungry leaders go unchecked. They have only their own interests at heart. (Otherwise they would be doing more to help New Orleans rebuild, instead of destroying a country -Iraq)

Ash...pretty extreme...where on earth did you think we would have a gov't and NO newspapers? Furthermore, where has that ever been a choice?

Again, why did the LA Times and WSJ both agree with the gov't and agree not to print the story only to then print it when the NY Times just couldn't get over their arrogant selves and make Al Queda and the Democrats day?

Notice today that Al Queda is rejoicing and so are the Democrats....two peas in a pod...again.

Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,103631,00.html

haha - kahn - still stirring around the bottom of the barrel eh?

HOLY CRAP - rusty 20 year old warhead found in former baathist garden with "i hate the west scribbled in iraqi arabic"! stop the presses. WMD's, smoking, mushroom clouds and all have been found.

haha - kahn - still stirring around the bottom of the barrel eh?

HOLY CRAP - rusty 20 year old warhead found in former baathist garden with "i hate the west scribbled in iraqi arabic"! stop the presses. WMD's, smoking, mushroom clouds and all have been found.

"Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria"

2,500+ American lives sacrificed over 500 20 year old inoperable warheads. We might even find a few more if we search for another three or four years. I'd say it's a small price to pay.

Well, at least the president wasn't lying...

"Oh, I'll just take your word for it [that more Americans will die becausee the Times' outed of Swift], then."

No one's asking you to take anyone's word for anything, Ash. I gave you concrete examples of terrorists caught thanks to Swift. It follows that with Swift exposed by the Times, fewer terrorists will be caught, and more will succeed in their mission of killing Americans. Ergo, more dead Americans. QED. ALL I asked of you is that you try to rebut my argument with facts and logic -- apparently something you're completely incapable of. Snotty one-liners is the only tool in your shed!

"Most [journalists] are hard working, creative and idealistic people."

Got no argument from me on that one, Ash. Every journalist I've ever met is indeed hard working, creative and idealistic. But many are also intellectually rigid, fanatical, arrogant, self-righteous, self-centered, narcissistic, and/or ignorant of basic facts of history. It's your portrait of the "saintly" journalist that's naive.

"Someday you will thank me and those like me for saving this democracy by being advocates for a free press."

But now you're just tripping over your own internal contradictions. Just yesterday you wrote: "No I am not saying the press can print anything it wants." So which is it today, Ash? Do you favor a "free press"? Or "a press that can't just print whatever it wants"?

Also, I notice you STILL haven't answered whether the Times broke Section 798 of the Espionage Act of 1917, which provides as follows:

"Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits...or PUBLISHES ...any classified information...concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States...shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Try putting your blind Bush-hatred aside long enough to answer this one logically.

Hey bloviator -- You got a source yet for that poll you cited FOUR DAYS ago? You know, the one that allegedly said:

"Polling (as of today): Is the U.S. media justified in publishing reports of how bank records are being tracked by Washington in the hunt for terrorists?
"Yes - 68%
"No - 32%"

Still waiting for a source.

Okay okay...I can see that Ash is still upset bc he has yet to figure out what HMFIC means.

So I will give him a hint:

H = Head (but not in manner you are used to Ash)

M & F = take a guess

I = In

C = Charge

So there it is...the cat is out of the bag.

And just out of curiousity...how many of you on the left on this board have every served in Iraq/Afgh, have been in combat (not seen combat, but have actually shot and been shot at), or even served in the military or other govt organizations. You on the left talk so much about what you know so little. It is amazing how 99.9% of all those serving in Iraq have only positive things to say about what they are doing yet the left continues to ignore those that have been there and are there.

Okay I am off my soap box for now.

Just an observation: It's the same people posting and bickering back and forth with each other. One side will not or refuses to see things from the other side's perspective. So, I think you should all get together and either argue in a court of law or settle it on the football field.

That is all,

Steiner

I just re-read your last post, Ash, and noted 2 more ridiculous comments of yours that I can't just leave unanswered:

“The NYT's is NOT a HUGE opponent of our involvement in the war.”

What planet are you on? Don’t you know that the Times’ publisher, Pinch Sulzberger, has been a virulent anti-war nut since his college days? Still is, too. Here’s what Pinch had to say at a recent commencement address: First he apologized to the graduates because his generation (the baby boomers) "had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.” Then he said: "Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way. You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land.” This comment reveals Sulzberger’s true thinking: he’ll do whatever he has to to obstruct the U.S. war effort in Iraq.

“[The Times] reflect[s] the thinking of 70% of the citizens who now think it is a mistake to be there”

That 70% figure is completely bogus. The actual figure is currently hovering around 50%. And the ONLY reason it's even that high is that the Times has waged a relentless anti-war campaign for the past 3 years, which has worn down the will of many people who originally supported the U.S. war effort. Times doesn't "reflect" public opinion, it shapes it.

Now how about answering whether the Times has violated Section 798 of the Espionage Act of 1917?

Yeah Parker...2500 American lives sacrificed just for that. Whatever. Saddam gone. 50,000,000 people liberated. New constitution. Elections Held.

Bueller Bueller Bueller

Ash,

"The NYT's is NOT a HUGE opponent of our involvement in the war."

First lets define "the war". We are fighting a Global War on Terror against Islamist Terrorists who have vowed to either convert Western Civilization to Islam, subjugate us, or kill us. Our operations in Iraq are just one front in this war.

So far, besides countless editorials and biased reporting against our progress in Iraq and elsewhere, the NYT has disclosed classified information on the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program (where we were intercepting terrorist's communications to discover terrorist plans for attacks against America), this has lessened the effectiveness of the program at best, or rendered it useless at worst. Now they have disclosed classified information related to our efforts to detect and stop the financing of terrorists, over the objections of numerous government officials, which will severely degrade our ability to cut off their funding. In these two instances, the NYT has done more to damage our efforts to fight global terrorism than any other person or organization. And you have the audacity to say they are not a HUGE opponent. They have seriously undermined our efforts.

"Of all the things you said this is probably the most ignorant. Most are hard working, creative and idealistic people. It is the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'reillys, Ann Coulters, and Michelle Malkins that give the profession a bad name."

Guess what, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the rest are not jounralists, per se. They are first and foremost political commentators. Just as Al Franken and the rest of the left's commentators. None of them claim to be journalists.

Journalists, who are the investigative arm of the news industry, are supposed to be interested in discovering the truth, not to advance an agenda. When Dan Rather, a journalist, takes fabricated documents and tries to make a story out of them in order to damage the President's re-election chances, he has crossed the line between journalist and political activist. The same with most of the hosts of the Sunday Morning talk shows and other network "news" shows. Look at the lineup:

Tim Russert - counselor in Democrat New York Governor Mario Cuomo's office, chief of staff to Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

George Stephanopoulos - senior political adviser to the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton and later became Clinton's communications director.

Chris Matthews - presidential speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, top aide to Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill for six years, worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of DEmocrat Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before running for U. S. House of Representatives as a Democrat.

When you have "journalist" fabricating stories, telling only one side of the story, stacking the Sunday Morning talk shows with 4-5 liberals and 1 conservative, you can't claim that they are "creative and idealistic people". They are shills for the Democrats.

"from my vantage point I can't see how you can still support an administration that has lied regularly"

And what vantage point is that? Your liberal, virtual world where everything in 180 degrees out of phase? Why don't you give us some of the Administration's "lies" that you can back up with concrete facts?

Like "Iraq possessed WMD"? It did. They used them against the Kurds and Iranians. They admitted they had them. We have found over 500 chemical munitions since 2003 (remember just 2 or 3 of these killed over 2,000 Kurds).

Like "Iraq is an imminent threat"? Actually, the President said we cannot wait until Iraq or other countries persuing WMD become an imminent threat.

Like "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"? The British Government still maintains that Iraq was seeking yellowcake from Africa. Even Joe Wilson's report confirms that Iraqis came to Niger to engage in trade talks. The only thing Niger exports of any importance is yellowcake.

Enquiring minds would like to about all these lies.

But now you're just tripping over your own internal contradictions. Just yesterday you wrote: "No I am not saying the press can print anything it wants." So which is it today, Ash? Do you favor a "free press"? Or "a press that can't just print whatever it wants"?

JPL, ya gotta love it when Libs get caught in this kind of contradiction. I have a friend who doesn't mince words when confronting people like Ash. He bluntly asks, "first you said (A), and then you said (B). On which occasion were you lying?

A-10, excellent post.

JPL,

Logic states that terrorists knew we were monitoring any money transfers of 10 grand or more, this is why the state department said they have increasingly been working with couriers, and not international banking institutions, the "terrorist" links were the supposed "charities" that may or may not be fronts for funneling cash to the ME, the problem is that most of the real money comes from places Like Saudi Arabia, who is our ally.

By your definition, journalists are the same thing as politicians.

Do you advocate the government telling the press what it can, and cannot print?

No, JPL, the press is not breaking the law because...wait for it...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

--you see, congress cannot make laws regarding the infringement of the press to print the truth. This interpretation of the press' rights was later up held in 1971 by New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713

Have you noticed one flaw in your logic...that the Espionage and Sedition acts of 1917 and 1918 were repealed by congress in 1921?

the remaining parts, which are held under 18USC793,794 are given a caveat by the DoJ:

"There are two reasons for the policy. First, it protects "whistle-blowers." Thus, under this policy, a government employee who, for the primary purpose of public exposure of the material, reveals a government document to which he or she gained access lawfully or by non-trespassory means would not be subject to criminal prosecution for the theft. Second, the policy is designed to protect members of the press from the threat of being prosecuted for theft or receipt of stolen property when, motivated primarily by the interest in public dissemination thereof, they publish information owned by or under the custody of the government after they obtained such information by other than trespassory means"

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01664.htm

Govitman,

I didn't know that people who have never been in a combat zone aren't allowed to be involved in deciding the path of wars our country is involved in; In that case can we remove Bush, Rummy and Cheney, and then most of the Republican congress?

Ash...pretty extreme...where on earth did you think we would have a gov't and NO newspapers? Furthermore, where has that ever been a choice?

War: It was pretty much a direct quote made by Thomas Jefferson. It is meant to project a philosophy that says a government is no good unless there is a free press to keep it in check.

"Do you favor a "free press"? Or "a press that can't just print whatever it wants"?"

I favor a free press. Do you favor censorship?

"MOST are hard working, creative and idealistic people."

I notice how you ignored my statement and jumped to the Dan Rather story. How convinient? There are bad apples in every line of work. Remember Hadditah? My Lai? Richard Nixon?

Spook, I'd sure like to meet your mincey friend. He would have to explain why he doesn't understand that a "free press" is not one that can print anything it wants. It is one that is not censored, but is responsible and can face retribution if it's not. Maybe it is too nuancedn for mr confrontation? Or you spooky?

Do you favor censorship Spooky?

1)Like "Iraq possessed WMD"? It did. They used them against the Kurds and Iranians. They admitted they had them. We have found over 500 chemical munitions since 2003 (remember just 2 or 3 of these killed over 2,000 Kurds).

All right, like where were they when we invaded the country unprovoked? Where are they now?

" the President said we cannot wait until Iraq or other countries persuing WMD become an imminent threat."

I don't approve of naked aggression. It is imperialism, plain and simple.

"from my vantage point I can't see how you can still support an administration that has lied regularly"

No it would be looking down on a world of neocons that see a terrorist under every bed. Who allow companies like Cheney's former outfit to profit, yet send soldiers without proper orders.

I'd get you more straightened out but I am going to see Al Gore's movie. I'll give you a report, unless your "inquiring mind" has already seen it.

Not that inquiring I suspect.

Meant to say send soldiers to war without proper armor.

TEO,

As usual you have taken a post and reworded it into something totally different from its original meaning.

Where in my post did I say "that people who have never been in a combat zone aren't allowed to be involved in deciding the path of wars our country is involved in."

What I said is "those on the left ON THIS BOARD...continue to ignore those that have been there and are there." Again, you talk so much about what you know so little. Instead of listening to those that are there actually doing the job and seeing what is really happening you choose to listen to those who have never been there and write whatever they choose to serve their own agenda...

Seriously, for all those on the left, if you know someone who is currently serving or has served in Iraq take the time to listen to them with an open mind. What we do and what see is not pretty. No one wants to go to war or take the life of another individual. But, the changes that are taking place and the advances that are being made in the region are dramatic. It is a war that we will win and it may be years down the road, but one day the world will thank God that we were there and did what we did.

“Logic states that terrorists knew we were monitoring any money transfers of 10 grand or more….”

No, not if the transaction went through a foreign bank. Till last week, many terrorists assumed they were safe using banks outside the U.S., and till last week we could have caught many of them when they acted on that assumption. But now they all know better, thanks to the Times’ folly.

“the problem is that most of the real money comes from places Like Saudi Arabia, who is our ally.”

Which is EXACTLY why the Times’ disclosure was so destructive. Terrorists who assumed they were safe going through a Saudi bank now know better, thanks to the Times. From now on they’ll just transfer funds some other way, and we won’t catch them. Which inevitably means more dead Americans.

“By your definition, journalists are the same thing as politicians.”

It’s about time you woke up to the fact that the mainstream press has been a political party, a far-left one, for about the past 30 years. The ONLY people incapable of seeing that are those liberals who are in deep denial, apparently yourself included.

“Do you advocate the government telling the press what it can, and cannot print?”

Generally, no. However, I DO agree with the laws that make the press criminally liable for publishing classified information that enables our enemies to kill us more effectively.

And if I recall correctly, TEO, YOU agree with those laws, too! Weren’t you one of the lefties screaming for Libby's and Rove's prosecution for allegedly revealing Valerie Plame’s classified status? Or are Republicans the only ones subject to the Espionage Act?

“No, JPL, the press is not breaking the law because...wait for it...

‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances’”

Who put YOU on the Supreme Court??? The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that freedom of the press isn’t absolute. That right must give way to other interests in certain limited instances – such as national security in time of war. For example, the Court said the following in Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931):

"’When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.' Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52. No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops."

In other words, the Court in Near expressly recognized that the legislature may constitutionally punish a newspaper after-the-fact for having published information that damaged national security; and that it might even be constitutional for the government to stop a newspaper from publishing certain types of military information beforehand.

“you see, congress cannot make laws regarding the infringement of the press to print the truth. This interpretation of the press' rights was later up held in 1971 by New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713”

Wrong. That case involved a PRIOR RESTRAINT on the press. The Court held that the government couldn’t prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers prior to publication, essentially for 2 reasons: (1) there’s a strong presumption that prior restraints on the press are unconstitutional; and, importantly, (2) there was NO STATUTE on the books making publication of the Pentagon Papers illegal.

Of course, NEITHER of these reasons applies to the Times’ article about the Swift program. #1, the Bush Administration didn’t sue the Times to prevent publication ahead of time, so the rules against prior restraints don’t apply. And #2 – and this is very important – there’s a VERY SPECIFIC STATUTE on the books that EXPRESSLY makes it a crime to do what the Times did last week. That Statute is Section 798 of the Espionage Act, and it explicitly makes it a crime to “publish…classified information concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States.”

I note that Section 798 didn’t apply to the Pentagon Papers case, since the Pentagon Papers weren’t “information concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States.” But the Swift program certainly IS such an intelligence activity, and in disclosing classified details about Swift, the Times clearly broke a law on the books.

“Have you noticed one flaw in your logic...that the Espionage and Sedition acts of 1917 and 1918 were repealed by congress in 1921?”

Once again, you expose your own ignorance. The statute I cited is section 798 of the Espionage Act. That law is STILL on the books, and STILL provides:

“Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits...or PUBLISHES ...any classified information...concerning the communications intelligence activities of the United States...shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

(See
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/37/sections/section_798.html.) Your wishing the statute was repealed is pathetic.

“the remaining parts, which are held under 18USC793,794 are given a caveat by the DoJ [having to do with ‘whistle-blowing’]”

Bullshit. The DOJ caveat says the OPPOSITE of what you claim. It says that while DOJ’s Criminal Division won’t generally prosecute government whistle-blowers for THEFT of government property, it WILL prosecute them for leaking classified information. Quote:

"The Criminal Division does not intend…to…discourage prosecutions under any other applicable statutes, such as those prohibiting the unauthorized dissemination…of government information…. [T]his policy does not alter the responsibility of government employees to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive government information disclosed to them in the course of their employment."

See:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01664.htm

So, so far we’ve established that nearly all your arguments consist of misstating Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. Code, and the DOJ policy book. My suggestion, TEO, is that if you’re going to debate a lawyer on the LAW, perhaps you should bring a law degree with you. To paraphrase Sean Connery’s character in The Untouchables, “Leave it to a liberal to bring a knife to a gun fight.”

Well, at least the president wasn't lying...

Posted by: Parker at June 30, 2006 08:49 AM

Wow, that's the closest thing we'll come to when it comes to libs admitting they were & are wrong!

I don't approve of naked aggression. It is imperialism, plain and simple.

Posted by: Ash at June 30, 2006 03:04 PM

So your polling & not approving Ash, hmmmmmmm........can you come up with something we don't already know about you? By the way, If you don't approve of it..........then why don't you try running the country! Maybe then you'll understand what "naked aggression" really is!

JPL,

"No, not if the transaction went through a foreign bank. Till last week, many terrorists assumed they were safe using banks outside the U.S., and till last week we could have caught many of them when they acted on that assumption. But now they all know better, thanks to the Times’ folly."

--"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."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/28/terrorist_funds_tracking_no_secret_some_say/

"And if I recall correctly, TEO, YOU agree with those laws, too! Weren’t you one of the lefties screaming for Libby's and Rove's prosecution for allegedly revealing Valerie Plame’s classified status?"

--Actually, you are mistaken, would you mind providing a link to where i said that?

In regards to the DoJ, re-read the paragraph, the first part applies to "whistle-blowers", the second portion applies to media, and is given latitude to print information if it is seen as providing it for the betterment of the public-good. What you have quoted, is in regards to bringing charges against government employees.

"Second, the policy is designed to protect members of the press from the threat of being prosecuted for theft or receipt of stolen property when, motivated primarily by the interest in public dissemination thereof, they publish information owned by or under the custody of the government after they obtained such information by other than trespassory means"

I think you're gonna have a hard time getting them on the espionage act of 1917, I don't think it applies to media outlets, but we will see what the future has to hold.

Ash,

"All right, like where were they when we invaded the country unprovoked? Where are they now?"

First of all, being in Material Breach of 17 UN Resolutions, violating the 1991 Cease-Fire, attempting to assassinate a former US President, and firing at US and UK aircraft patrolling the UN-mandated No-Fly Zone, can hardly be described as "unprovoked".

Second, they were where we found the 500+ chemical munitions. Plus thousands of gallons of precursors. Plus hundreds of tons of yellowcake. Plus Chemical and Biological Weapons Sesting Labs. Plus feeder strains for Biological Weapons stored in scientists homes. All items banned under the UN Resolutions.

Where are they now? We don't know. We do know that significant quantities of VX, Sarin, Mustard Gas, Anthrax, and other Chemical and Biological munitions declared in Iraq's many disclosures of their WMD weapons stocks are unaccounted for. They may be burried in the desert. They may have been flown to Syria as General Georges Sada, Saddam's #2 general in his Air Force, has claimed. They may have been trucked out in the convoys we detected going into Syria.

"I don't approve of naked aggression. It is imperialism, plain and simple."

I don't approve of naked aggression either. I do approve of enforcing the 17 UN Resolutions that Iraq was in material breach. I do approve of using the authority given by Congress to institute regime change in Iraq, disarm Saddam, prevent the transfer of WMDs to terrorists, stopping Iraqi support, training, and financing of terrorism, and freeing 25,000,000 people from tyrany.

Imperialism can be defined as "a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires." I don't believe that the US has any intention of acquiring or maintaining Iraq as a colony. Nor do we have an empire of client states or colonies across the globe.

"No it would be looking down on a world of neocons that see a terrorist under every bed. Who allow companies like Cheney's former outfit to profit, yet send soldiers without proper orders."

I don't see a terrorist under every bed. I do know that there are thousands of Islamist-Fascist terrorists who have vowed to subjugate or kill all of those who do not convert to Islam. It is better to fight them on their ground than ours.

As far as Haliburton is concerned, is the only reason you liberals keep bringing it up is because the VP used to be its CEO? I'm sorry that our President and VP have experience in both the corporate world and government, and the flag bearers for the Democrats have all been life-long politicians. Or are you envious of its unique capabilities in rebuilding infrastructure? From your statement, you also object to companies making a profit. For your information, our economic system is based in capitalism, where companies are expected to make a profit. Otherwise they go bankrupt, jobs are lost, and everyone suffers. Or are you a socialist? Or a communist?

We've covered the issue of body armor several times. I wore body armor when I served in the Marines and the Army National Guard. It was no way comparable with the body armor provided to our soldiers in Iraq. You also have to balance increased protection with the limited flexability and ease of movement greater protection allows. Many soldiers and marines in Iraq have opted not to wear the heavy body armor available because it slows them down aand makes them an easier target.

As for armoring the HMMWV, it was never meant to be an armored personnel carrier. Even so, it provided much greater protection than the M151 1/2 ton truck (Jeep), with cloth sides, that preceeded the HMMWV. Once the terrorists started targeting HMMWV's and other cargo vehicles, we adapted and up-armored them.

So where is your lengthy list of lies? You haven't provided a single one.

maf, every person who has access to classifed information signs a confidentiality agreement in which he promises to keep the secrets with which he is entrusted.

If he then betrays that confidence and reveals those secrets, he has lied.

Which makes him a liar.

Simple enough for even you to understand.

And that liar, or those liars, are hiding in the shadows, hoping they will not be caught.

They are brave enough to slink around betraying their country becase they think it is really cool to be able to shove a stick through the spokes of the Administration wheel, but they are not brave enough to do it in the open. No,they don't have the courage to quit their jobs and stand up on their hind legs and tell the world who they are and what they know. If there is nothing shameful in their actions, why are they hiding? If they have the courage of their convictions, why aren't they on the Today show, being fawned over and idolized? If they feel justified, why aren't they out front, explaining their actions?

No, they cower in the shadows, hoping they won't be identified, hoping they won't be fired, hoping they won't be arrested, hoping they won't be convicted--in other words, acting like Liberals, trying to dodge the consequences of their actions.

They have to be sneaky, and anonymous. And they ARE liars, by dint of breaking an oath.

So Ash really wants to be an HMFIC, but is just FUBAR?

Almiranta,

What is worse is that the traitors within the CIA, or whoever leaked the details of the Terrorist Finance Tracking program, leaked the details of a program that was completely legal, had been briefed to Congress, and was effective in identifying and capturing terrorists.

And their motives are what really grates me. Some, like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, sold secrets for money. Others, like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were Communists and betrayed their country for ideological reasons. But these traitors seem to be motivated to undermine our nation's defense purely because they disagree with the present Administration and/or hate the President. Only a liberal would jeopardize our national defense for political reasons.

Do we get to call them un-patriotic, anti-American, traitors now?

Almiranta,

In case you missed "Ash's" earlier post, he/she is off to get further indoctrinated into the liberal philosophy by viewing Gore's masterpiece (cough, cough) on global warming.

"'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.'"

So what? Everyone knows that cops use radar to catch speeders, too, but that doesn't mean it's OK to publish where all the speed traps are. What the Times did was to ID the speed traps.

Besides, you're citing a corrupt source. The Boston Globe is f*cking OWNED by the Times, so what do you expect them to say???

JPL,

We aren't talking about doing 60 in a 40; International terrorists such as AQ--who were trained by us--know how they can and can't get around getting their cash, OBL isn't in a cave cuz it's chic.

When you cede power and a precedent, then whos bank information, or health information, or contact information becomes easily sifted through, and algorythmed into a curt little FBI file for easy access at a later time. Not to be dense here, but I expect a little more of an explaination regarding the safegurads we have against an intrusive government, who if they get their 'long-war', can keep their new found toys for as long as they want.

One philosophy, of a plurality of one nation, does not get to side-step the rights and liberties of the whole world.

I wan't accountability and logical assurances, 'Trust but verify' if you will.

"International terrorists such as AQ--who were trained by us"

Proof?

I know that we trained the Mujahideen opposition forces that fought the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980's, but at that time they were not al-Qaeda. We had no way to know that they would form into a terrorist organization and turn against us.

So to characterize us as the ones who are responsible for al-Qaeda is intellectually dishonest. It would be the same as saying we caused Soviet domination in Eastern Europe because we supplied them with war materials during WWII. Or you could say that we trained Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, who became spies for the Soviets, to spy against us. But intellectual dishonesty is par for the course for liberals.

A-10,

It is a logical conclusion to come to, that if you train people to perform insurgent activitiies, using US tactics, that the prodigy of those people are going to hold that same knowledge.

OBL, and by extension AQ and the groups it shares training with, know how we operate in tracking them, they weren't all of a sudden aware, through epiphany, that they should use disposable phones, couriers for information and money transfers, and keep a low profile.

The intellectually dishonest part here, is that somehow a clever international organization who has out-manuevered a vast majority of the world in the past 15 years, somehow did it out of pure, dumb-luck. Anyone with half a brain knows that we were monitoring international phone and bank transactions for anomolies, what wasn't known was the very real possibility that American citizens are being caught up in that net, without being afforded the luxury of protections guaranteed in our constitution.

It comes down to a matter of how far are we going to allow our government intrusion into our personal effects, and how much latitude we give them to wage war in our names, I would argue that this 'long-war' essentially makes portions of our constitution null&void until such time as the Executive decides to give them back.

TEO.

Yes, you have to assume that the bad guys (that's the terrorists, not us) were guessing that the good guys (that's us, not the terrorists) may be doing to detect their activities. Yes, they probably thought that we would try to incercept their communications. They probably thought that we would try to track their financial dealings. But they didn't know exactly how. Now, thanks to the traitors who disclosed the details to the NYT and the those traitors at the NYT, they know the details.

No matter how hard you try to justify the disclosures by the NYT, there is no excuse for them to divulge details of our anti-terrorist programs.

They may claim it is in the "public's interest", but the only interest it helps the terrorists. That and interest of the MSM, and specifically the NYT, to undermine the Presidency of George Bush and to sell newspapers.

A-10,

SWIFT is a pretty black and white deal, everyone knows that they are the nexus of most international monetary transactions, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that if you use a transaction that might go through that nexus, then we will have access to intercept that, read the article, it isn't a how-to manual on how to side-step those roadblocks, it only says what the basics of the transactions are.

The point of a robust media is to shine light on things that the government wishes to keep secret; we aren't talking about troop movements here, this is serious business to allow a single government access to the nervous system of world monetary transactions, this can very easily be used to ensnare private citizens who may be dealing with terrorist fronts, without their knowledge. For instance, a philonthropist who regulary gives to a Muslin charity, who assumes is a benevolent act, can esily become the focus of investigations into all manner of his personal life, without judicial oversight as to how that information is being collected or stored, or whether that person can ever be purged from a system of checks and intrusions, and without ever getting a chance to present his side of a case; I don't know about you, but I don't trust anyone, with that much oversight.

TEO,

“Actually, you are mistaken, would you mind providing a link to where i [scream