NationStates Jolt Archive

So Bush and Tony Snow and at least half the conservative blogosphere wants the NY Times tried for treason or to have their press credentials revoked or to be publicly flogged or some such nonsense over their publication of a story about tracking terrorist finances using the SWIFT system. So why, pray tell, aren't they screaming for the blood of the LA Times or the Wall Street Journal (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002728765) which published pretty much the same story at the same time?

And even more importantly, why did the White House pressure both the NY and LA Times to hold the story, but not the Journal?
Reminded that the administration had reached out to both The New York Times and Los Angeles Times with requests to hold the story, Snow repeated his assertion. "The other newspapers were not involved to the same extent," he added. "The Times is really pulling the train on this one."....

Although both Executive Editor Bill Keller of The New York Times and Los Angeles Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet have written explanations to readers about why they published the stories, the Journal's editors have remained silent on the subject.

Journal managing editor Paul Steiger has not been reachable for comment since Monday, but Journal spokesman Robert Christie said he knew of no effort by the administration to halt his paper's story prior to publication.

Any speculation as to why the White House is so hard after the NY Times on this one? Or why they favor a paper with a decidedly conservative (and often fact-free) editorial page?

C'mon y'all. Nothing?

The vast right-wing conspiracy of course.

Probably the fact that the Ny Times is like the paper for the liberals across the US. Funny how they accuse the paper of treason, but they forget about their treasonistic( I honestly think i made that word up) acts, such as the phone taps, the CIA leaks, Lying over iraq, etc. Oh well, they have to do something to make the GOP and the White house look good versus the Evil Liberals!!!

Probably the fact that the Ny Times is like the paper for the liberals across the US. Funny how they accuse the paper of treason, but they forget about their treasonistic( I honestly think i made that word up) acts, such as the phone taps, the CIA leaks, Lying over iraq, etc. Oh well, they have to do something to make the GOP and the White house look good versus the Evil Liberals!!!
Treasonistic--I like that word. I think I'm going to use it occasionally.

Treasonistic--I like that word. I think I'm going to use it occasionally.


woohoo. By tommorrow it will become like truthiness, I suppose.

Im watching a rerun of Bill o'reilly about this whole thing...He had a talking point that said "Who do you want protecting you. Bush, or the liberal media?"

I just laughed..

Im watching a rerun of Bill o'reilly about this whole thing...He had a talking point that said "Who do you want protecting you. Bush, or the liberal media?"

I just laughed..
So did I, until I realised he was being serious and that there's several million Americans who fervently agree with him.
Then I felt a little queasy and vitiated.

So did I, until I realised he was being serious and that there's several million Americans who fervently agree with him.
Then I felt a little queasy and vitiated.
Me too. That's kinda scary to think about.

Plus, anyone with half of a brain should already know that the Government tracks the financial activities of suspected terrorists. The White House has been gunning for the NY Times ever since they broke that phone tap story.

Plus, anyone with half of a brain should already know that the Government tracks the financial activities of suspected terrorists. The White House has been gunning for the NY Times ever since they broke that phone tap story.
I believe that there is also video/audio of President Bush talking about this issue back in 2001. As far as wiretapping though, I have seen videos of Bush saying that permits were being obtained and all sorts of other things that they weren't doing.

So Bush and Tony Snow and at least half the conservative blogosphere wants the NY Times tried for treason or to have their press credentials revoked or to be publicly flogged or some such nonsense over their publication of a story about tracking terrorist finances using the SWIFT system. So why, pray tell, aren't they screaming for the blood of the LA Times or the Wall Street Journal (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002728765) which published pretty much the same story at the same time?

And even more importantly, why did the White House pressure both the NY and LA Times to hold the story, but not the Journal?


Any speculation as to why the White House is so hard after the NY Times on this one? Or why they favor a paper with a decidedly conservative (and often fact-free) editorial page?

This is known as selective prosecution - whoever represents NY Times in court can claim this and draw EVERY OTHER REDNECK PAPER TO THE PARTY.

Im watching a rerun of Bill o'reilly about this whole thing...He had a talking point that said "Who do you want protecting you. Bush, or the liberal media?"

I just laughed..
I thought it was funny as a dem, but, c'mon.

a republican with maybe half a brain would realize that statement is just plain ridiculous.

especially since the media is defending us. :rolleyes:

Plus, anyone with half of a brain should already know that the Government tracks the financial activities of suspected terrorists. The White House has been gunning for the NY Times ever since they broke that phone tap story.
Tony Snow's responses in that article were too precious, too. The NY Times is somehow more to blame because they sat on the story the longest? How's that work again?

What I find odd is that a few years ago, an editorial in the NYT called for just such a program.

This is the same program that got the government the only A (an A minus actually) on action taken after 9-11 - a judgment by the 9-11 Commission.

The Congress was briefed on the program. No bumps there.

So the question I have is, what's wrong with the program?

It actually helped track down the Bali bombers - so it actually works.

Do people actually want us to go back to the way things were before 9-11, and do absolutely no surveillance and monitoring?

What I find odd is that a few years ago, an editorial in the NYT called for just such a program.

This is the same program that got the government the only A (an A minus actually) on action taken after 9-11 - a judgment by the 9-11 Commission.

The Congress was briefed on the program. No bumps there.

So the question I have is, what's wrong with the program?

It actually helped track down the Bali bombers - so it actually works.

Do people actually want us to go back to the way things were before 9-11, and do absolutely no surveillance and monitoring?
Based on the very little I know about this program, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with it, and I haven't heard much outcry over the legality of it from the left side of the blogworld either. It seems perfectly reasonable to track financial transactions and try to garner intel from it. But as you say, it's not like the idea of tracking terrorist's funding is a big secret, so why is the White House so up in arms over the story? And why are they after the NY Times's ass in particular?

I thought it was funny as a dem, but, c'mon.

a republican with maybe half a brain would realize that statement is just plain ridiculous.
Maybe the Republicans, but the blue collars who don't bother doing anything but listening to FOX News and think Bill O'Reilly is a real journalist citing facts won't

What I find odd is that a few years ago, an editorial in the NYT called for just such a program.

This is the same program that got the government the only A (an A minus actually) on action taken after 9-11 - a judgment by the 9-11 Commission.

The Congress was briefed on the program. No bumps there.

So the question I have is, what's wrong with the program?

It actually helped track down the Bali bombers - so it actually works.

Do people actually want us to go back to the way things were before 9-11, and do absolutely no surveillance and monitoring?

The NYT didn't really say there was anything wrong with it and it wasn't a secret.

The NYT didn't really say there was anything wrong with it and it wasn't a secret.
Then why do I keep hearing spin on the story afterward - as though the Bush was involved in "yet another unconstitutional super-illegal super-secret surveillance thingy"?

Then why do I keep hearing spin on the story afterward - as though the Bush was involved in "yet another unconstitutional super-illegal super-secret surveillance thingy"?
Where are you hearing it? I spend, as you might expect, a lot of time on the left side of the internet, and I've heard precious little criticizing this program.

Did you read your own link????


Snow, along with President Bush and Vice President Cheney, on Monday criticized the Times for publishing the story despite administration efforts to halt it. He told E&P that the criticism was directed at the New York paper because it "was way ahead of the other two and started [reporting on the story] much earlier. The other two were playing catch up."

Reminded that the administration had reached out to both The New York Times and Los Angeles Times with requests to hold the story, Snow repeated his assertion. "The other newspapers were not involved to the same extent," he added. "The Times is really pulling the train on this one."

Snow noted that the Treasury Department had been in talks with the New York Times for several weeks trying to get them to withhold publication, a fact previously confirmed to E&P by Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, one of two reporters on the story. He also said that the delay allowed the other papers to catch up.

"They had been working with the Times for a long time, more than a month," Snow said. "It had been a considerable period of time."

And why are they after the NY Times's ass in particular?
Shut the voices of dissent....

*hisses*

Did you read your own link????
Yes, I did. And if you look elsewhere on this thread, you'll have noted that I think Snow's full of shit, that his "reasons" are crap. Convince me he's not.

Where are you hearing it? I spend, as you might expect, a lot of time on the left side of the internet, and I've heard precious little criticizing this program.
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3478/1/1?TopicID=1

In a Jun. 23 press release, the ACLU called the financial surveillance program "another example of the Bush administration's abuse of power." The statement went on to charge that "[t]he invasion of our personal financial information, without notification or judicial review, is contrary to the fundamental American value of privacy and must be stopped now."

Where are you hearing it? I spend, as you might expect, a lot of time on the left side of the internet, and I've heard precious little criticizing this program.
Left-wingers are all subversive Communists! ALL OF THEM!
*twists head and throws up*

Terrorists like the NY Times Crossword.

Terrorists like the NY Times Crossword.
Speakng of which, have you seen the trailer for the new documentary about crossworders? Jon Stewart and Bill Clinton are both apparently big on the NY Times Crossword.

Speakng of which, have you seen the trailer for the new documentary about crossworders? Jon Stewart and Bill Clinton are both apparently big on the NY Times Crossword.
What would you expect from a pot-smoker and adulterer? It was so easy to bring him down... I doubt he can fill all the empty squares...

So let's see.... Murdoch got told to do something by a politician... Like that's ever stopped him from doing what he wants.

Who really cares.

The NYT didn't really say there was anything wrong with it and it wasn't a secret.

Yes it was secret. It is incredibly damaging. The leakers should be jailed, the editors of the offending papers and the authors of the story should be tried also.

They are defacto SPIES for Al-Qaeda. They should be treated as such.



If there was nothing wrong with it, and it WAS (past tense now) an effective means of combatting terrorists, WHY did they feel a need to stop the program???

The blood of future terrorists victims will be on their hands.

Any speculation as to why the White House is so hard after the NY Times on this one? Or why they favor a paper with a decidedly conservative (and often fact-free) editorial page?
Is that rhetorical?

The blood of future terrorists victims will be on their hands.

Not necessarily. Let's say terrorists were oblivious to the initial spying and were transferring money to operatives here in the U.S. Well, now the jig is up. They won't feel so comfortable sending funds over now will they. Now they've got to ship cash over in a cardboard box or something. Quite possible that their financing has actually become more difficult.

Again, I see no need for the ruckus because Al Qaeda knows we're hunting them and this revelation by the Times should be no surprise.

Any speculation as to why the White House is so hard after the NY Times on this one? Or why they favor a paper with a decidedly conservative (and often fact-free) editorial page?

Fact-free or filled with facts that you don't like to believe?

Not necessarily. Let's say terrorists were oblivious to the initial spaying and were transferring money to operatives here in the U.S. Well, now the jig is up. They won't feel so comfortable sending funds over now will they. Now they've got to ship cash over in a cardboard box or something. Quite possible that their financing has actually become more difficult.

Again, I see no need for the ruckus because Al Qaeda knows we're hunting them and this revelation by the Times should be no surprise.

Absolutely. And if the Terrorists are the true Masters of Evil they're made out to be, don't you think they thought of this already?

My problem with the Bush Administration is that they feel they don't have to follow any rules they don't like. Take the phone thing. There was a perfectly good mechanism for doing that built into the FISA courts, you could even go and get a retroactive warrant for something you already did! But that wasn't convenient enough. And Bush's use of the signing notes on legislation, basically saying he'll only enforce and obey laws he likes. Please!

Not necessarily. Let's say terrorists were oblivious to the initial spying and were transferring money to operatives here in the U.S. Well, now the jig is up. They won't feel so comfortable sending funds over now will they. Now they've got to ship cash over in a cardboard box or something. Quite possible that their financing has actually become more difficult.

Again, I see no need for the ruckus because Al Qaeda knows we're hunting them and this revelation by the Times should be no surprise.



Fact-free or filled with facts that you don't like to believe?


It may well be harder to get funding to the cells, but it just got infinitely harder to find out WHO the terrorists are. They certainly knew we were tracking them, but they did NOT know precisely HOW. Now they do.

What would the allies have done if the Axis powers had known we had broken the enigma code??

It is exactly the same.

Absolutely. And if the Terrorists are the true Masters of Evil they're made out to be, don't you think they thought of this already?

My problem with the Bush Administration is that they feel they don't have to follow any rules they don't like. Take the phone thing. There was a perfectly good mechanism for doing that built into the FISA courts, you could even go and get a retroactive warrant for something you already did! But that wasn't convenient enough. And Bush's use of the signing notes on legislation, basically saying he'll only enforce and obey laws he likes. Please!


A multitude of court decisions say that the Bush Administration acted properly in the terrorist surveillance efforts - and that FISA was inadequate for the task.

There is not a single serious person who even suggests that the bank monitoring is even remotley illegal.

The left hates Bush so much that they will do ANYTHING to try and damage his administration. To hell with the country.

Speakng of which, have you seen the trailer for the new documentary about crossworders? Jon Stewart and Bill Clinton are both apparently big on the NY Times Crossword.
I knew Stewart was but it shouldn't be a surprise that Clinton was also. Clinton likes to solve things.

Yes it was secret. It is incredibly damaging. The leakers should be jailed, the editors of the offending papers and the authors of the story should be tried also.

They are defacto SPIES for Al-Qaeda. They should be treated as such.



If there was nothing wrong with it, and it WAS (past tense now) an effective means of combatting terrorists, WHY did they feel a need to stop the program???

The blood of future terrorists victims will be on their hands.
I picture you standing up as you type. One handed. The other balled in a fist directed towards the heavens.

It may well be harder to get funding to the cells, but it just got infinitely harder to find out WHO the terrorists are. They certainly knew we were tracking them, but they did NOT know precisely HOW. Now they do.

What would the allies have done if the Axis powers had known we had broken the enigma code??

It is exactly the same.

Everything you said is true, except for the fact that spying on German u-boat codes was a little different from spying on financial information of our own citizens. Clearly in WWII it would have been terrible to leak that information. It all boils down to how much power you're comfortable giving to the federal government. And I actually admit that perhaps the feds will catch Al Qaeda guys one of these days. What worries me is the road it will take our government down. In the future maybe their motivations won't be as benevolent as catching terrorists.

A multitude of court decisions say that the Bush Administration acted properly in the terrorist surveillance efforts - and that FISA was inadequate for the task.

There is not a single serious person who even suggests that the bank monitoring is even remotley illegal.

The left hates Bush so much that they will do ANYTHING to try and damage his administration. To hell with the country.
Hang on. Do you have a link to these court decisions. I've never heard of them.

I never had a problem with the SWIFT program. I assumed they were doing that all along (especially since a few years ago they said they were "following the money" - remember when they didn't allow the CIA to look at any records that had anythign to do with the Saudis?).

I also assumed they were tapping phones but I figured it was with warrants. My only beef is that we found that they were doing the phone taps without warrants.

They say it's because they sometimes needed to start tapping people right away and couldnt wait for a warrant. Except that they have up to 72 hours afterwards to request said warrants, so that doesnt make any sense, and they've never given a reasonable answer as to why that is.