President Chastises NY Times
In a move that’s sure to win him the approval of the American people, President Bush took sharp aim at the NY Times’ reporting of a top-secret but legal program that’s been used to apprehend AQ operatives and terrorists. The AP reports:
“The disclosure of this program is disgraceful,” he said. “For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America,” Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program “makes it harder to win this war on terror.” The program has been going on since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
—————
“Congress was briefed and what we did was fully authorized under the law,” Bush said, talking with reporters in the Roosevelt Room after meeting with groups that support U.S. troops in Iraq. “We’re at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America,” the president said. “What we were doing was the right thing.”
—————
“The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do,” Bush said. He said that to figure out what terrorists plan to do, “You try to follow their money. And that’s exactly what we’re doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror.”
In short, the NY Times’ hatred of President Bush was so strong that it outweighed their concern for human life and for our nation’s security. That’s simply unacceptable, especially in a time of war. Taking away an effective tool from our national security team is despicable. The NY Times, LA Times and the WSJ should all be made to pay, either financially through a massive cancellation of people’s subscriptions or through criminal prosecution.
Here’s Bill Keller’s feeble attempt to justify the NY Times’ actions:
“We don’t know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling,” Keller said, pointing out that the banks were under subpoena to provide the information. “The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere.”
It isn’t that the consortium won’t help us. It’s that terrorists now know that they’ve been found out and are vulnerable. That they know means that they’ll shift tactics and procedures to evade detection.
The NY Times’ actions didn’t just anger President Bush; they also upset Michael Barone. Here’s what Michael had to say on the matter:
Why do they hate us? No, I’m not talking about Islamofascist terrorists. We know why they hate us: because we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, because we refuse to treat women as second-class citizens, because we do not kill homosexuals, because we are a free society. No, the “they” I’m referring to are the editors of The New York Times. And do they hate us? Well, that may be stretching it. But at the least they have gotten into the habit of acting in reckless disregard of our safety.
Last December, the Times ran a story revealing that the National Security Agency was conducting electronic surveillance of calls from suspected al-Qaida terrorists overseas to persons in the United States. This was allegedly a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But in fact the president has, under his war powers, the right to order surveillance of our enemies abroad. And it makes no sense to hang up when those enemies call someone in the United States, rather the contrary. If the government is going to protect us from those who wish to do us grievous harm, and after Sept. 11 no one can doubt there are many such persons, then it should try to track them down as thoroughly as possible.
Little wonder that President Bush called in Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and top editor Bill Keller, and asked them not to run the story. But the Times went ahead and published it anyway. Now, thanks to The New York Times, al-Qaida terrorists are aware that their phone calls can be monitored, and presumably have taken precautions. Last Friday, the Times did it again, printing a story revealing the existence of U.S. government monitoring of financial transactions routed through the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which routes about $6 trillion a day in electronic money transfers around the world. The monitoring is conducted by the CIA and supervised by the Treasury Department. An independent auditing firm has been hired to make sure only terrorist-related transactions are targeted.
Members of Congress were briefed on the program, and it does not seem to violate any law, at least any that the Times could identify. And it has been effective. As the Times reporters admit, it helped to locate the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing in Thailand and a Brooklyn man convicted on charges of laundering a $200,000 payment to al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan.
In short, Michael’s told us that:
- Congress has been briefed and has been doing oversight on this program;
- the program’s been effective in capturing terrorists;
- and it’s legal.
Why the NY Times thinks that this is newsworthy is inexplicable. The other thing that I don’t get is how the NY Times thinks that the average person even mildly cares about this program. My good friend King at SCSUScholars says that SWIFT only deals with transfers of large sums of money from one country to another. King provides the best analysis of what SWIFT is and how it’s used.
I couldn’t care less about a program that uses information that has to be supplied to the IRS and other financial institutions. I’d further bet that support for the Times’ actions would reach 10 percent if the program were explained within the context of the laws of land.
RELATED:
HotAir: Video of President Bush
Michelle Malkin: “Lesson for Fishwrappers: Messages For the DOJ”
Technorati Tags: NY Times, LA Times, WSJ, SWIFT
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
June 26th, 2006 at 11:30 am
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: National Security, Beltway Media, Terrorism, President Bush, Scandals | [...]
June 26th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I am so ashamed that I wasted my vote on bush. What was I thinking? Why did I let my right wing extremist, neo-conservative, neo-evangelical thinking get in the way of exercising sound personal judgment when I stepped into that voting booth? If being conservative means fleecing this nation, getting our people killed for the control of oil, murdering innocent people, shifting the direction of our economy back to the dark un-prosperous days of reaganomics and destroying the middle and lower classes of this country to benefit the rich & elite, then a lot of people need to re-evaluate what they think they are when they say that they are conservative. Why? Because that is exactly what has been happening to this country over the last 5 years thanks to those who claim to be conservative or neo-conservative. These are the same people who fear truth or facts about what’s really going on in our government. Anytime someone exposes the lies of the bush cabinet, these so called conservatives have a pattern of accusing people of believing liberal lies.
Bush said over and over that he was going to restore dignity to the Whitehouse. If by that he meant destroy this nation and its constitution then I guess he has successfully restored dignity to the Whitehouse. It’s pretty bad when truth is crying out to be heard and it is continually reduced to being liberal lies by those who claim to be conservative or even Christian. Those of you who support bush should all be ashamed. There is no real dignity among any of you. The following is not a pro Clinton or pro Democrat statement but simply a statement of fact and those who ignore this are hypocrites. These so called conservatives and republicans raked Clinton over the coals for his indiscretion with an intern. However, the very same people condone the murder of our citizens and Iraqi civilians, blatant lies from bush and his cabinet and a presidency that is extremely fiscally unsound with the underlying goal of raiding the nation’s treasury to benefit the rich and wealthy. The facts are all on the surface and bush supporters seem to enjoy having that knife further twisted in their backs by bush and his administration. Clinton screws and intern and the religious right wing of this nation think our country is going to hell in a hand basket. Bush screws over an entire nation and the republican party and religious right wing have no problems justifying and condoning their hypocritical actions and behavior. Man…Nixon got impeached for offences far less then that.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
The Treasonous Times Must Be Prosecuted! — UPDATED
(Scroll down for updates) The New York Times has once again escalated its Journalistic Jihad against the American people, proving beyond all doubt that the Times’ personal interests violently clash with America’s public interest. On Friday, the NY Ti…
June 26th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Tex, If that’s where you’re really from, I wouldn’t trust you when you say that you voted for President Bush or that you’re a conservative. Let’s examine your lies.
That sounds like today’s nutter talking points. Anyone who thinks that Reaganomics “destroyed the middle and lower classes” isn’t a conservative. In fact, anyone who thinks that is, in fact, a moonbat nutter.
You’re a liberal liar and you’ve exposed yourself as a liberal liar with your insane, idiotic & inflammatory anti-conservative yammering.
I’m betting that you’re thinking that I’m going to tell you to shut up and never show your face around here again. Quite the opposite. I want you with a loud bullhorn speaking out on your beliefs on a daily basis so that people can see what liberalism looks like and be repulsed.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I notice the WSJ is getting a pass from all the bloggers railing at the NYT and LA Times.
The Wall Street Journal published the same information. Why do they get off scott free?
June 26th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Nutter talking points…that’s fabulous! *LOL*
You tell ‘em, Gary. That comment reads like something the guy spams on every conservative blog — and then uses the Texas moniker to prop up a little credibility.
The “dark un-prosperous days of reaganomics”… not according to GDP or NYSE. Back then he must’ve called himself Rock Examiner — and living under one.
June 26th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
gregdn…we also re-published the public information that the NYT (then LAT) reported. are we “getting a pass?”
Bush pleaded with the NYT to not break the story for the sake of national security. They did. And that’s what this is all about.
Maybe watch the video again. And Tex, if you’re still around, make us all some popcorn — but hold the nutter butter. (Couldn’t resist…)
June 26th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
You mean like this:
WSJ is how conservative bloggers refer to the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps you should reread how conservative bloggers have been chastising them.
June 26th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
The only thing that the NYT and LAT reports disrupted was the War On Our Constitutional Rights that is being waged by the current administration. How can our Republicans allow our freedoms to be so seriously compromised with broad wiretaps, email monitoring, and now banking and wire snooping without warrants? What happened to small goverment and personal freedoms and privacy?
This is a slippery slope with no return.
Repect our constitution and our rights. No big brother government for the sake of protecting us from 50,000 - 100,000 people!
June 26th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
How can you be so ignorant of the laws on the books? The law requires that these records be reported to the IRS. For you moonbat idiots, that means that if this information isn’t made available to the IRS & other government agencies, it’s a violation of the law. It has nothing to do with big government/limited government. These are financial records that the IRS, the SEC & other Treasury Dept. agencies review on a daily basis.
Furthermore, the NY Times says in the article that no laws were being broken.
In closing, it’d be insane to believe that the IRS & other agencies that regulate financial transactions wouldn’t be allowed to review major financial transactions. This has nothing to do with privacy of a person’s financial records. NONE!!! The Supreme Court has ruled that this isn’t subject to Fourth Amendment protections or any other constitutional protections. That ruling isn’t a recent Roberts Court ruling, either. It’s at least 20 years ago.
Get a life & get a clue.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Good gathering of nutters tonight, Gary. Why is it they want to know when I have an un-P.C. thought (so they can send me to a re-education camp), but almost fall dead from fright when the Prez does something totally legal, totally within the law, and totally within the bounds of what makes sense?
Oh, I get it now. They get uptight because it’s legal, within established law, and makes sense. Those are three foreign concepts to the ‘bats.
June 26th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
The Fruitbat Cornservative done wroted:
“For you moonbat idiots, that means that if this information isn’t made available to the IRS & other government agencies, it’s a violation of the law.
[No, it isn't, fruitbat. For roughly ten thousand dollars I can create a Dubai Offhore Company... "There is no public register of shareholders and directors... Dubai has very strong client confidentiality laws and has refused to exchange information with the OECD." Stop trying to sound like you're so smart. You are just another presumptuous, paranoid fruitbat. You write like you got your degree from Turnip Truck University. you don't know what you're talking about.]
“These are financial records that the IRS, the SEC & other Treasury Dept. agencies review on a daily basis.”
[You think so? You don't get out much, do you?]
June 28th, 2006 at 12:29 am
Have I been censored? In America? Now all the Wealth Investment Institutional traders and the elite of the wealthy to serve as their clients have just discovered that the barely legal immigrant appointed by Bush is snooping in their financial affairs overseas. There isn’t enough money in the World that I could be paid to be a Republican. Tap people’s phones…who cares! Read people’s e-mails…who cares! Start snooping in people’s wealth…the wealthy elite of this country are definately going to care! There goes Congressman King’s base! No wonder they’re so pissed. The most important part of their base has just been screwed.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:57 am
It all started back in 1995 if one really wants to dig deep enough. Of course then the press was on Clinton’s side for stronger regulations, tracking of terrorist funding etc.
A few years before the Clinton adminstration along with the FBI debated the strong arm of the law, in tracking the Holyland foundation based in Texas.
Why didn’t they then stop this organization even though they knew they funded terrorist “Hamas”?
1995 even then ACLU along with Republicans watered down as CNN calls it the wiretapping part of Clinton’s anti-terrorism law, of course we all know that the Democrats were all for that then.
Even the New York Times.
That was then, this is now 9/11 has changed everything.