Posted on 06/26/2006 2:11:34 PM PDT by pissant
THE VICE PRESIDENT: "In the decade prior to 9/11, we spent more than $2 trillion on national security. Yet we lost nearly 3,000 Americans at the hands of 19 men armed with box cutters and airline tickets. In the case of al Qaeda we are not dealing with large armies that we can track, or uniforms we can see, or men with territory of their own to defend. Their preferred tactic, which they boldly proclaim, is to slip into countries, blend in among the innocent, and kill without mercy and without restraint. They have intelligence and counterintelligence operations of their own. They are using the most sophisticated communications technology they can get their hands on.
"In pursuit of their objectives, they have carried out a number of attacks since 9/11 – in Casablanca, Jakarta, Mombassa, Bali, Riyadh, Baghdad, Istanbul, Madrid, London, Sharm al-Sheikh, and elsewhere. Here in the U.S., we have not had another 9/11. Obviously, no one can guarantee that we won't be hit again. But the relative safety of these past nearly five years now did not come about by accident. We've been protected by sensible policy decisions by the President, by decisive action at home and abroad, and by round-the-clock efforts on the part of the people in our armed forces, law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security.
"Some in the press, in particular The New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security programs.
"The first was the terrorist surveillance program. Sometimes the press calls it domestic surveillance, it is not domestic surveillance. It's a program aimed at the communications that are international in nature – at least one end of the communication has to be outside the United States, and one end has to be affiliated with or associated with al Qaeda.
"The second program that The New York Times has now disclosed is the terrorist financial tracking program, just within about the last week or so. These are both good programs. They provide valuable intelligence. They are very carefully managed to safeguard the civil liberties of the American people. They have been successful in helping break up terrorist plots. They are done in accordance with the Constitution, and there has in both cases – both programs have been properly notified to the appropriate officials in the United States Congress.
"The New York Times has now twice – two separate occasions – disclosed programs; both times they had been asked not to publish those stories by senior administration officials. They went ahead anyway. The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging. The ability to intercept al Qaeda communications and to track their sources of financing are essential if we're going to successfully prosecute the global war on terror. Our capabilities in these areas help explain why we have been so successful in preventing further attacks like 9/11. The New York Times has now made it more difficult for us to prevent attacks in the future. Publishing this highly classified information about our sources and methods for collecting intelligence will enable the terrorists to look for ways to defeat our efforts. These kinds of stories also adversely affect our relationships with people who work with us against the terrorists. In the future, they will be less likely to cooperate if they think the United States is incapable of keeping a secret.
"What is doubly disturbing for me is that not only have they gone forward with these stories, but they've been rewarded for it, for example, in the case of the terrorist surveillance program, by being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for outstanding journalism. I think that is a disgrace."
"The leaks to The New York Times and the publishing of those leaks is very damaging."
Perhaps we need to spend a little more money finding those leaks ...
Good point.
ROTFLOLPIMP!
"Posted by an individual calling himself or herself "pissant,..."
I see you do well at undercover work.
They can't figure out "what" you are. ;o)
"...the posters widely considered to be an act of treason."
They got that right!
Thanks for the ping!
If the Times gets away with this there's not enough money in the world to stop the leakers. The Times has the right to publish. I don't want a censor in any newsroom saying what can and can't be published, but when they make the wrong call - when they commit treason - they should be arrested just like any other citizen.
And never, never should a member of the Administration go hat in hand to beg the newspaper not to print a story. Let them print it, then read them their rights.
Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller turned up at a federal appeals court in Manhattan yesterday for arguments over whether the feds have a right to subpoena her phone records as part of a probe into Islamic charities and terror financing.
The New York Times is seeking to stop authorities from gaining access to records for calls that Miller and another reporter, Philip Shenon, made to sources in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
Blood be on their hands too of our soldiers. I wonder how many of these slimeball people actually understand they have a hand in killing our soldiers when they publish items that allow terrorist to remain free. If they so much as gave a real damn, they would do their best to see our troops win as swifty as possible so they can get out of there with their lives intact.
"And will you profane Me among My people…
killing people who should not die,
and keeping people alive who should not live…?"
Ezek. 13:19
They truely are Godless.
Good dig Windchime... I have missed that one...
have = had
Thanks for the ping!
Thanks for the ping!
So you're pissed. Who on our side of the political divide isn't pissed? But it is a knee-jerk reaction to say this: "It's really so simple, 'W'. Just do it!"
Granted, you are by no means alone in saying something along those lines, but I just had enough of it by the time I got to your post.
What, precisely, do you want the President to do? Neither GWB nor any president is a dictator who can just order up criminal charges against American citizens and entities. It's up to the Justice Department, which, although it is part of the executive branch, nevertheless always has operated semi-autonomously. With good reason.
The President, Vice President and Treasury Secretary all slammed the NYT forcefully today. We'll have to wait and see what Justice does.
Be my guest. Glad you liked it.
I don't imagine that they see it that way.
ONLY FOUR MORE DAYS TILL I ESCAPE THE PEOPLE'S LIBERAL-SOCIALIST COMMUNIST GARBAGE DUMP RAT'S NETS AMERICAN HATING ANTI-AMERICAN GUN HATING HOMOSEXUAL REPUBLIC OF WASHINGTON STATE. SATURDAY WE COME OUT FROM BEHING ENEMY LINES AND ESCAPE TO FREEDOM. After over 35 years away, I am going home. Home to Sweet Home Alabama. Free at last of this garbage pit of a state of homosexual lovers in Seattle and Patty Murray, Bagdad Jim McDermott and Maria Can'twell.
Hey, now I live in Wash state. The commies only control Pugetopolis. The rest of the state is pretty darn conservative. But I get your point. Though we need MORE conservatives, not fewer. Rossi won the last election, so there is hope here.
But have a nice trip back to the southland!
I have offered, to a local friend, to donate to Governor Rossi's reelection campaign. I might be in Bama, but I can give my money to whomever I want and I promised a donation to Dino's reelection.
Thank you! Glad you caught it this time.
I think we should hold the Bush administration and Congress accountable for making good on our outrage at the Times' treason.
How can they justify attacking terrorism abroad and do nothing about it at home?
We can't sink into the anarchy of vigilantism. We have to expect that the LAW will be enforced to protect America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.