A Secret the terrorists already knew

The New York Times ^ | June 30,2006 | Roger Cressey, Richard Clarke

[YaYa123]

COUNTERTERRORISM has become a source of continuing domestic and international political controversy. Much of it, like the role of the Iraq war in inspiring new terrorists, deserves analysis and debate. Increasingly, however, many of the political issues surrounding counterterrorism are formulaic, knee-jerk, disingenuous and purely partisan. The current debate about United States monitoring of transfers over the Swift international financial system strikes us as a case of over-reaction by both the Bush administration and its critics.

[YaYa123]

NBC and ABC expert talking head Bush critics team up, or should I say, pile on? How in the world networks get away with having known partisan hacks on, representing them as unbiased experts in the field escapes me.

The cover that these (or any others), worked in one administration so they aren't being political when they criticize it, is bogus!!!

[Brilliant]

"Increasingly, however, many of the political issues surrounding counterterrorism are formulaic, knee-jerk, disingenuous and purely partisan."



Exactly what I was thinking when the NYT published this classified information.

[IrishMike]

Based on the headline

PUKE BARF

[Malesherbes]

Now we are being told that this is all a big yawn, not important, not even interesting to the terrorists - even though the NYT put it on page one above the fold. They must be feeling the heat.

[LOC1]

If this secret was already known, then just why was it "newsworthy?"

[BallyBill]

Yea, keep telling yourselves this and stay inside your little bubble. The fact that they keep making up new excuses, proves they know they screwed up.

[Stepan12]

[Judith Anne]

Dear Roger and Richard:

Your lame attempt to justify the actions of the NYTimes is falling very flat. If everyone already knew it, why was it on the front page? Why did administration officials and others ask the NYTimes not to print it? If everyone already knew everything, how is that news, and why would the NYTimes consider it important enough to warrant front page above the fold space?

All of us here in flyover country think that you have just proven us right, in our distrust and dislike of your arrogant, unelected, irresponsible support of our enemies. You may have a limited audience among those who share your "America is evil, Bush is worse" viewpoint, but those people don't pay your bills, do they? It's the folks who patronize your advertisers who pay your bills.

And I won't buy ANYTHING from anyone who advertises in your paper, again. Ever.

You people think you are smarter than the average American, and that you can tell us what our viewpoint should be. You're about to get an attitude adjustment.

Regards--

FReeper Judith Anne

[Diogenesis]

President Washington: "Before we executed Benedict Arnold, many traitors defended him,
by arguing that he did nothing of substance.
In truth, these traitors did thus declare that they, too, in truth, were -- also traitors.
American has never needed to hang these traitors more than today.
I would have hanged all of miserable these traitors if it was the last thing I could do on God's earth."

[Peter W. Kessler]

I didn't have to read a thing past "Richard Clarke."

If people of their ilk get their way, what kind of a nation do they expect to have?

Certainly not one in which I would choose to live, that's for sure.

[Thom Pain]

Hey Slimes: Are you dead certain that ALL terrorists knew this, and no sleeper cells were trackable via this system before you blabbed?

[KStorm]

I didn't have to read a thing past "Richard Clarke." If people of their ilk get their way, what kind of a nation do they expect to have? Certainly not one in which I would choose to live, that's for sure.

As far as living is concerned, if people of their ilk got their way, you or I would not.

[JerseyDvl]

You win first prize Loc1, that is the big question.
They are telling us that the public has a right to know and then that the public already knew.
I assume that the terrorists were the only ones being informed since this is the case.
Traitors.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Of course our enemies know that we are using every resource we have to fight back against the Islamic Jihad.

The transfer of large amounts of money from one place in the world to another is a complicated process. What the enemy did not know, until the New York Times told them, was just how the U. S. was using this process to develop intelligence about future terrorist intentions.

Now the only thing left is to STOP these transfers of funds so that the terrorist nations and their supporters will be unable to effect financial transfers.

Meanwhile, back at the NYT, further espionage against American is no doubt being planned. That should be stopped too.

[Schnucki]

If this secret was already known, then just why was it "newsworthy?"

And why was it still successful?

[Stallone]

The Al Qaeda Times - AQTimes

As it shall forever be known in our parts.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

NYT published this precisely to sell more newspapers. The editors are no different than any other traitor.

[conservativecorner]

The NY Times is more full of shite' than a Christmas Turkey!

[jch10]

I wish someone who has access to the NYT would list the advertisers so we could stop purchasing their products.

[Polybius]

President Washington: "Before we executed Benedict Arnold, ............"

In order to avoid any "fake but accurate" on our part, it should be noted that Benedict Arnold was never executed. He served in a few campaigns on the British side after his failed plot, was transferred to England in 1781 and died in England of natural causes in 1801.