Skip to comments.A Secret the terrorists already knew
Posted on 06/30/2006 4:27:53 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
On the positive side, if the Times is taking this position to defend its actions they must have been stung by reaction. Let's keep it up! Write to:
New York Times
229 W 43RD Street
NY, NY 10036
but the good news is: we all know and fewer and fewer people even pay attention to what they see and hear on network TV
"I didn't have to read a thing past "Richard Clarke." "
I did the same thing!
See John Podhoretz in "National Review Online":
Re: Dick Clarke [John Podhoretz]
Gee, the fact that Clarke has a monthly column in the Times Magazine couldn't have anything to do with his defense of the Times, could it?
HERE IS A PARTIAL LIST TO GET THE BALL ROLLING. GOT THESE OFF THEIR SITE. HAVE BEEN TOO BUSY TO CONTINUE.
MAYBE SOEMONE ELSE (WHO HAS ACCESS TO NEWSPAPER ITSELF) CAN ADD TO IT. HAD SUGGESTED A BOYCOTT OF SPONSORS A WHILE AGO. HOPE SOMEONE CAN TAKE IT AND RUN WITH IT.
AS FOR MYSELF, THE ONLY ONE (ON LIST) I HAVE ANY AFFILIATION WITH, IS STATE FARM; THAT IS UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON, WHEN I WILL NO LONGER BE INSURED BY THEM AND WILL BE WITH ANOTHER COMPANY.
DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH GOOD IT WILL DO, BUT SENT LETTER TO Edward B. Rust Jr., Chairman and CEO, ADVISING HIM OF MY DECISION TO CANCEL AND REASON THEREFORE.
PairNic (Domain Registration)
Homes of Summer
North Shore Health System
Miller Samuel Real Estate
Tri State Mercedes-Benz
The NYT editors originally said said they had to go public because it's the public's right to know about such a secret program. They have since changed that excuse to the fact that there is no harm in their reporting on this program because everyone knew about it anyway. So which one is it?
Civil rights groups certainly didn't know about it. But they do now and are threatening to sue the financial institutions involved in the EU.
Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission Kean said that very few people even in the banking world know about SWIFT and how it works, and almost no one would have had any idea that the US was able to get access to this data.
Kean further said that: "The terrorists didn't know the financial transactions went through this one group. Treasury told me, this was a method of financial tracking that people didn't understand, that nobody knew this was how things were done. Top-notch people in the US didn't even know
those idiots don't realize is that our partners in banking from other countries are pulling out and not cooperating with us anymore. The NY Slimes should be put out of business.
And the proof of this is that it was totally ineffective, and therefore wasn't being used? Right? Right?? Right???
Now this really makes a lot of sense.
Lets see, the NY SLIME, has a circulation of about 1.7 mil and the subsequent reportage by electronic media about the story probably reached hundreds of millions around the world.
Therefore, the Administration's "fulmination" over the Slime's story is the "real" reason our enemy, now know about these programs.
Now that's certainly crystal clear. /sarc
I hope Rush and other pundits are reading the comments on this thread. GREAT, pithy points which make mincemeat of The New York Times defense of its reprehensible deeds. (I often wish TV talking heads on our side were as quick witted as some posters here.
RAldrich, I can't find the Podoretz column you referenced. Got a link?
Then WHY did the NYT belive it was news?
Why did numerous (20) senior federal official appeal to the NYT NOT to print the story?
Everything is obvious to all in hindsight. Most of the great discoveries of our time, once discovered, seem obvious.
And yet time after time, a vast majority of people are clueless as to things that should be obvious to them.
After months of mailings, TV, radio, and other advertising, the democrats screamed that we needed to move the medicare prescription drug cut-off date because too many people were completely clueless that there WAS a deadline coming up.
And yet we are to believe a bunch of 3rd-world lunatics who think that if they blow themselves up they go to heaven and get to have sex with women are all smart enough to know exactly how they are going to be caught transfering money?
Further, we are to believe that a story that took the New York Times 4 years to uncover, that required a leak of classified information, and that they thought was worth front-page coverage, was a story about something that everybody should know about, a story that would be completely inconsequential toward informing ANYBODY about the program (except, of course, ignorant americans).
This from Richard Clarke, the man who was in charge of making sure terrorists didn't attack us, and allowed 9/11 to happen under his nose -- and then insisted it was obvious.
Not would he still be alive, he'd be their presidential candidate. He hated Bush almost as much as they do.
Their own words betray the lie.
In the origninal article they cited that the program worked.
Here is the link I have. Hope it works.
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.