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.

[Rummyfan]

Barf and Puke! Richard Clarke defending the Times now - oh, it's no big deal the terrorists already knew about it anyway! Really?

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

[The Wizard]

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

[nikos1121]

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

I did the same thing!

[RAldrich]

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?

[seasoned traditionalist]

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

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.

Continental Airlines
Samsung
Fidelity
Halstead Properties
Citibank
Scottrade
PairNic (Domain Registration)
Dell
Homes of Summer
Etrade Fianacial
Liberty Mutual
CHF International
Accountempts
American Express
Lenovo
Equifax
Hewlet Packard
Credit Protect
Lincoln (Motors)
State Farm
North Shore Health System
Prudential
Bankrate
Miller Samuel Real Estate
Edmunds
Tri State Mercedes-Benz
Chase

[Peach]

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

[vin-one]

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.

[Stultis]

The Nazis already knew we were going to invade France, so there woulda been no problem publishing the details. Surely the impending fact of the largest amphibious assault in world history was a "matter of public interest". Right, Slimes?

[null and void]

A Secret the terrorists already knew

And the proof of this is that it was totally ineffective, and therefore wasn't being used? Right? Right?? Right???

R-I-G-H-T....

[seasoned traditionalist]

"If administration officials were truly concerned that terrorists might learn something from these reports, they would be wise not to give them further attention by repeatedly fulminating about them.

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

[YaYa123]

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?

[G Larry]

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?

[CharlesWayneCT]

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.

[Stallone]

[patton]

Benedict Arnold died in London on June 14, 1801.

What execution?

[Stallone]

Al Qaeda Times Journalists Jihadists

[jellybean]

Karl Rove has already said that if it were up to the Democrats, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be alive.

Not would he still be alive, he'd be their presidential candidate. He hated Bush almost as much as they do.

[mware]

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

Their own words betray the lie.

In the origninal article they cited that the program worked.

[RAldrich]

Here is the link I have. Hope it works.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2M4YjgwYTRhNDZkM2EwNjU2Y2FiNTE0OTZjZWQwZjk=

[Enchante]

It's just so appalling that babbling bozos like Clarke and Cressey ever held key positions in national security, and that there are lots and lots more like them where they came from, burrowed into the bureaucracies. Let's see, the NY Slimes put this story "page one, above the fold" because they knew that it contained zero news value, nothing that wasn't already universally known, etc. etc. Richard Clarke, so are so stuffed with feces that it's oozing out of your eyes, mouth, ears, nose.......

[Clarke and Cressey]: "In the end, all the administration denunciations do is give the press accounts an even higher profile. If administration officials were truly concerned that terrorists might learn something from these reports, they would be wise not to give them further attention by repeatedly fulminating about them."

Repeating the sleazy Bill Keller talking point - it's not the fault of the Slimes, it's all the fault of those evil Bush-bots who have drawn attention to this PAGE ONE story. Yeah, like the terrorists were not already fully alerted by a page one above-the-fold treatment in the Al-Jazeera Times........ "We can say and print anything we damn well please, and if you dare to object to our treason then we will blame you for drawing attention to what we have done."

[Clarke and Cressey]:"There is, of course, another possible explanation for all the outraged bloviating. It is an election year. Karl Rove has already said that if it were up to the Democrats, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be alive.[CAN ANY RATIONAL PERSON DISPUTE THAT??? THE 'RATS HAVE OPPOSED ADMIN. POLICY EVER SINCE SOME OF THEM "VOTED FOR THE WAR BEFORE THEY VOTED AGAINST IT." al-Murtha would have had us in full withdrawal mode by last winter at the latest, so yes indeed al-Zarqawi would still be running free under 'Rat policy.] The attacks on the press are part of a political effort by administration officials to use terrorism to divide America, and to scare their supporters to the polls again this year."

What a shameless hypocritical fraud. Once again Richard Clarke proves he is absolute scum - he has acted for years (ever since the 9/11 Comm. hearings and his sordid book) to politicize terrorism and undermine the WH, to "divide America"..... he falsely pretends to be some non-partisan professional, objectively above the fray, when in fact he is a lying snivelling hack for the Demagogues, just like his butt-buddies Larry Johnson, Rand Beers, Joe Wilson, et al.

[YaYa123]

I agree with every word you wrote!!

Cressey and Clarke are partisan political hacks. And we don't know how many more are still "burrowed in the bureaucracies", using their positions to scheme against this president. It's scary.

[MitchCumstein]

As I have said before on an earlier thread, I find it very ironic that the NYT and Bill Keller have wrapped themselves in the First Amendment, the Pentegon Papers, and the "public's right to know" as a sort of license against any responsibility for potential harm they have caused to soldiers who have fought hard to preserve those First Amendment freedoms. I know many military personell who are livid. I don't know if they would win, but a group of soldiers who potentially could be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan could file a class action civil lawsuit against the Times and Bill Keller for reckless endangerment. The lawsuit wouldn't have to address the First Amendment issues, just the negligent decision making on the part of the Times for running the story after being warned it could be dangerous.

[jch10]

Thanks, st. There are several listed that I can refuse to do business with.