The cover that these (or any others), worked in one administration so they aren't being political when they criticize it, is bogus!!!
"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.
Based on the headline
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.
If this secret was already known, then just why was it "newsworthy?"
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.
FReeper Judith Anne
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.
Hey Slimes: Are you dead certain that ALL terrorists knew this, and no sleeper cells were trackable via this system before you blabbed?
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.
As it shall forever be known in our parts.
The NY Times is more full of shite' than a Christmas Turkey!
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
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?
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
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
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.