While I enjoyed Bill Keller’s response to the attacks the NY Times has been receiving (really, is there a more self-imporant group of people out there than the attack dogs of the blogosphere?), this information certainly makes me re-think Keller’s response:
Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were “half-hearted” is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times – from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.
That certainly does not seem like a half-hearted attempt, and I guess it is up to you to decide if they were making full-throated attempts to squelch the story because they honestly felt it was a threat to national security or because they felt they had been caught doing something they shouldn’t. I still do not know what oversight, if any, there was for this program.
Time will tell.
*** Update ***
I suppose this is always a possibility, but a little grassy knoll for me, if you will.
VidaLoca
I suppose it’s possible that both things are true: they really really “tried” to make a full-throated attempt, but it came off as half-hearted because once again they botched it up.
My vote:
Call it BDS if you want to but after six years of misfeasance, malfeasance, and overall butt-stupid bad-faith behavior I don’t cut them any slack.
Pharniel
considering that back in 2k1 and 2k2 this very story was reported it makes all the hullabaluh (especially the ‘let’s firebomb the times’ and AoS constant obsession with the NYT) all the more confusing. It basically said the same thing as a time magazine article……..written 5 years ago. wtf mate.
anyway, i don’t think it’s that grassy knoll, and it sounds just in time to get people fired up at the ‘liberal media’ and ‘tratiors’ else where.
isn’t there something in the constitution about only the senate being able to try people for treason?
have to look it up.
Nutcutter
This government has forfeited the right to demand that it be granted a veil of secrecy over things that are not legally secrets. Governments do not exist in vaccums, and they are not the country. The people are the country and we get to decide these things.
This story is not a legal secret, not classified. Little if anything in the story is beyond the scope of what has already been published on the subject going back to the year 2000 apparently.
As for the aggressive “urging” not to publish? Fuck that. If I am NYT, that carries no weight with me whatever, either on journalistic principles, or on the principle stated in my first paragraph above.
My response to Treasury? “Your objection is noted. We are publishing the story.” Period.
Nutcutter
vaccums = vacuums
space
A few observations.
1. Keller is an ass.
2. His attackers are bigger asses. (In addition to being asses, they are undermining the Constitution, which makes them worse.)
3. Perhaps Keller and the editors at WaPo (who, no doubt, will be in the wingnut crosshairs once the NYT is taken down) might want to rethink their contempt for the left blogosphere. At the least, we aren’t calling for them to be hung for treason. We might even come to their defense if they weren’t such jerks. As it is, I am tempted to let Keller get thrown in jail and THEN argue for sanity to return to our political-journalistic discourse.
4. Anyone who thinks that terrorists can’t figure out that we are trying to track them, their actions, and their money unless the NYT publishes is far too stupid for words.
John S.
You’ve just described the bulk of our conservative posters here.
mrmobi
Nutcutter:
I hate your new name, but you are so right on this. Generally, I agree with those who think this administration deserves no slack at all, no benefit of the doubt for their probable malfeasance.
And John, I think the grassy knoll idea sounds like Rove. The administration jumped on this with both feet right away, which feels scripted. But I stopped believing in that kind of shit a long time ago. It makes one too crazy.
VidaLoca
Good point. Overall we’re just calling on them to do their goddam jobs. You know — journalism. Although the way they piss and moan about it, you’d think journalism was tantamount to hanging.
merelycurious
It does take the eyes off Iraq nicely for a week or so though, doesn’t it? Gives an outlet for the right wing rage-a-holics, so, ya know, good for them.
As usual Glenn Greenwald has the point by point takedown of this nonsense:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/
cf
My concern has to do with having this sort of data mining technology in the hands of potential enemies (extreme Islamics, Pellicano, drug smugglers, organized crime, CIA, French, Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Rove, Clinton, Israelis, Sunnis, Taliban, etc.).
Once the Booz Allen/Treasury/CIA/FBI folks have the techniques perfected, it will take little to no time before the techniques pop up all over. Then the average US citizen will have to assume every thing he or she does on computer, by credit card, in a bank, by check, in a supermarket, in a library, at a video store, by phone, by letter, etc. will start showing up in readily searchable databases maintained for yeaers and years. Moore’s Law will work in favor of the data miners and those exploiting data bases. What one allows for the GWOT in 2006 will be proposed and adopted for other purpsoes, no doubt.
So the NYT had more than enough grounds for publishing, assuming the NYT did not violate any court order or specific statute. Snow and Bush have not alleged that the NYT violated any particular statute or court order.
If Treasury thought it had grounds for judicial relief, why did it not seek an injunction? It has as a hugely conservative judiciary compared to the judges who looked at the Pentagon Papers case.
If Bush and Snow just think the NYT should have used discretion to serve a greater good, I can see legitimate grounds for disagreement about whether unfettered Treasury snooping here (subject to Booz Allen consultations) serves the greater good compared to involving Article III judges.
Ancient Purple
I am dying to know who these Members of Congress and legal authorities “from both sides of the aisle” were. According to the Chicago Tribune, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee wasn’t informed of the program until after the Administration was told the NYT was going to publish the story.
Sorry if I can’t buy that the administration was using everything in its arsenal to stop the Times from publishing the story.
Anderson
If the administration cared that much, they could’ve sought prior restraint. Yes, I know, the Pentagon Papers, etc. But (1) they’d be rolling the dice on a new set of justices, and (2) since when does this administration care about precedent?
So color me unimpressed. I would entertain the notion that the program had dried up (as Ron Suskind’s book suggests) and that leaking it to the Times, then denouncing the Times for publishing, was Rove’s idea for getting a little domestic juice out of it.
Mr Furious
I’ll buy that the Administration is secretly delighted with this whole thing…
1. Everyone gets to talk up a program that was relatively successful.
2. They are innoculated against future failures of intelligence by being able to blame the media.
3. The right wing media gets a truckload of red meat.
4. They get to label the NYT traitors. If there were actually grounds for this, they could have prevented the story, OR there would already be something in motion. This way, they can hint at it and let others run crazy with it.
5. This won’t actually affect pursuit or prosecution of terrorists.
Where’s the downside?
Tom
It probably seemed half-hearted to Keller because he already had made his mind up.
LITBMueller
Courtesy of Justice Black in the Pentagon Papers case:
If the Administration really wants this fight… “bring ’em on…”
RSA
Interesting thought, Anderson. Why wouldn’t the administration have pursued other avenues for preventing publication? By their own account, they had two months. They had nothing better than “repeated pleas”? That hardly sounds like the Bush administration I know.
Tim F.
Take a snapshot of where the Overton window is today. Sounds practically insane, right. Three years ago the only person saying that sort of crap was Ann Coulter, now people discuss it seriously on Hardball. Three months from now look back and take note of how far it has moved since. That sort of shift takes a good deal of organization and I think that the people involved should get some credit for pulling it off.
Nutcutter
Don’t worry, it’s just a nom de plume. Shortly, I’ll get a new one.
I’m thinking “Angel Baby.”
Thoughts?
Andrew
Can we declare this the “Age of Right Wing Stupidity” yet?
That Greenwald post is amazing, absolutely amazing.
Nutcutter
Exactly. This bunch of sorry pussies couldn’t come up with anything stronger than “repeated pleas” to protect us from the terrorists?
Fucking traitors. Jail the whole damned White House and Treasury Department.
Mac Buckets
What did you like best about it: the way he lied, or the way he arrogantly insulted your intelligence with the logic of a ten-year-old? I personally don’t like those things, but obviously not everyone is wired the same.
Andrew
KJLo at the Corner on the New York Times:
“Revoking press creds would be saying, we’re at war and we mean business.”
Should we send her a safety helmet? I’m a little concerned that she may injure herself with stapler or nerf toy or something.
The Other Steve
Actually that seems to me the most likely scenario.
Their attacks(and those of their minions) on the Times have been quite a bit over the top given what was reported.
Although that’s the thing that I don’t quite understand. The attacks, especially coming from Malkin, redstate, etc. sound so shrill that they’re really just serving to turn off moderate voters. Well actually beyond shrill they’ve gone off into whackadoodle land, suggesting bombing the NY Times building. We all agree that this article didn’t reveal anything shocking and we assumed it was happening, so why the verocity of the attacks?
The Other Steve
Heya Mac. I’m curious, where is your outrage for all the death threats the looney-right blogosphere has been making towards the NY Times?
I mean, surely if you want to be considered a constitute faux outrager, you have to be outraged about that, right?
Nutcutter
Heh. Yeah, that’ll go over well here, Mac. Defending Bushco is a pretty clear indication of what you think about lying and insulting peoples’ intelligence. That outfit is nothing if not the very model of honesty and respect for our intelligence!
The Other Steve
whoa… I thought consistent and it came out constitute. That’s weird.
Steve
I really doubt the chairs of the 9/11 commission would get involved just to advance some Rovian agenda. I still don’t see the harm to national security here, but this is a data point that piques my interest.
The Other Steve
Could anyone be more condescending than Bush?
How many more times do I have to listen to him answer a question by repeating some obviously duh nonsense?
I have to turn him off. He’s an embarassment to this great country of ours. Thank God we have the left in this country checking the Republican power, because if they had their way they’d turn this country into Maoist China with Bush’s picture painted on the side of buildings, and his voice broadcast over loudspeakers on every street corner.
Mac Buckets
I was defending something called “Bushco?” Hmmmm, I’ve never even heard of the company, and I was talking about the Times…
But, hey, obviously you guys think it’s cool being lied to and being talked to like children. You get what you deserve, I suppose.
Nutcutter
That’s why we hang on your every word.
Steve
Indeed.
Tell you what, Mac, take it a little easier on the sanctimony.
ed
Press Release, October, 2001, from the U.S. Treasury Department. Hell of a secret, eh?
##
FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
October 25, 2001
PO-727
“DEPUTY SECRETARY DAM REMARKS
AT THE LAUNCH OF OPERATION GREEN QUEST””
Multi-Agency Initiative to Target Sources
of Funding for Terrorist Organizations”””
Today, I am pleased to announce that the same talent pool and expertise that brought down Al Capone, will now be dedicated to investigating Usama Bin Ladin and his terrorist network.
We are here to announce the launch of “Operation Green Quest,” a new multi-agency financial enforcement initiative.
This operation is made up of investigators with:
Customs,
IRS,
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,
Office of Foreign Assets Control, and
The Secret Service.
These entities globally recognized as the best and brightest financial investors in the world.
The goal of Operation Green Quest is to augment existing counter-terrorist efforts by bringing the full scope of the government’s financial expertise to bear against systems, individuals, and organizations that serve as sources of terrorist funding.
Operation Green Quest has been created to serve Treasury’s broader mission:
To deny terrorist groups access to the international financial system,
To impair the ability of terrorists to fundraise, and
To expose, isolate and incapacitate the financial networks of terrorists.
Here a summary of Operation Green Quest’s purpose –
The initiative will target current terrorist funding sources and identify possible future funding sources – such as underground financial systems, illicit charities, and corrupt financial institutions – which are among the entities that will be scrutinized as possible facilitators of terrorist funds.
Utilizing leads from these entities and information developed independently, Operation Green Quest will launch comprehensive investigations resulting in blocking orders, criminal prosecutions, civil and criminal forfeitures, and other actions.
Link is:
http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/po727.htm
Nutcutter
I won’t rest until Ed is frogmarched into Gitmo for treason!
Why does Treasury hate America?
Mac Buckets
I haven’t seen any such threats, but I wouldn’t be surprised — these are the intertrons. If you get “outraged” at internet threats, you will exhaust your lifetime supply in a week. My attitude toward internet threats from the right is the exact same as my attitude toward internet threats from the left: they show no class, a desperate impotence, and a weak moral compass.
Mac Buckets
What’s your point? When did I ever say that I “enjoyed” anyone lying and insulting my intelligence? Let me help you: Never.
Nutcutter
Classic. Somebody makes a clear, unambiguous point in one succinct, short sentence … and Mac says, “What’s your point?” You can’t make this stuff up!
Not since seventh grade have I heard such brilliant argumentation. And that was from the fifth graders. We had to eat lunch with them, you see.
LITBMueller
Yep! That was proven in 2004 when Bush was reelected.
But, yes, its true, Mac. I do love being spoken to people who sound like retarded children:
Yep, that’s our Decider soundin’ smart n’ stuff again!
Nutcutter
Well, that certainly settles it.
From yesterday’s “Hardball”:
This is a slight paraphrase, my own transcript. The official one won’t be online for a couple hours yet.
jg
Wow. From a Bush supporter that was said. About the left. I hope when i get home later my dog isn’t purring and the cat doesn’t want to go for a walk.
Pb
So, here’s my secret plan to take down the dangerous nuts on the Right wing, and get them back to mistrusting the gov’t again, like conservatives are supposed to do.
Step 1: work them up into a lather about this New York Times / leaking / treason idiocy. Whoops, they did that already. Step 1 accomplished.
Step 2: in their blind rage, get them to pledge to bomb / kill / maim etc. etc. whoever *first exposed* this vital program. This is important, get this on the record, get it in writing, etc.
Step 3: report them to the Secret Service for conspiring to assassinate the President!
Tom
BLITZER: Who were the three people outside of the administration that asked you not to report this information?
KELLER: Tom Kean, Lee Hamilton and Congressman Jack Murtha.
t. jasper parnell
Mac Buckets,
Did you read Greenwald? Is there a logical and non-insulting response to his points? The information was already in wide circulation, the possibility of this or any other administration abusing the information exisits, the NYT article suggests that there was at least one case were abuse occurred and some one was removed.
Mac Buckets
So the Treasury thought it was a horrible idea for the Times to print the artlicle outing the bank data program,
and the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission lobbied the Times not to print the story.
I’m sorry, I’m confused. To whom on this blog comments page should I give deference over the Secretary of the Treasury and the co-Chairmen of the 9/11 Commission? Who on this forum knows more about the effect of publicizing this program than those three guys? Step right up and show your credentials.
I’m just saying: When those guys say the Times hurt our anti-terror efforts, I’m sorry, but some random blog commenter just doesn’t seem quite so expert.
Mac Buckets
So you didn’t get his point, either, so you try to hide it in weak snark. Just as I suspected. Why’d you ignore the rest of my post? Again, just as I suspected. You have nothing.
Steve
But wait! I thought Rep. Murtha was some kind of far-left extremist. Cognitive dissonance…
Steve
Real simple. When the Treasury Secretary, a Bush hack if ever there was one, says that national security was harmed, I don’t take it at face value. I look for confirmation in deeds, not words. I look for the administration to do what they would do if someone REALLY harmed national security, such as, at a minimum, revoking the press credentials of the NYT, LAT, and WSJ. When they don’t do anything of the sort, it strikes me that it’s just a bunch of talk with a political agenda.
Now, as I said above, when the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission say the same thing, I give them more deference. I still don’t see the harm to national security myself, but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Mind you, we don’t know what they actually said.
Nutcutter
Tell you what, let’s let the audience decide. I think they are keeping up just fine.
“The rest of (your) post” was superfluous. I had it exactly right. Somebody made a simple point, and you respond, “What’s your point?” Everybody but you knew what the point was. That is apparently still the case.
But by all means, adopt the “nobody understands me so you must all be stupid” approach. It’s tried and proven, and you seem to have it down to a tee.
Why you post here, I have no idea. You are pretty much a punching bag at this point, Mac. But as long as you are enjoying yourself, that’s what counts.
Mac Buckets
No, Keller was just unclear and/or lying again in his answer. Later in that interview, he said only two of the three asked him not to publish. Since we know that Kean and Hamilton were against publishing, we can deduce that “Okinawa” Murtha was being his usual idiotic, party-before-country self.
Tom in Texas
Can someone PLEASE jail Stone Phillips? These exposes about child molesters are harming our children’s security. Now all these scum KNOW there are policemen pretending to be 13 year olds online. And they’ll have to change their tactics as a result and never troll online for a child again (somehow this is a bad thing. I’m not quite sure how, but I’ll work it out). Thanks a lot Dateline. You have compromised our entire child porn apperatus. Traitor. Why does NBC love child molesters?
Pb
You know what’s fishiest of all–if the administration really had cared one whit about keeping this allegedly ‘classified program’ at all secret, then when questioned about it, they would have denied the reporting, or ignored the reporting, instead of loudly and noisily confirming it, and being outraged–outraged, I tell you!–about how it was leaked! Combine that with the fact that it was not at all secret, that the report was not at all damaging–as it didn’t disclose anything new or interesting–and that the program itself sounds like a good idea, really (it sounded like a good idea in 2001, too!)–and you’ve got a ridiculous fairy tale that only a complete moron could possibly believe.
So, yeah, they’re just playing to the base again.
jg
thats what they think. What do you think? You think the terrorists have an advantage now? You think they weren’t aware of this program that even Bush boasted about? Are you really upset at this issue or are you just piling it on to your sides already well stacked pile of bullshit about a free press? This issue doesn’t even amount to anything and if you didn’t already have a right-issued grudge against the NYT you’d see that. Its a just a drop of water (more like water vapor) in the imgaginary ocean of right wing grievances.
Nutcutter
“Those guys” are politicians and mealy mouthed liars like all politicians. Their idea of “hurting” might be nothing more than saying that the move was impolitic.
Like I said in my first post to this thread, this government has forfeited the right to create its own veil of secrecy, make up the rules, and tell the rest of us what to do and think about it. This government has no moral authority to make such assertions any more. That determination is made by me, and by the people. I don’t trust those lying motherfuckers any farther than I can throw them, which is not that far now that I ruined my back. You can defend them all day and all night, makes no difference, I still will not trust them. Given your history here, the more you defend them, the less I would trust them.
Simple as that. Why pretend that you don’t get that? Just to have something to blather about?
It’s simple. You are asking me to choose between trusting them … and you …. and not trusting them. I’ve made that choice, based on the evidence before me, over the years. It’s a no-brainer. In this case, I consider the politicians more a threat to me than fucking Al Qaeda can ever be. Al Qaeda cannot destroy America, but these motherfuckers surely can.
Maybe that’s not the way you see it. Fine, good. I don’t care. I don’t like you or respect your views. We disagree, we’re done.
t. jasper parnell
Quoted and cited Greenwald (see link above)
Granted this is not a detailed discussion and does not mention SWIFT, but other have (see Greenwald for citation). The idea among those who suffer from NYTDS is that the terrorist only read the Times and that terrorists, many of whom are educated, devious, and evilly intelligent, are like the American public unaware of what and how the Administration acts. This is silly. The thrust of the article, as I read it, was that this Administration in its pursuit of terrorists was trampling the checks and balances built into the American system of governance. In other words, the NYT revealed to the American public how the Administration may have skirted the law. This allows the public, should it so choose, to 1) pressure its representatives to investigate 2) stop reading the times 3) start the BBQ and quaff various and sundry fermented and other beverages whilst cheering on Ivan Basso or, one can but hope, George Hincapie.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Are they running a wingnut contest this week for stupidest defamatory nicknames for a Democratic Congressman or something? Get a grip.
Mac Buckets
Jebus, how weak are you? You still dont get it (but that’s OK — I’m sure Steve understands what I’m saying, because Steve’s a thousand times smarter than you are). And then you pretend to ignore my second sentence, which explains my first sentence, by declaring it irrelevant because you say so. Sorry, that’s not how it works, simpleton. If you need me to explain in smaller words for you, I will, but you’ll have to ask nicely.
Andrew
When do we get to round up Darrell, Michelle Malkin, and Mac Buckets for compulsory remedial civics classes?
jg
Is there a better example out there that Bush explains things like he’s talking to an idiot because thats how it was explained to him?
Pb
John Cole,
About that grassy knoll theory: did you notice how they conveniently forgot to go after the leakers this time? I guess Karl Rove really doesn’t want to get sucked into a trial… :)
t. jasper parnell
Sorry the quote was from President Bush
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Who am I to believe, a newspaper editor, or some anonymous blog poster? I mean, really…
Who am I to believe, a US Senator, or some anonymous blog poster? etc., etc.
Mac Buckets
Defamitory? If “Okinawa” is defamatory, I’m afraid Murtha has no one but himself to blame for it. I know it doesn’t have the schoolyard charm of Chimpy or Big Fat Karl Rove, but it’s just as descriptive.
KC
Obviously, someone wanted this story leaked. And, I don’t see the speculation at Sullivan’s as implausible given the nature of the folks currently occupying the WH. If we’re lucky, time will tell.
Steve
Ok, now you’re just being childish, suggesting that Keller “lied” even though he corrected himself in the very same interview. Wow, some accomplished “liar” he is. Anyway, I had to go look at the transcript myself:
Now, you can’t really square the first answer I quoted with the last one. At first, Keller says the administration asked three people to call the NYT, and not all of the three urged him not to publish. Later, Blitzer asks him who the three people were that urged him not to publish, and Keller gives the three names. (But Mac said it was LATER in the interview that Keller said it was only two out of the three. Mac must have LIED!)
The most logical explanation is that Keller took Blitzer’s question to mean “Who were the three people you referred to earlier?” since it doesn’t make sense otherwise. We do learn that Murtha called the NYT at the Bush Administration’s request – how odd that they would choose such a “party before country” guy for that job.
You have some credibility, Mac, even though we disagree on a lot of things. Do you really want to throw it away with that kind of cheap smear?
Ancient Purple
So, Tom Kean is a Republican. MacBuckets says that Murtha didn’t press the Times to not publish.
That leaves Hamilton.
Wow! Talk about a full-court press by this administrations.
/rolls eyes
t. jasper parnell
What the heck, I’ll ask again: is there an logical non-insulting response to Greenwald?
jg
If your second sentence explains your first sentence then I’m not sure you got Steve’s point. His point was we’ve been lied to and talked to like we were children for years by your side. Nothing in there about you enjoying anything so……..what’s your point?
Pb
Am I the only one who finds it hilarious when a Bush family member starts yammering on about ‘chasing money trails’ and ‘white collar criminals’? Please. If I didn’t want to stop terrorists (*and* white collar criminals) by shutting down their money laundering operations and financial networks, then I wouldn’t have voted for John Kerry.
Nutcutter
Asked and answered. I’m fine with our disagreement on this, as on many things. But keep browbeating, it is so charming.
RSA
Could someone tell me exactly what classified information was leaked? I think it would add quite a bit of clarity to the discussion. Greenwald goes through a laundry list of information mentioned in the article that wasn’t classified. So what was classified?
Pb
Mac Buckets,
It’s a question of intent, Mac. Or were you using it to praise him? That’s slick, by the way, how you manage to blame Murtha for your name-calling. Do they have special classes for that? Did they teach you that in Shifting The Blame 101, or Passing The Buck 202?
Pb
RSA,
As far as I can tell, nothing that wasn’t already a matter of public record was leaked. As for what may or may not have been classified–that’s classified. Which is why the administration can make that claim whether or not it’s true. Just don’t expect them to go to court over it.
Nutcutter
All that stuff that was listed right there in the court order that the government sought to stop the publication of the story and protect us from terrorists. It’s right there on page … uh … um… uh ….. er …..
Never mind.
srv
You’ve eaten it up from Bush for 6 years now, you ought to be used to the abuse by now.
Mac Buckets
So now you agree with me that we shouldn’t have bothered with the 9/11 showboat committee?? Funny how the members of the 9/11 Commission are just political hacks now, not to be trusted. Weak. Very weak.
Because of what, your fanatical hatred for them? Sorry, but your personal weaknesses do not a legal or moral basis make. I don’t recall the Republicans exposing all of our state secrets to the terrorists because they hated the “evil motherfucker” Clinton. I guess Republicans are just better people, right?
So when you idiots whined that “Bush didn’t do enough before 9/11,” what you really mean is, “Bush didn’t give us enough legal, succecssful anti-terror programs that we could expose in an attempt to scare people about evil Darth Bush?” Talk about moral authority!
Tom in Texas
While overall I tend to agree with Murtha, the Okinawa thing was unbelievably stupid for him to say. Any blogger who disagrees with him would be remiss in ignoring such a monumentally ignorant statement, and Murtha deserves ridicule for such a halfcocked idea.
Pb
Tom in Texas,
As stupid comments go, I don’t think it was that stupid, or worthy of notice, really. I saw far stupider comments made *about* what he said, for example.
Steve
Here’s the insightful part of the Keller interview that may actually address some of John’s questions in this post.
In other words, Keller felt that while the adminstration did argue that terrorist-catching efforts would be hampered, that wasn’t really the main argument they focused on. Instead, the main argument was that if you reveal this program, the bankers won’t want to participate in it any longer. It seems to me that that would be a real harm, but as Keller says, at the end of the day he just didn’t feel that was a likely outcome.
The argument made by many administration supporters boils down to: “Who is Bill Keller to draw the balance between full disclosure and national security? Who is he to decide if the bankers would really shut down the program?” I’m sympathetic to this argument, but it strikes me that there’s just no other option. Unless you’re going to let Bill Keller draw the balance, you’re going to let the government draw the balance, which seems completely contrary to the First Amendment to me. You simply can’t let the government say “sorry, it’s our judgment that this story shouldn’t run, so you can’t run it.”
The solution is pretty much the way we do things now: Journalists get to use their best judgment, with the proviso that if something truly egregious happens (Bin Laden Weekly running stories about our troop movements), prosecution is theoretically available. I don’t know a better way. We certainly don’t elect a President to serve as the arbiter of what stories can and can’t be printed.
Rusty Shackleford
Republicans = Pavlov’s dogs
Karl Rove = Pavlov
NYT = bell
Steve
Kean, Hamilton and Murtha were the three people OUTSIDE the administration. Keller also says:
Pb
Fixed.
We should be so lucky…
Mac Buckets
Name-calling? That’s rich. No, name-calling would be calling him a chimp or a fatass or an “evil motherfucker.” “Okinawa” was his own wacky invention, and sometimes a pol’s own words get hung around his neck for awhile.
Steve
Yes, but as I recall, Murtha suggested about four different places the troops could redeploy to, and all of them except Okinawa sounded pretty plausible from a geographic standpoint.
So yeah, I don’t really get where he came up with the Okinawa thing, but the wingers who bring up that remark seem to be just taking a cheap shot without addressing the merits of the other possible destinations he mentioned.
That said, I’m not sure why my fellow liberals are so worked up over Mac’s use of “Okinawa,” but are less concerned about the “party before country” cheap shot. Are you guys so desensitized to accusations of treason at this point that you didn’t even notice?
t. jasper parnell
Actualy, I never said anything like that. It struck me then and it strikes me now, that now one {PDBs to one side) actually expected a terrorist strike on American soil. This was the real problem: a lack of imagination on the parts of both the public and the Administrations. Now, however, we are getting more information of what was signed on to in the immediate aftermath of the unthinkable and, for me at least, it stinks like dead skunk in the middle of the road (a song we hear far to little these days). Perhaps if the press had done its job in the period leading up to 9/11 or if the public had done its job things might have been different.
Mac Buckets
No, at this point, for the journos, it’s a question of “shouldn’t,” not “can’t.” The only people who should be found and thrown under the jail are the leakers who are undermining legal, successful anti-terror efforts for partisan political reasons.
Journalists? Judgement? You must be joking. Journalists want a big scoop far more than they care about our national security or our soldiers. If a journo got a leak on a story that would guarantee that 1000 of our soldiers got killed, but it would make him a book deal, those soldiers are as good as dead. That’s journalistic judgement these days.
Tom in Texas
IIRC, Murtha suggested Bahrain and Qatar in addition to Okinawa. These are somewhat logical sites, sure, but the mention of a site as irrational as Okinawa, I believe, negates that point. It would be as if Bush suggested we could fight terrorism by
1) Stopping the financing of terrorists.
2) Monitoring suspected jihadist communications
3) Calling on the Lord our Savior to Smite the infidels from heaven.
The first two are logical responses. The last is outlandish enough to where it negates the others. And bloggers would be remiss not to jump on such an asinine statement.
Mac Buckets
Really? “Okinawa” was one of the most loony, non-sensical things I’ve ever heard a politician propose. What about it is not thoroughly stupid?
Par R
I’ve been away for awhile and see a few new morons have joined the fray. The one called, “nutcutter,” appears to be even dumber than ppGaz, who is strangely missing from this thread. I wonder if nutcutter could be a spoof, or perhaps the syphilitic smarter brother of ppGaz.
Steve
Well ok, but at the end of the day, if there’s a reason our troops can’t be redeployed to Bahrain I want to know what it is. Hello, this is a war and people are dying, even if ad hominems are sufficient to win the political debate this is about more than stupid politics.
jg
I thought it was all about a liberal agenda? You’re coming dangerously close to arguing the lefty position that the medial only carss about ratings.
srv
I’m glad we listened to all the Macs of the world and kept all those troops in Saudi back in 90’s. We we’re so much safer because of it.
t. jasper parnell
Outside Jerry Rivers any examples?
jg
You really gotta hate a person to even care that he said something like that.
You think its more loony than Santorum talking about people marrying their dog?
Davebo
Steve,
For a variety of reasons I think Qatar would be a much better place to redeploy to.
The facilities are already there, the government is much more amenable to a US presence than Bahrain, at least the type of presence we’re talking about here, and troops in Iraq already rotate to Qatar for R&R.
Mac Buckets
Suggest why else Murtha would say it was cool for the Times to publish an article that would (a) harm the anti-terror effort and (b) possess warrantless-wiretap-esque bits of “Darth Bush is possibly-maybe-illegally-notreally-but-maybe invading your bank account” rubbish, in the face of opposition from the co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission? Does he have a vested interest in the Times getting a pulitzer?
t. jasper parnell
This insult is logically contradictory. How can Nuttcutter be both dumber and smarter than his alleged brother ppGAz?
Steve
I don’t know how to respond to this, other than by pointing out that this scenario hasn’t happened even though you think the media would gladly participate in it without thinking twice, but I think you’re way over the top with this one. Sorry, friend, but these folks are still human beings. What you’ve accused them of is no more acceptable than if you claimed Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and did nothing.
Keep in mind, the New York Times sat on the NSA wiretapping story for a full year. If they’re so hungry for scoops, and they could give a shit about national security, why would they do that?
jg
Ladies and gentleman I give you Darrel.
neil
Yeah, John, that’s real grassy knoll stuff. Would the administration lie and manipulate the press? It’s too soon to say, I should think.
Pb
Steve,
I just found his use of the “Okinawa” nickname exceptionally odd and stupid. And then I searched, and lo and behold, he was parroting the drivel of the wingnutosphere!
As for the “party before country” cheap shot–that’s just in the “I know you are but what am I” category–obviously false and hypocritical, and thus not really worthy of discussion.
The part where they go there by plane instead of going by boat is not thoroughly stupid, unlike you and your buddy Bob Novak.
Pb
I should be clear, that second blockquote and response was directed at Mac.
Steve
Maybe he didn’t think it would harm the anti-terror effort.
I simply disagree with your jingoistic suggestion that one must either urge the NYT not to publish the story or else they’re not a patriotic American. It’s possible for people to disagree in good faith, you know.
We have no idea what Murtha actually said to the NYT; all we know is that he made the call at the request of the administration. It’s entirely possible that he expressed concerns, while stopping short of suggesting that the story shouldn’t be published. Again, I don’t know why the administration, of all the people they could have tapped for this job, would choose a “party before country” Democrat. It’s possible, just possible, that they have more respect for the man than the ongoing smear campaign would suggest.
ImJohnGalt
Assume ppGaz has not one, but *two* brothers. Assume further that the brother with the higher IQ of the two brothers is syphilitic. Alas, both brothers are dumber than ppGaz.
Therefore, you can have nutcutter being dumber than ppGaz, whilst simultaneously being the syphilitic smarter brother of same.
I think this was a question on a Mensa test, once.
Mac Buckets
Bahrain’s a tiny island, for one. Logistics problems abound for any sizable presense (although the troops love the beaches!). They also already get a lot of heat from other Arabs because of their more modern, secular lifestyle, so they might not want to draw more fundie-Islamic attention.
RSA
I just thought this bit from Mac Buckets was funny. Rightwingers hated the commission when it was carrying out its investigation; the WSJ suggested that Bush simply refuse to cooperate with them, while Kean and Hamilton pointed to intimidation and stonewalling on the part of the administration. Now, though, one asks who could question the judgment of the chair and co-chair?
(That was a rhetorical question, of course, but one answer is Bush himself, by failing to follow most of the commission’s recommendations.)
demimondian
Welcome back, DougJ. I thought you’d sworn off forever?
Ancient Purple
Steve,
I understand that. But the Administration is contending that they did everything but get down on their knees and beg the NYT to not publish.
If that is truly the case, why wasn’t the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee told of this program?
Again, where the hell is the “full-court press”?
Mac Buckets
I hate no one, not even ppgaz! I think it’s more a case of, you really have to deify a politician to pretend that everyone should ignore all the dumb things they say.
Santorum said people should marry dogs? Link, please!
t. jasper parnell
Yes but the original claim dealt with Nuttercutter being dumber yet sounding smarter, without reference to a third brother.
ImJohnGalt
Well, your original question was “How can Nuttcutter be both dumber and smarter than his alleged brother ppGaz?”
Based on your assumption, there is indeed a logical inconsistency as you have stated the problem. I was merely pointing out a frame of reference that did not render the original statement by ParR to be irrefutably inconsistent. Implausible, true, but not at odds with what he said.
It’s also possible that in the time between when ParR typed that he appeared dumber and the time he called him his smarter brother that nutcutter took some smart drugs or something.
t. jasper parnell
Actually Sen. Santorum and others convinced that Gay marriage represents but the thin entering wedge of perversity did not suggest that people ought marry but rather that any tinkering with the fundamental, but apparantly precarious, institution of marriage would lead to all manner of unpleasantness and ill concieved interspecies sexual contact and marriage.
Mac Buckets
Murtha himself called for and praised the 9/11 hearings, but he obviously thinks he knows more about anti-terror efforts than the co-Chairs. So who’s the hypocrite, again?
Perry Como
I think the appropriate and rational response to this grave breech of national security is to jail all reporters that aren’t from Fox News. A free press is a hinderance to our democracy.
Steve
I could go on like this all day. “Okinawa” wouldn’t even make the top 10.
t. jasper parnell
I see your point, but still the phrases “‘nutcutter,’ appears to be even dumber that ppGaz” and “I wonder if nucutter could be . . . perhaps the syphilitic smartter brother of ppGaz” strongly suggests that nutcutter is both dumber and smarter. Now granted, it might mean something like “in terms of “book larnerin” ppGaz is dumber but in terms of “street smarts” nutcutter is smarter. So, perhaps, the real solution to the lack of logic is dual referent for the sign smart.
Mac Buckets
Nothing jingoistic about it. Again, if the Treasury and the co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission say it’s bad, Murtha (not a treasury expert, nor served on the 9/11 Commission) had better have a huge reason for telling the Times it was OK with him to publish (again, assuming this is what happened, and assuming Keller just wasn’t lying again — this could all be moot). “I didn’t think it would matter” isn’t too persuasive in the face of the Treasury and 9/11 co-Chairs saying “Oh, yeah, it matters!”
t. jasper parnell
Sorry, I thought Murtha spoke with the NYT at the Admin’s request. Did I miss something here?
Mac Buckets
Nah, Okinawa beats that in a walkover.
t. jasper parnell
Is this what was said? Are the Co-Chairs experts? If so are all their pronouncments “definitive”? Or only when I or thee argee with them?
Steve
It would be you, since you are the only one claiming that the chairs of the 9/11 commission are some kind of almighty authority that can never be questioned. The rest of us are pretty clear that people can disagree without one of them being a traitor to America.
Once again, a gentle reminder: You don’t have the first fucking idea what Murtha said to the NYT. All we know from Keller is that he apparently did not “urge them not to publish.” You don’t have a shred of evidence that Murtha disagreed with Kean and Hamilton, you don’t have a shred of evidence that he said they were wrong. There are literally a million different things he could have said to the NYT short of “urging them not to publish.” So stop pretending like you’ve received some kind of NSA transcript of the conversation.
Steve
You do not have one fucking shred of evidence that Murtha told the Times it was OK with him to publish.
t. jasper parnell
Why?
Mac Buckets
I never said anything about a boat (Quit trying weak deflections.) What about the part where the military says it would take a month to even get 4,500 Marines from Okinawa to Iraq? Some rapid response! Look, by plane or by boat, it’s just plain dumb, and everyone on both sides of the aisle knows it.
But let’s let The Man Himself clarify!
Clear now? And if you think I haven’t been calling him “Okinawa” from the minute these words stumbled out of his skull, you’re crazy.
Mac Buckets
Why not?
Richard 23
More fun from Blogs for Bush, this time from Mark Noonan himself:
Sadly Mark doesn’t spell out the other exception(s). Mocking the President, abortion, masturbation, drug use, viagra smuggling? I can only guess.
Also I can’t tell who the enemy is. Most of the time it seems to be other Americans that don’t support his authoritarian views.
But Mark, hanging’s too good for ’em!
NOTE: Bolding is mine; the italicised “hanging” is in the original post.
John S.
So, Mac, you’re all about the 9/11 Commission all of a sudden? Then perhaps you’ll agree with them on these other things they say are “bad”, and by that I mean the administration fails to make the grade:
– Government-wide information sharing
– Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
– Guidelines for government sharing of personal information
– Coalition detention standards
Since the 9/11 commission has been conferred authority status by you, surely you’ll take heed of their recommendations on these other issues? Right?
Mac Buckets
I guess when it suits them, people can either believe the 9/11 Commission are the Finders of Truth and Righters of Wrongs or that they are just political hacks who don’t know any more about anti-terror measures than a common Representative, one of 435, who never served on the Commission. (And no one said traitor but you.)
Calm down. If three people consulted, and two told him not to publish, and we know who those two are…
jg
What’s your point? I never said ‘should’.
Is it possible to believe them without thinking they ar e the Finders of Truth and Righters of Wrongs or disagree with them without thinking they’re just political hacks? Do you have to paint everything as an extreme position? Are you that insecure?
Steve
Then we know that the third person must have said it was OK with him to publish? No, in fact, we don’t know that. So stop pretending like you know what was said.
t. jasper parnell
Santorum on sex and privacy and liberal priests.
Nutcutter
I’ve never had any such exchange with you, or with anyone else that I know of. I am not prepared to characterize it as a “showboat committee” or to elevate it to some lofty status either. I think that it was a useful exercise, even though flawed, and that’s about all.
Why do you carry on the pretense of acting as if we should take you seriously, when you say shit like that? Are you trying to tell me that the last 5.5 years have not produced sufficient evidence of the self-serving, dishonest nature of these assholes that any reasonable person would be within the bounds of sanity to distrust them without loads of proof that they can be trusted on any subject? Any subject at all. If you are making that argument, then that’s what I’m talking about when I say I don’t respect your views. I have no reason to do so.
You’re down to strawmen now? I am pretty sure that I have made no such argument here. Neither he nor his predecessor did enough, AFAIC, but that has nothing to do with my estimation of his performance since. Nothing.
t. jasper parnell
Why not is not an answer. Nor yet a witty.
B
t. jasper parnell
Witty comeback
And, one more time, logical and non-insulting response to Greenwald?
Steve
Wait, Mac, who has been attacking Murtha over and over again for supposedly acting like he knows more than the co-chairs of the 9/11 commission, actually believes the 9/11 commission was nothing but a “showboat”?
Shame on me, yet again, for having wasted my time debating a troll.
t. jasper parnell
Nutcutter, are you your smarter but somehow dumber own syphilic brother?
Nutcutter
Well, yes and no.
jaime
I look forward to the day that Britt Hume is threatened with jail time for reporting on a story detrimental to a Democratic admnistration or a secret program to monitor gun owners is found out and righties go ballistic. I want to see words twist and heads explode when confronted with the statements you’re making now.
Nutcutter
Who cares what any of those people told him? It wasn’t their decision to make. Fuck them.
t. jasper parnell
I don’t and, indeed, I hope that the various disasters, legal, tactical, and strategic, this administration foisted on is kill this crap for ever.
By the (premtorial way) when the NYT called for increased scrutiny of international finance they called for legal not “grey” area regulation and, as the op ed piece makes clear, they called for transparent regulation.
t. jasper parnell
on us (us understood to be the American people standing shoulder to shoulder and acting bolder and bolder in the name of our ancestrial freedom from the meddling hand, watchful eye, and hungery ear of Uncle Sam)
jg
Of course the right to privacy isn’t in the constitution, no rights are. The constitution isn’t a document that lists our rights, it lists the powers of our branches of gov’t. The constitution doesn’t grant us any rights, its supposed to protect them and give us an environment to freely exercise our rights.
t. jasper parnell
My fave rave:
Liberalism is stronger than the Grace priest receive. Liberalism is stronger yet, it would seem, than God hisownself.
t. jasper parnell
Conservative logic
The Other Steve
Fascinating, yet you were all outraged not too long ago when Bush visited Iraq.
I guess you have a weak moral compass. Not surprising, really given your other comments here.
Nutcutter
Sure it is. It’s right there in the same section that gives citizenship and the rights of personhood to zygotes.
t. jasper parnell
These would not seem to be intertronic based nonsense
Melanie Morgan, radio talk show host: “I see it as treason, plain and simple, and my advice to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at this point in time is chop-chop, hurry up, let’s get these prosecutors fired up and get the subpoenas served, get the indictments going, and get these guys [Keller and The New York Times] behind jail.” [MSNBC’s Hardball, 6/26/06]
Ann Coulter, right-wing pundit: [R]evealing a classified program, which no one thinks violates any laws … that has led to the capture of various terrorists, and to various terrorist money-laundering operations. If that is not treason, then we’re not prosecuting anymore.” [MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, 6/26/06]
William Kristol, editor, The Weekly Standard: “I think the Justice Department has an obligation to consider prosecution. … This isn’t a partisan thing of the Bush administration. This is a U.S. government secret program in a time of war, willfully exposed for no good reason by The New York Times.” [Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, 6/25/06]
…
L. Brent Bozell III, president, Media Research Center: “The New York Times needs to be reminded … that on September 11, 2001, something really awful happened right down the street from the newspaper. … And the last thing we need is The New York Times aiding and abetting the terrorist movement. And that’s exactly what they’re doing by divulging these secrets.” [Fox News’ Fox & Friends, 6/27/06]
Rush Limbaugh, syndicated radio host: “I think 80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists. If you look at The New York Times and the kind of stories they’re leaking and running and the information they’re getting, it’s clear that they’re trying to help the terrorists. They’re trying to help the jihadists.” Limbaugh added that he thought that “80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists.” According to the latest circulation statistics, the Times sells more than 690,000 copies of its daily edition, and more than 1.1 million subscribers to its Sunday edition, via home delivery. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/27/06]
Andrew McCarthy, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: “Yet again, The New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda. Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda.” [“The Media’s War Against the War Continues,” National Review Online, 6/23/06]
Newt Gingrich, former House speaker (R-GA) and Fox News political analyst: “You would think that The New York Times, located on the same island where the World Trade Center once existed, would have some residual memory of 9-11. You’d think that The New York Times … would have some sense of survival. … [M]y sense is that they hate George W. Bush so much that they would be prepared to cripple America in order to go after the president.” [Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, 6/26/06]
Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report senior writer: “Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? … We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?” [“Why do “they” hate us?” syndicated column, 6/26/06]
Morton M. Kondracke, Roll Call executive editor: “And for God’s sake, The New York Times ought to look down the street and remember where 9-11 happened. It really happened in New York City, you know? And they act as though it never happened.” [Fox News’ The Beltway Boys, 6/24/06]
Heather McDonald, contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal: “By now it’s undeniable: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.” [“National Security Be Damned,” The Weekly Standard, July 3 issue]
Nutcutter
Good summary, TJP. It’s time to get rid of these crazy lying motherfuckers running … and ruining … this country.
Richard 23
The right to be an idiot like Ricky “WMD” Santorum aka Ricky “fetus” Santorum aka Ricky “man on dog” Santorum isn’t in the Constitution either. To Gitmo!
SeesThroughIt
Well, you’re sort of right on the first one, Richard 23. To Noonan, criticizing the war effort rises to the level of treason and therefore is an offense that is punishable with execution. Some people probably think I’m making that up; you’ve read Noonan’s trash for a while, you probably realize that I’m not at all making that up.
Krista
My heavens, Santorum is ridiculous. It boggles the mind to think that there are actually people out there who listen to this idiot when he says that liberals, because they think that consenting ADULTS should be able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom, are somehow responsible for Catholic priests messing with young boys. How he made that leap is beyond me…
t. jasper parnell
Faith? Perhaps it was a leap of faith?
Richard 23
Santorum should take a leap all right….
Nutcutter
YOu guys don’t get it. When you’re in the demonizing business, facts are hardly important. You could say anything, literally, and get the desired result.
t. jasper parnell
By the way this claim “Time will tell” violates all fundamental law of blogtopia: opinions now facts never
Krista
tjp: that’s right. And by the time the facts should have come out, and we should be properly enraged, we’ll have all moved on to something else. I swear, we have the attention spans of three-year oh look, there’s a neat documentary on CBC about how decadent Berlin was in the 1920’s. Boobies on nationally funded television, boys and girls. Better call your congressman and get him to denounce us.
t. jasper parnell
Berlin in the 1920s, now there’s fun. The movies, the songs, the clothes, the sense of endless possiblity, freedom on the march and such like. Damn shame how it ended up.
And, in truth, no one but a three year old has the attention span of a three year old, I have actually seen a three yr forget that walls are hard and then forget he was crying and then forget that he was not crying (thus starting up again) in the space of 25 seconds.
jg
Boobies? Where?
Krista
You’ve never seen someone on mushrooms, then. Or my late great-aunt Agatha.
Krista
jg – do you live far enough north to get CBC television? They’ve been doing documentaries on legendary “sinful cities” of the 20th century. It’s a three-part series: Paris of the ’20s, Berlin of the ’20s and ’30s and Shanghai of the ’30s. Pretty interesting stuff, actually.
Nutcutter
Crap. All I’m getting is Perry Mason reruns.
Par R
AP is reporting that Congressman Murtha has just been institutionalized on the direction of his family who claim that he has been “disturbed mentally” since being exposed to oatmeal and bottled water.
There is also a rumor to the effect that he may be related by marriage to a frequent commenter on loony-tune blogs who goes by various pseudonyms, including “ppGaz” and “nitwitcutter.” Or that relationship may be with his syphlitic bastard stepbrother. It’s a little vague.
The Other Steve
As they always say in wingnut circles…
Facts just get in the way of a good argument.
Nutcutter
Damning yourself with faint praise.
Par R
Nitwitcutter says:
I do believe that I was wrong in terms of which brother was suffering from the ravages of syphilis. It’s fairly obvious that this nitwit has already suffered considerable brain dysfunction.
Andrew
Ha ha ha ha ha! Good one Par R! You really got him good!
Murtha is such an A-hole.
Sirkowski
Is the Earth round?
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Give me one reason why I *shouldn’t* lump you in with Novak, seeing as how you immediately started parroting his weak bullshit. Here’s a hint–it doesn’t take a month to fly troops into Iraq from Okinawa. And if you think that it does, maybe we should start calling *you* Okinawa!
jg
Okinawa MacBuckets?
Andrew
Okay, seriously, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THE MEDIA?
Jesus fucking H. Christ.
Why does Glenn Greenwald know that this program for tracking via the SWIFT network has been public knowledge since December 2002, when it was published in a report by the UN, and the entire rest of the media does not?
UN Committee on al Qaeda report:
Mac Buckets
Nope, sorry, I wasn’t. I just pointed out the weakness in character of the lefties who were hoping Bush would be killed in Iraq. The outrage came from you guys after my statement. But I’m not surprised that you got it all wrong again — I probably used a big word or something.
Pb
Andrew,
Regarding the media coverage–they aren’t all incompetent stenographers and stooges, but the vast majority of them are.
Mac Buckets
Who to trust about moving a fighting force…the military, or some Random Internet Poster? Ooooooo, that’s a toughie. I’m going to have to go with someone who knows what the hell he’s talking about, so sorry, Pb.
P.S. There might be a little more to moving a military force than going to the Delta counter and buying them plane tickets.
Pb
Mac “Okinawa” Buckets,
Lefties, plural? As I remember, you were obliquely referring to some anonymous blog poster somewhere, and using those sentiments to smear ‘lefties’.
On the other hand, look on the bright side–if Bush was killed in Iraq, at least there’s a chance there that he might have seen combat in a war finally, something that he’s apparently always wanted to do, but never could quite manage it for some reason. In fact, his death and martyrdom would probably do more for the Republican party than he’s doing right now as President–how sad is that?
Pb
Leaving aside the fact that I made a different statement than the military did, even they said it’d take less than a month, and they were including more than travel time, Okinawa boy.
Mac Buckets
Of course, I could say just the same in reverse. Lefties championed the Commission as the only way to improve anti-terror efforts, but now are saying that the Co-Chairs of the 9/11 Committee (who told the Times not to publish because it would hurt national security) don’t know as much as you intertron intel experts!
If you want to call that trolling, fine. I agree.
Mac Buckets
Yes, your statement was nonsensical, and the military’s wasn’t — which was my point. And “under a month” to get the troops there is unacceptable for a “rapid response force,” and everyone on both sides of the aisle knows it. The Democrats won’t even defend “Okinawa” Murtha’s wacky statement.
Thank God he clarified:
Andrew
Pb, praise the Lord!
Now, will any member of the press corps ask the obvious question in the gaggle: “Since the monitoring of the SWIFT program was public knowledge, why does the President think national security has been harmed by this story?”
Pb
Mac Buckets,
Who are you to judge, anonymous blog poster! :)
Anyhow, my statement was consistent with Murtha’s, which I’m not sure the military was really addressing. Novak’s waffling about a ‘marine expeditionary force’ travelling ‘6,000 nautical miles’ makes that whole bit less than clear.
No it isn’t, not necessarily–how far “under a month” are we talking about?
I agree with Murtha. That wouldn’t take a month–not even close. Now go floss your cat or something.
Andrew
From GlobalSecurity.org, and well known by anyone with the slightest bit of military knowledge:
“The 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, provides the ability to begin executing a strategic airborne forcible entry into any area of the world within 18 hours of notification.”
We can bomb and/or land airborne anywhere in the world in less than 2 hours. It’s almost as if the right-wingers are stupid or something, because they’re normally so proud of this fact.
Andrew
Er, that was supposed to say “24 hours”, not “2 hours.”
Mac Buckets
There were multiple posts. And yes, the posts were from lefties, hoping Bush would get killed in Iraq.
Possibly. It worked for JFK and Courtney Love!
Pb
Andrew,
What are the odds of that? More to the point, even if one of them did eat their Wheaties this morning, who’s going to hear it? I guarantee you that even if one of them miraculously does ask that, and even if the Press Secretary waffles on the point or even admits it, that won’t even end up being the soundbite that the media runs with.
Note that the ones they’ve been running with is Bush calling the program ‘disgraceful’, (a favorite word of the Right, and a subject they know much about) and Cheney all but accusing The New York Times of treason. Press gaggle? Facts? Totally not sexy.
Andrew
My phrase, “will any member of the press corps ask the obvious question” is indeed a mere rhetorical flourish meant to imply that the press corps is a bunch of useless, spineless wankers.
MikeLucca
Mac, you are completely right about Murtha. He is a criminal as well as cut and run coward. It’s amazing that the left would want to make him their anti-war poster boy.
What is it with the left and their embrace of phony war heroes? Between Murtha and Kerry you’ve got enough fake medals to start a collection. There is nothing worse than one who falsely represents himself as a war hero. Murtha and Kerry’s fakery tarnishes the true heroism of those who gave all for the country and who continue to support it.
Andrew
MikeLucca, you’re worse than a bad spoof. You’re a boring spoof. You might as well stop posting.
The Other Steve
No outrage here.
I simply asked you to show me a quote where I(or anybody else here really) said I was hoping Bush would be killed in Iraq. You kept making the claim about us, but not once could you back it up. As I recall, you bravely ran away from the request never to be seen in the thread again.
It was really quite telling.
It’s interesting how you use the terms morality, courage, etc. yet don’t seem to understand their meaning.
The Other Steve
Right, and yet you provided no links.
It’s amazing how the right can’t debate on facts, they just have to make shit up.
t. jasper parnell
Don’t forget Inouye, bastard wants people to burn the flag.
t. jasper parnell
Besides, who says that only lefties oppose the President’s policies, deride his incompetence, and wish we could have a open and honest debated about the war’s end?
Mac Buckets
It doesn’t take an expert to recognize an expert (the Pentagon) from a novice (Random Internet Poster), does it?
You’re about the only one who agrees. It must be lonely for you two experts, what with the Democats all running a thousand miles an hour away from that deranged notion. And, “floss my cat?” [CAUTION: HARDHAT AREA. INSULT UNDER CONSTRUCTION.] Let me know when that one’s completed. It’s like a Mad-lib at this point! :)
Anyway, yet another reason Okinawa is a stupid idea is that the Japanese have been trying to get us OUT of there for years. We’ve recently agreed to move over 15% of our Okinawa-based troops out of there and into Guam.
Does Murtha think Japan is going to agree to let us move a big chunk of out Iraq response team to Japan? (Although it would be worth proposing it, just to see the puzzled look on Koizumi’s face when Murtha tells him that he wants the Iraq response team wants to be located in Japan!)
t. jasper parnell
By the was Mac Buckets did you see Greenwald this morning? Any logical and non-insulting response?
Par R
A number of the intellectually challenged morons posting here make the argument that the terrorists were already aware of the Swift financial tracking program, and therefore who gives a shit that the NYT discloosed a bunch of data on it. Well, for starters, there’s a difference between knowing that a government is trying to monitor financial transactions, and knowing how they’re doing it.
It’s been pointed out that many financial institutions participate in the Swift consortium. But not all do. The wise terrorist, opening his terrorism handbook (i.e. the home page of the New York Times), will carefully note which financial institutions participate, and use other ones.
Or perhaps the terrorist will find it useful to know exactly what information is available through Swift records — or that (as the New York Times carefully explained) “the information is not provided in real time – Swift generally turns it over several weeks later.”
“Mohammed, make sure the attack is carried out within two weeks of receipt of the funds. Yes, I know we originally planned it for later. Plans have changed. Don’t you read the New York Times?”
Steve
Still making shit up the next day, I see. You don’t have the first fucking idea whether the co-chairs told the NYT not to publish “because it would hurt national security.” There has not been a single reported detail about those conversations, other than that they both urged the NYT not to publish, full stop.
t. jasper parnell
It is true that the whole issue of Administration violation of the spirit and letter of the Consitution; its inability to get one thing right; refusal to accept that the redeployment called for by Murtha and others is now echoed by the military its ownself is overshadowed by Murtha’s mention of Okinowa. Indeed, unless I miss by bet, the whole issue of Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, rising interest rates, high gas prices, limited job growth, and etc are considerable less important than Okinowa. I mean really lets focus on what matters. One of the three locations mentioned by Murtha is clearly wrong. Indeed, the wrongness of Okinowa shows that Murtha, whose general ideas sound like they were culled from the recent revealed plan — almost as if the decorated marine and long time supporter of the military has sources inside the army and was thus able to steal a march on the Administration, is not only a cut and run traitor (why he encouraged, or maybe not, the NYT to publish information that is all over hell and back again) but perhaps so enthrall to his own future prosepects that he has decided to throw in with AQ and comp. Like Kent Brockman and his long awaited ant overlords.
You see the whole thing makes sense.
t. jasper parnell
Par R accoring to Greenwald (link above) the Boston Globe and others the idea that the NYT revealed ” how they’re doing it.” So could you provide some evidence to back up your assertion?
t. jasper parnell
Meant to put in “is nonsense at the end of the first sentence.
Nutcutter
It’s official. The designation of “Mac Buckets thread” is now at the same level as the “Darrell thread.” Completely futile and pointless.
The main difference between Mac and Darrell is that Darrell says the same things over and over in the same way, while Mac says them over and over in new and different ways. Mac is more creative, but I have to give the style point to Darrell for consistency.
Mac Buckets
Oh, so you weren’t “outraged” on that thread the other day? Well, let’s just go back and revisit. Let’s see if you’re telling the truth.
My post:
The Other Steve:
Your WHAT?
Roll that back!
So… do shut up, liar. You’re minor league. You can’t this fastball.
Steve
Please show me where on the home page of the New York Times, or anywhere else for that matter, one can find a list of all financial institutions that participate in SWIFT.
Please show me your evidence that the United States does not seek the exact same counter-terrorism information from other international financial bodies besides SWIFT.
Please show me where the NYT disclosed exactly what information is available through SWIFT records.
Please further show me your evidence that SWIFT is unable to respond to requests that are more time-sensitive than a couple of weeks.
When you’re through making stuff up, maybe we can discuss a simple fact: SWIFT is the largest international financial network there is, and it has the best standardization technology to enable international transactions to be processed in a timely manner. If we could somehow know that as a result of the NYT/LAT/WSJ story, no terrorists will ever use any banks in the SWIFT network again, it would be a crippling blow to terrorist networks and financing around the world. It won’t happen that way, unfortunately, but we should be so lucky.
Pb
Mac “Okinawa” Buckets,
Maybe he was proposing the exact opposite approach–potentially moving a big chunk of our troops that are already in Okinawa to Iraq… Nah. Not only would that be consistent with his statement, but it could potentially just make too much sense for Mac Buckets to even acknowledge the possibility. Forget I ever mentioned it.
mrmobi
MikeLucca
From Wikipedia
I guess he bought those medals on the internet… oh, wait, this was 1967… oh, I know MikeLucca you are a FUCKING LIAR!
I feel so much better. Kerrys’ medals are also well documented, but that probably doesn’t matter to the fact-impaired like yourself, Mike. One other thing, though. The Chimp-in-chief had a chance to volunteer for duty in Viet Nam, in fact, he had to specifically decline to go. Kind of makes you proud, huh Mike?
Mac Buckets
That’s so stupid I can hardly believe you wrote it — no, wait, I thoroughly believe you wrote it. Uhhhhh, no, the reason you should forget that you mentioned it is because Murtha’s “Okinawa” statement was in response to a question about WHERE TO REDEPLOY OUR TROOPS CURRENTLY IN IRAQ! Look up REDEPLOY if you don’t understand the word.
So tell me again about how Murtha must be talking about existing troops!
Pb
Score one for Mike.
Mac Buckets
I see you brought your pom-poms. Do a dance for us now.
Pb
Mac “Okinawa” Buckets,
Boy did I call it. Too much common sense, and your head explodes.
I’ll let Murtha do it for me:
Now tell me why he couldn’t have been talking about any troops that already were in Okinawa…
Mac Buckets
Yeah, it was probably for some other reason, like…???
Pb
Nutcutter,
Darrell is more aggressive because of it, though. Like a bulldog. Okinawa-boy is more like a yappy pomeranian.
Pb
Bankers might be less likely to participate (under a subpoeana)? It sounds stupid, I know, but apparently that was their main argument. Or at least, that’s what I ‘read’ in ‘print’. I know it must be hard to trust all those black scribbles over the comforting red-blue-and-white fuzzy spinning blur that is Fox News…
Mac Buckets
LOLOLOL! So you’re going to ignore the only relatively cogent sentence he said:
and you’re going to delve deep into this treasure-trove of garbled lunacy:
And then you’re going to pull out a random phrase, and then you’ll rearrange the words to make Murtha contradict his earlier, clearer statement. Then you’ll claim that this is common sense. That’s just classic.
Mac Buckets
Yes, and the net effect of that is what? If the banks wouldn’t participate, the program would be scuttled, and we’d lose a successful program to stop terrorists. Hence, national security.
Again, what other reason could the 9/11 Commission Co-Chairs have for wanting the Times not to out that program?
Steve
Don’t be a child. You don’t know what was said in those conversations, so stop assuming.
t. jasper parnell
Thank god, the Okinowa issues is being hashed out. Why a few more rounds and we will have all possible answers to Okinowa. Par R can then give the various and sundry evidences necessary to convict the NYT of reporting on matters well known to all but the innocent American citizens, whose government now behaves like a 3 yr old or, per Krista, a person on Mushrooms.
By the way, the SWIFT situation is going to get even messier. Those damn Europeans and their lack of freedom
Mac Buckets
Come up with another probability (I’ll even allow a possibility), and I’ll entertain the notion that, for some other reason having nothing to do with the fight against terrorists, the 9/11 Commission co-Chairs together lobbied the Times not to print the article. Again, these aren’t two random guys — they are the co-Chairs of the body whose duty it was to investigate what programs can be instituted to fight terrorists. So what other reason could they have to go together and lobby the Times not to out a program which is successfully fighting terrorists?
Pb
Mac “Okinawa” Buckets,
Not that deep, but why not, you quote it all the time. Anyhow, although you could make the case Murtha was talking about two different things at the same time (redeployment from Iraq and then potentially redeployment back to Iraq…), it still wouldn’t be that hard for the average person to understand (not you):
It’s like one of those third grade word problems: “If you have three apples in Okinawa, and then you fly in one apple from Iraq, and then you fly two apples from Okinawa to Iraq, then how many apples do you have left in Okinawa?” Or was that just more ‘garbled lunacy’ in Okinawa-boy land?
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
The net effect of that is nothing. And I think you missed the part about the subpoena. You know, the one they’ve been merrily following for years now?
Mac Buckets
Yeah, right, I’m sure Murtha was just thinking on so many different levels that he sounded like a drunken buffoon. The truth is, he was talking about moving troops here-and-there like on a Risk board… because that makes sense, right?
Has the left really put so much stock in this guy lately that they can’t even admit it when he talks crazy-talk on TV? Are you really in the position that you must pretend that every word out of his dome is genius, even when it’s garbled nonsense? And the Left talks about Bush-bots?
t. jasper parnell
Another possibility?
Well, if the average American citizen were in possession of the facts of the matter concerning the GWOTEAOORN they wouldn’t need committees to tell them what was or was not the proper course of action.
Mac Buckets
No, I was simply showing that (if you buy the non-participation thing on its face, or even if you don’t — and I don’t) the argument still boils down to national security concerns. There is simply no other reason the co-Chairs of the 9/11 Commission would together lobby the Times not to publish.
Steve
Very interesting piece at Crooked Timber, particularly since it starts off by saying “I am not a lawyer” and then goes on to offer pages of observations that are more valuable than whatever a lawyer would likely contribute.
I’m not as confident as CT that a violation of European privacy laws occurred here. As I said somewhere above, we need to remember that this is not a data mining operation. From what was disclosed, it appears this was a program where we acquire actionable intelligence on terrorism through whatever means, and then ask the SWIFT organization for data relating to that piece of intelligence. For example, we find out that Krista is the leader of an al-Qaeda cell, and we ask SWIFT if they have any records of unusual transfers of money to or from Krista.
It seems pretty obvious that we need to be able to do the kind of thing I’ve just described (although we’d be committing the unpardonable sin of viewing terrorism as a law enforcement matter). Assuming for the sake of argument that some kind of super-strict European privacy law was violated, it seems obvious that any kind of long-term solution has to rely on convincing Europe that these strict laws need to be loosened enough to allow for legitimate terrorism-fighting efforts. Convincing an entity like SWIFT to ignore the law and provide us with information – assuming they did, in fact, violate the law – isn’t a scenario that is going to last indefinitely. If the NYT/LAT/WSJ hadn’t exposed this, someone in Europe would have.
I still remain skeptical that a law was violated, because these SWIFT folks aren’t a bunch of rubes, and their lawyers would surely tell them if they were taking serious legal risks. It’s doubtful they would risk their entire operation just to cooperate with Uncle Sam, although who knows. And also, Bill Keller has said that he wasn’t particularly convinced there was a real possibility of the bankers discontinuing the program if it was publicly disclosed. Seems to me that if the program really was in violation of European law, all anyone would have to say is “It’s guaranteed that the program will be shut down if you run this story, because it’s completely in violation of European law and they wouldn’t be allowed to continue.” Of course, maybe we’ll find out in the next few days that someone actually did make a statement like that, and the NYT/LAT/WSJ are all a bunch of idiots.
Steve
They did this because the administration asked them to do it. Don’t act like it’s some wild coincidence that suddenly the two co-chairs perked up their ears and independently developed the need to go talk to the NYT. The fact is, you don’t know what was said, and your argument boils down to “start speculating about what was said, or I’m going to assume that my own speculation is correct.” It’s still all speculation, and I won’t go there.
I continue to find it extremely weak that you argue out of one side of your mouth that the 9/11 commission was nothing but a “showboat,” and out of the other side of your mouth that it’s terrible when someone fails to do whatever the 9/11 co-chairs tell them to do. You obviously don’t believe yourself that these guys have any kind of definitive right to declare what should and shouldn’t be done to fight terrorism, so stop trying to push that standard on others.
Andrew
Par R is a plagiarist or he is Patterico. I’m not sure which is worse. Nice job being a word thief/stupid, Par R.
John S.
MacBuckets invokes the name of the 9/11 Commission quite a bit on this hijacked thread, and yet he still has not responded as to whether or not he finds ALL their recommendations to be gospel – and not the just the ones he agrees with. They have been extremely critical of the administration in regards to:
• Government-wide information sharing
• Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
• Guidelines for government sharing of personal information
• Coalition detention standards
So you agree with the 9/11 commission that our government is failing us in the above – and other – homeland security issues? Or is there acumen limited only to the NYT?
Pb
Mac “Okinawa” Buckets,
Even Murtha’s garbled nonsense makes more sense than Novak’s tortured analysis of it, which you apparently thought was pure genius, judging from how you ran with it. So, given that, I’m pretty happy with the position *I’m* in.
Mac Buckets
And who better to tell the Times what a bad idea publishing would be than the men (one a Democrat, one a Republican) whose job was to investigate how to best fight terrorism? I’m sure the WH didn’t have to ask twice.
My speculation as to why the 9/11 Commissioner co-Chairs wanted the Times to kill the story makes perfect sense — in fact, no one else has even up come up with alternative speculation! No, wait, maybe the 9/11 Commission co-Chairs didn’t want the Times to publish it because they didn’t want a story about anti-terror measures to crowd out “Brangelina” news!
And again, I could just as easily call “weakness” on the other side for the exat same reasons, couldn’t I? Care to address that?
But the fact of the matter is, we had the Commission, and these Commissioners spend a great deal of time (in between camera-hogging) learning about anti-terror issues and making recommendations. It is perfectly consistent and reasonable to note that, even though we all could see that the 9/11 Commission was a huge grandstand for some of the members, the Commission co-Chairs no doubt learned a great deal about anti-terror efforts and have insights into those programs that Random Blog Commenter or even Average Member of the House do not have.
Silly and 100% wrong. Why wouldn’t I believe that the 9/11 Commission co-Chairs who studied the problems of terrorism and government efforts to thwart terrorists for months and months know more about terrorism than Random Blog Commenter? I never said that, nor would I ever.
Mac Buckets
Trying to divert with Novak again? I thought something I never read was pure genius? Interesting. I’ll ask again, how does he fit into anything?
Fine, if you admit Murtha is a senile loon, I’ll admit Novak is a senile loon, if that makes you feel better.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
My mistake–you must have somehow independently latched onto the same bullshit talking points.
I think ‘senile loon’ would probably be the kindest and most forgiving assessment of Novak I could come up with, (and perhaps a bit harsh on Murtha as well…) but… agreed! :)
Mac Buckets
It just doesn’t take talking points to see that redeploying troops in Iraq to Japan for rapid response is a silly, silly idea. If it took spin and talking points, there would probably be some Democrat, somewhere, who had Murtha’s back.
Mac Buckets
Done! Let the record show that both of those guys should go away to Florida.
Krista
Great. So now I’ll have some nice gentlemen from CSIS waiting on my doorstep when I get home. Thanks a lot, Steve.
You asshole.
Pb
Mac Buckets,
No, it just takes talking points to co-ordinate and swallow/parrot the ridiculous claim that it’d take the troops *a month* to get there, and then to muddy the waters further still between what Murtha was talking about (flying them in) and what Novak and/or the military was talking about (some sort of vague Marine operation involving ‘6,000 nautical miles’ of travelling). But I digress.
Cue grumpy old man routine!
jg
So you’re admitting it?
Tom in Texas
Mr Mobi, didn’t you know? Murtha faked those Purple Hearts.
Please note that I do not endorse the above sentiment.
It astonishes me that they’ll use the exact same line, every time.
John S.
Glad to see that you place the knowledge of the 9/11 Commission above your own. I guess then you must agree with their assessment that over the past four years, in regards to the war on terror, the Bush administration has done a lousy fucking job.