Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Howard Kurtz, With A False Parallel | Main | Determined And United Point-Missing »

June 28, 2006

Comments

sbw

OT and Ironic

That there is absolutely nothing on the JOM front page history of subjects about the Plame/Libby case.

/OT

clarice

TM, I've been giving it some thought..I think we should propose a Constitutional amendment calling for national elections of the editors of the NYT, WaPo and LAT. Then we can campaign across the IT for the positions. It's the only way to deal with this nonsense:ridicule.

Redcoat

"This is just, like, so totally awesome and cool," said shadow Vice President Maureen Dowd.

It's frightening to think she is just a Shadowy heartbeat from being Shadow President.

Carol Herman

What nonsense!

The NY Times is entering the dog house on its own. It's headlines, and articles, are meaningless. On the radar screen, it's noise. Not signal.

Meanwhile, in the House, republicans are poised to "condemn" the times' disclosures. Wow. Like watching false teeth rattle.

The day when journalists could be portrayed as heroes are over. Hopefully, an end will also come to the ways we've been handling arabs (they are not seen as terrorists), when we go to the movies.

hollywood and the press has failed the people. That's the headline, as it should be. But the only place you know things are askew, are in those secretive board meetings; where the financial types come and talk about the missing beans. Where once they counted lots of beans. For most, the eyes would glaze over from such reports.

While Bush's numbers are CLIMBING. I don't think people see him in the shadows, at all. They see our president up against a cabal who are trying to take him out. As if they could. When their last great white hope was Nixon.

It's nice to see our President NOT making mistakes.

And, it's nice to read (the piece by Ben Stein), that Karl Rove is the nicest man on earth. He doesn't have one mean bone in his body. And, that's one of the reasons our White House hasn't been turned into a bunch of snarling dogs.

For the dogs, and the dog shit; ya gotta go to the slimes. Happy street-walking on 42nd street. You really didn't think whores could write about love, did ya?

Pisistratus

Look the Administration needs to put or shut up. Fitz has already showed them how to put NYT reporters in jail unless they reveal sources. So what is the White House waiting for? Tony Snow, however, just ruled out a criminal referral.

Don't you guys get embarassed when you rant and rave and the administration does nothing? Don't you think maybe you're just being used?

You're the national security equivalents of right to lifers, except you get even less bones tossed your way. At least in the Schiavo matter the Congress actually passed a law and the President cut short his vacation to sign it.

Now-we are confronted with a clear act of treason (per you mouth-frothers) and all Congress can muster is an attempt to pass a resolution.

We hereby resolve treason is bad???

That's laughable. What am I missing?

A resolution!

Xrlq

They can be a branch of government without being held accountable. Just ask the "independent" judiciary.

Other Tom

It isn't "treason"; don't be silly. I have very serious doubts that a criminal conviction can be obtained against the Times. The leakers are quite another matter, and I would be very surprised if there isn't an investigation already under way concerning the NSA leaks, and I would be further surprised if that investigation isn't expanded to cover this latest outrage. Subpoeanas for reporters is certainly an option, but no judge is going to threaten them with contempt in the absence of a showing that all other avenues have been pursued. This thing will take time, and those who are hoping for immediate results will be sorely disappointed.

Semanticleo

How clever of those who seek to amend the constitution, without the benefit of the Legislative Branch, and bring back the monarchy, also want to eviscerate the 'Fourth Estate" or at least portion of it that resists the hegemonists.

It would seem the best strategy for accomplishing the consolidation of power
and for giving this temporary occupant of the
WH the title "Imperious Rex".

MayBee

How clever of those who seek to amend the constitution, without the benefit of the Legislative Branch, and bring back the monarchy,

Seriously, semanticleo. What are you talking about?

Semanticleo

Jeez.

That's part of what I'm talking about.

Real slow....consoloidation of power....
as in executive branch.

MayBee

Well, I know that's part of what you are talking about because it is a quote from you. But who is trying to amend the constitution without the benefit of the legislative branch? Who is trying to bring back the monarchy?

Specter

Maybee...it should be clear. Tic says that Bush is. And others of her kind say that Bush had the twin towers destroyed on 911. To Tic and Pis that is all part of the big, right-wing conspiracy picture. Check your closets and under your bed guys....they are watching your every move....


BWHAHAHAHA

Semanticleo

Maybe;

In the spirit of semantics, let's be sure you and I are on the same page....

What is your definition of "amend the constitution without the benefit of the legistlative branch: and what is your definition of "monarchy"?

Semanticleo

Spec;

abandoning your 25 rules?

JM Hanes

Shadow Government!

If Peter thought at all, but I don't believe he ever thought, it was that he and his shadow, when brought near each other, would join like drops of water, and when they did not he was appalled. He tried to stick it on with soap from the bathroom, but that also failed.

His sobs woke Wendy, and she sat up in bed. "Boy," she said courteously, "why are you crying?" Then Wendy saw the shadow on the floor, looking so draggled, and she was frightfully sorry for Peter. Fortunately she knew at once what to do. "I shall sew it on for you, my little man," she said, though he was tall as herself, and she got out her sewing bag, and sewed the shadow on to Peter's foot.

"I daresay it will hurt a little," she warned him.

"Oh, I shan't cry," said Peter, who was already of the opinion that he had never cried in his life. And he clenched his teeth and did not cry, and soon his shadow was behaving properly, though still a little creased.

"Perhaps I should have ironed it," Wendy said thoughtfully, but Peter, boylike, was indifferent to appearances, and he was now jumping about in the wildest glee. Alas, he had already forgotten that he owed his bliss to Wendy. He thought he had attached the shadow himself. "How clever I am!" he crowed rapturously, "oh, the cleverness of me!"

MayBee

What is your definition of "amend the constitution without the benefit of the legistlative branch: and what is your definition of "monarchy"?

I feel like I'm trapped in a confusing dream.

Gary Maxwell

MayBee

You would be better served and probably have more intellectual stimuli, if you go into your pantry and pull out a can of green beans and have a conversation with it. You would get less nonsense and no ad hom attacks on anything and everything. Canned corn would be another possibility.

Semanticleo

I feel like I'm trapped in a confusing dream.

Just tryin' to establish some ground rules for a 'serious' discussion so that 'gamesmanship' doesn't overtake us. If you don't want to play, your excuse will suffice.

Semanticleo

Maybe; you could review this end run around the Constitution.(as if you didn't know)

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70855-0.html

Bob

Maybee... your too kind!

Don't be fooled by cleo's "rope-a-dope" game. Your wasting your time trying to get a straight answer from these type... your just better off ignoring them until they actually say something worth responding to!

Semanticleo

gotta go now. Now that Spec is here I have to cut and run 'cause he's such a snappy commenter. But I'll be back.

MayBee

So you don't mean 'amend', right?

OK, Bob, Gary and Specter, you have convinced me to go to bed and have real dreams. Good night.

Sue

Bob,

Or ::grin:: at them.

JM Hanes

MayBee

It's pretty clear that Semanticleo juat loves stringing words and phrases together with no real idea of what they mean when she's through. That's why she's asking you to explain them! Think of it as the verbal equivalent of monkeys typing.

Carol Herman

Talking of ridicule, Clarice, there's a wonderful interview with Ann Coulter, highlighted up at Lucianne. The article is 6 pages 'short.' And, here's just one wonderful quote (nailing what the NY Times does best.) I think her words are prescient. CAROL HERMAN

"The one tip I’ll give you about Hillary Clinton’s future—because I read The New York Times like a Kremlinologist reading Pravda—and I think they’re turning against her, the way they turned against Howard Dean. I think The New York Times is going to stop Hillary from being the candidate. We’ll see, but that article a few weeks ago on the front page about the family—and this past weekend, they had a very nasty Hillary cartoon. I think the clergy of the liberal religion, i.e., the editorial board of The New York Times, has decided that Hillary can’t win, and they’re going to find an electable candidate. Exactly like they threw Howard Dean off the boat last time. He was sailing to victory, and The New York Times turned against them with a big magazine piece making fun of, you know, his idiot supporters. It was hilarious. But they wouldn’t have done that if they wanted the Dean train to keep going. They ended Dean, and liberals are good followers and they do what The New York Times tells them. We don’t have anything like that, by the way, on the right. You can’t get us to be followers.”

Gary Maxwell

Sue

Didnt your momma warn you about grinning at strangers? And have you seen a wierdo following you around at the grocery store?

Bob

Sue, even a ::grin:: is wasted on such nonsense. These pathetic types crave any attention and they're so enamoured with themselves, that you'll only encourage them more.

Sue

Gary,

Come to think of it, there was an incident at the cumquat section recently. ::grin::

Gary Maxwell

Sue

At least he did not try to grab your peaches.


(Out of your basket of course, this being a family blog.)

Sue

Gary,

::wink::

Barney Frank

Leo,

By 'Legislative Branch' you pretty obviously mean the House of Reps and Senate.

Be honest, you didn't even know that a convention, called by the states, can amend the constitution as well, did you?

Please don't insult our intelligence by saying 'Legislative Branch' meant the state's legislatures as well.

The Unbeliever

To recap: Semanticleo says

How clever of those who seek to amend the constitution, without the benefit of the Legislative Branch, and bring back the monarchy

meaning he accuses us (or Bush? or conservatives in general? it's a little hard to tell) of attempting some mysterious nefarious enterprise, without actually defining what that action is, and uses this alleged motive to claim that they

also want to eviscerate the 'Fourth Estate" or at least portion of it that resists the hegemonists.

Then he gets all in a huff when we don't know what his imaginary action is--as if the bald assertion alone is enough to establish the claim's veracity.

Semanticleo: your argumentation would get you kicked out of any high-school level debate class. Feigning to seek a "serious discussion" is one of the silliest things you could pretend to.

Gary Maxwell

Barney

Its never been done but it clearly is an option spelled out in th Constitution. Cleo was just reading the Townhouse memo, not the Constitution. My civics textbooks always made a big deal about the Constitutional convention having a risk of being a "runaway" convention. Meaning changing a lot of stuff. Change is bad to textbook writers I guess.

Pete

When Cheney and Libby leak the classified NIE to New York Times, that is a good leak. When Rove and Libby leak Plame's CIA affiliation that is another example of a good leak.

Infact by definition anything this White House leaks is good, and anything it does not is bad.

Similarly when Bush talks about the success in foiling the financial dealings of the terrorists, it makes us safer. Yet when the New York Times and a bunch of other newspapers mention that, it puts us in grave danger.

Pete

I love this quote from msnbc.com:

Repeatedly since 9/11 a barrage of Bush administration press releases, speeches and congressional testimony heralded its aggressive works to target terrorist finances around the world. In a June 2002 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Deputy Treasury Secretary Kenneth W. Dam boasted that the United States was working with private-sector partners internationally on “developing monitoring systems” of bank accounts, noting that such cooperation was necessary because “you can’t bomb a foreign bank account.”

Gary Maxwell

Re pete again (or still). If its declassified by the V/P it aint a leak by definition. And you not understanding how secret programs could be making us safer is quite telling. Maybe the next Townhouse memo wil explain it to you. I will not even try.

corvan

Of course, Pete, that's the reason Cheney and Libby and Rove have been indicted for leaking, right?

Les Nessman

Pedanticleo and his ilk seem to have very anemic 'arguments' lately. I thought it was a sure thing that the Dems would take back one or both Houses of Congress this year; but if this is the Lefties 'A' game, then they are indeed in trouble.

Pete

The New York Times has not been indicted either.

And it is a free country. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy NYT. Ultimately their readers vote with their pockets, so they have to be accountable to their readers.

Other Tom

Hey--doesn't anybody want to talk about the Rove indictment anymore?

JM Hanes

When the Prez discloses info about the NIE, it is not, by definition, a leak; it is, by definition, a disclosure. Alas, this sort of elementary context gets lost all too quickly in the heat of the moment.

Gary Maxwell

Who reads the NYT? Judging by their stock price, not nearly as many as a couple of years ago. If you are relying on Code Pink and America Coming Together types to buy your rag, you are getting down to a small rabble. Maybe they can go tabloid style and really zip up the coverage! Think Raw Story with dead trees.

Gary Maxwell

The New York Times has not been indicted either.

As the wicked witch said in the Wizard of Oz, " all in due time, my pretty."

That is what you will likely say back on Rove now too isnt? Is it lonely there in the pumpkin patch waiting on the Great Pumpkin? Or did Leopold come to keep you company?

Barney Frank

Pete,

Of course the terrorists knew we were after their finances prior to the Times story.

The key point is now they know how we were doing it and how to avoid it. But of course you knew that already. What's thwarting terrorism next to scoring cheap political points? Are you on the Democratic platform commitee by any chance?

JM Hanes

No plaudits for my fabulously germane reference to Peter Pan? :(

Other Tom

“I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast.” - General William T. Sherman.

Beautiful...

Other Tom

Cheney, Libby and Rove haven't been indicted for unlawful leaking because they haven't leaked anything unlawfully. Ask Mr. Fitzgerald about that.

Tom Maguire

From pissant:

So what is the White House waiting for? Tony Snow, however, just ruled out a criminal referral.

Pis, you verged on making a good point. However, you really ought to have provided a link.

The closest I found was this, from yesterday:

Q Tony, a very quick question. Would you say that nothing The New York Times does would lead to prosecution, or if so, what?

MR. SNOW: Look let me make this really clear. At the White House, we don't do legal referrals. That's the business of other people. I'm not getting involved in it.

Maybe he said something more comprehensive elsewhere, but this reads like a basic statement of fact - a criminal referral would go to the DoJ from Treasury (probably, in this case), State, Defense, CIA, or whatever.

Tom Maguire

I agree with the other Tom:

I have very serious doubts that a criminal conviction can be obtained against the Times. The leakers are quite another matter, and I would be very surprised if there isn't an investigation already under way concerning the NSA leaks

I loved this:

That's part of what I'm talking about.

Real slow....consoloidation of power....
as in executive branch.

Spell check is your friend; Semanticlown is your comic relief.

I feel like I'm trapped in a confusing dream.

What is your definiton of "dream"? How and why do you distinguish it from "nightmare"?

ANSEWR NOW! Or answer...

From Pete:

And it is a free country. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy NYT. Ultimately their readers vote with their pockets, so they have to be accountable to their readers.

That poses an interesting puzzle for a society at war, especially when a decent fraction of the country objects to aspects of the war.

So Pete, what are the appropriate legal restainsts on the times? If 20% of the populace wants the Times to print troop movements (thereby making the proposition commercially viable), are they free to do so?

It seems to me that in Pete's world of unfettered freedom with responsibility, all of our national security concerns, legitimate or not, can be vetoed by one or two cranky bureaucrats leaking to a paper that can find some like-minded customers.

Deep Throat leaked (in part) because he was passed over for a promotion. Does anyone know the agendas of the current leakers to the Times (I do not)?

Are they Clinton hold-overs, disgruntled grunts, what? What is their agenda? Only the Times knows, and they won't say. But I would love to see a leak investigation here.

Gary Maxwell

OT

Josh Trevino in a long and well written essay compares the netroots movement to another fringe political movement, the John Birch Society. It will likely leave mark.

here it is:

http://www.enchiridion-militis.com/?p=98> Nutroots = JBS?

Pete

Tom - If I was concerned that NYT has revealed something new which the terrorists did not know about, I might share your concern. As I mentioned earlier, the administration itself has revealed a lot about how it is going after the terrorist's funding. And there is plenty of evidence which points to al qaeda already have changed its methods on how it conducts financial transactions.

Wilson's a liar

Tom, GREAT point about Deep Throat, I was thinking the exact same thing this morning. These leakers might be just petty bureaucrats pissed off that they were passed over for promotion. But because the NYT gets to keep ITS secrets from us, it can continue to build them up as brave patriots Speaking Truth To Power and all that rot. They can continue to build themselves up as all that stands between us and the Chimpy McBushitler dictatorship.

We know the Times does almost nothing to verify its sources or oversee its reporters. Otherwise there would have been no Jayson Blair, Judy Miller, "RATS" ad story, or Joe Wilson. The Times wants to assume that the Administration is acting illegally and lying, and therefore they have an obligation to tell us everything. Well, I'm assuming they are a bunch of incompetent liberal fools who will print anything that comes over the transom if it fits their worldview, and I have an obligation to call Bullshit on them and demand they name their sources.

clarice

So, Pete, you think they called Keller to Snow's office and sent a bipartisan group os Congressmen to dissuade him from publishing this because ...? You'll pardon me for saying so, but I do not recall electing Keller to make this decision and a general public description is a long shot from the details provided the NYT.

Wilson's a liar

Pete,

There is that problem of that pesky word "SECRET" that was splashed all over the NYT story. If it wasn't a big secret, what's the deal? The Times turning itself into a tabloid with sexed-up headlines just to sell newspapers?

Barney Frank

Hey JM,

Here's some plaudits.
But I'm a little preoccupied today; how was it fabulously germane again? Because Pete thinks he's clever?
Sorry for being so dense.

Carol Herman

Speaking "truth to power" is on par with sending up a gust of flatulence in a darkened theater. Smells bad. And, you have to hope your neighbors think the horses did it.

Bob

Gary... great link on the nutroots!

comparing them to the JBS has got to leave a mark!

Tom Maguire

Tom - If I was concerned that NYT has revealed something new which the terrorists did not know about, I might share your concern. As I mentioned earlier, the administration itself has revealed a lot about how it is going after the terrorist's funding. And there is plenty of evidence which points to al qaeda already have changed its methods on how it conducts financial transactions.

I have in my mind a staggering essay of heartbreking brilliance, the theme of which would be Detection and Disruption.

My gist would be this - there is plenty of evidence that terrorists are aware of the procedures employed by airport security; however, no one is calling for an end to those procedures. Why not? At a minimum, these procedures force the terrorists to choose other (hopefully less vulnerable) targets.

Similarly, even if the terrorists know all about the SWIFT program, its existence forces them to use alternative means of moving money.

Now, if those alternatives were intrinsically appealing, then yes, the SWIFT program would be a waste.

But if the terrorists first choice would be touse the standard international payments system, and the SWIFT program forces them away from that and onto second and third choices, then presumably those lesser choices are less secure, less convenient, more detectable, or whatever.

Making the terrorists work harder and take more risks is a good thing for us, even if we don't catch any directly - how many Al Qaeda bombers have been caught at airports? How many have been deterred, or forced to bomb buses instead?

Still on SWIFT - the Admin's major argument was that publicity would cause weak-kneed Euros to shut the program down - as to that, the jury is out, but only Glenn Greenwald knows that no harm has been done.

The Admin's lesser argument (per Keller's letter) was that terrorists might change their tactics - it may well be that the SWIFT team has a major goal of forcing the terrorists into other detectable channels, anda minor goal of getting lucky directly.

So - if we bust some Qaeda courier with a knapsack full of cash, do we credit SWIFT? I would. If we trail that courier to his contacts, do we credit SWIFT? Why not?

But Pete, your approach ignores all of that - the implication of the "they already knew" argument is that unless SWIFT catches terrorists directly, it is not useful, and if publicity results in a shut-down, so what?

I disagree.

Anyway, that is my idea. It was the Three D's briefly - Detection, Disruption, and something else. Maybe that will come back to me.

Deterrence! There it is! Airport security is valuable because it deters and disrupts, not because it detects. Same with SWIFT.

maryrose

No excuse for the behavior of Keller and the NYT. Greed to sell newspapers and a feigned show of power that they can and will stick it to this administration. Nothing more to it than that . No nobility or character here.

Bob

maryrose it can't be greed, since every time they pull a stunt like this they loose readership. Have you seen their stock price lately? So it has to the later... "sticking it to this administration"

Gary Maxwell

OT

Israeli jets just buzzed the house of Syrian President Assad. I ownder if it will takes six days this time?

Pisistratus

"But I would love to see a leak investigation here."

Ok. Fair enough TM. So what implications will you draw if no such investigation is ever commenced?

Btw-how's the investigation of the earlier leak by the NYT of the telephone surveillance program progressing?

Maybe if the administration had torn the NYT a new one for that first leak we wouldn't have had this second leak? ya think?

And why aren't they throwing actaul sticks and stones at the NYT rather than words THIS time to prevent a future third leak?

It's put up or shut up time.

Semanticleo

"I have in my mind a staggering essay of heartbreking brilliance...."

Not so brilliant as it has been argued numerous times. Or are you copywriting the three D's as though of merit.

What it may be perceived as is; treasonous.
Like the NYT (populated by minds AT LEAST
as brilliant as you) you are on the wrong side of this issue.

Ditto on the spellcheck.

Lurker

Patterico's argument is that NOT all terrorists were aware of the SWIFT program. Once this program was initiated, a few terrorists got caught as the one in Pakistan (?).

So the details are not so well-known until last Friday.

Cheney, Libby, and Rove did not leak Plame.

Lurker

"But I would love to see a leak investigation here."

Ok. Fair enough TM. So what implications will you draw if no such investigation is ever commenced?

Btw-how's the investigation of the earlier leak by the NYT of the telephone surveillance program progressing?

Maybe if the administration had torn the NYT a new one for that first leak we wouldn't have had this second leak? ya think?

And why aren't they throwing actaul sticks and stones at the NYT rather than words THIS time to prevent a future third leak?

It's put up or shut up time."

Because Mac Ranger says it's the beginning and there's more coming. And he says to have faith. New polygraph tests this week. Check his site.

Patterico, McCarthy, Ledeen, Lowry, Barnes, Schoenfeld, etc., all have excellent arguments why this is considered "treasonous".

Bob

"Cheney, Libby, and Rove did not leak Plame."

But lurker it was in the NY Times... so it must be true. /s

Lurker

Even I can read the sarcasm in your post, Bob! :-)

Lurker

Another Smear by NYT and nothing new

So what's the big deal about Bush's signature when it's common practice all the way back, starting with Monroe.

Lurker

Gary pointed this out but certainly this confirms a shadowy government called NYT:

A small victory published by NYT.

Tom Maguire

So what implications will you draw if no such investigation is ever commenced?

It would be troubling. That said, apparently (this was talked about in 2003 post Plame referral) there is a referral a week for classified leaks, most of which go nowhere.

I don't think the Times will be prosecuted; either the Admin tries to track down the leakers (and the attempt may not include much fanfare), or they don't.

The problem is, an absence of visible progress may not mean much, so this could become an ongoing faith-based initiative.

Lurker

House GOP getting its act together

Patterico notes that McManus is changing his story.

PeterUK

"Tom - If I was concerned that NYT has revealed something new which the terrorists did not know about, I might share your concern."

This totally ignores the very personal nature of terrorism,it is not just the method of finacial screening which is at risk it is now the people involved.The families of British troops in Iraq have been getting threatening letters,assassinations are a principle tool of terrorism.
Then again the left are quite willing to sacrific the lives of others to execise a freedom which they,in practical terms have no use for.

David Walser

With regard to the they-already-knew-we-were-tracking-their-finances-so-no-harm -was-done argument, this ignores three critical issues: Whose job is it to make this call, there is a difference between knowing something's being done and how it's being done, and disclosure might have ill affects unrelated to the program.

Whose job is it to make the call? In our system of government, our elected representatives are empowered to determine which secrets the government gets to keep. It's up to them, not the press, to determine whether disclosure is in the public's interest or not. If some Executive Branch employee disagrees with a program, he or she is authorized to bring that complaint to a select few in Congress. This provides the checks and balances the NYT prizes so much. No one is authorized to disclose classified information to the press -- no matter how much they may dislike a program or the current Administration. By printing leaked information, the NYT took upon itself the responsibilities of our elected representatives. Keller, without access to all the facts, is willing to substitute his judgment for the judgment of those with greater familiarity of the issues involved. Even if Keller is right -- that disclosure does more good than harm -- Keller is wrong. He has usurped power that does not belong to him.

There is a difference between knowing something's being done and knowing how it's being done. Tom and others have already made this point. Allow me to add that, without knowing how we were tracking their finances, the terrorists did not know how to prevent what they were doing. For all they knew, we were somehow using marked bills to track their spending. Now they know we were using the data available through SWIFT. They also know that SWIFT maintains this data for months and that we are unable to track financial transactions on a real time basis. By using dummy entities that exist for only a few days at a time, it may be possible for the terrorists to devise a scheme that allows them to use SWIFT without giving us the information we need. Much as they now use disposable cell phones.

Disclosure of this program might have, and almost certainly will have, ill affects that do not relate to the program itself. Much of our intelligence capability depends on the cooperation of other nations. This disclosure will make it less likely those nations will want to cooperate with us. By cooperating, they are at risk that their cooperation will someday be published far and wide. Even if the government thinks its own citizens will support cooperation with us, they might reasonably fear the reaction of less friendly nations. In short, every disclosure of classified information makes us a less attractive partner in covert actions taken with other countries. This reduces our effectiveness without regard to merits of the program being disclosed.

Bob

It makes you wonder if the 40 people on Flight 93 were all like Keller, Krugman, Kurtz, cleo, jerry, pissant... just how many more people would have died. They would have sat on there duffs worrying about offending the high jackers!

Freedom for them just magically appears!

Bob

David... and who will take the blame if Swift is now targeted by the terrorist?

topsecretk9

FWIW...this was the NYT's in October and December of 2003:

A New York Times editorial in October called the revelation of Ms. Plame's identity "an egregious abuse of power" tantamount to "the disclosure of troop movements in wartime." On New Year's Eve 2003, another Times editorial cheered the Justice Department's decision to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald as special prosecutor: "The Right Thing, at Last," read the headline."

the NYT's today:

The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals.

...innocent accused....

PeterUK

"eller, without access to all the facts, is willing to substitute his judgment for the judgment of those with greater familiarity of the issues involved. Even if Keller is right -- that disclosure does more good than harm -- Keller is wrong. He has usurped power that does not belong to him."

May I point out the bottom line? Keller is the Editor of a commercial concern,he sell newspapers and advertising,all decisions are made,not on the basis of national interest,but hard business reasons.
This was done purely for the money.

clarice

You had me with you until the end PUK. Neither I nor the investors can see much business know how in the NYT's decisions, and don't get Kaus going on Times Select!

Other Tom

Pis--you seem awfully sure that no criminal investigation of the NSA leaks is underway. I don't know on what basis that assurance rests.

clarice

Ts, what a lovely juxtaposition.

clarice

Ts, what a lovely juxtaposition.

Bob

Well then PeterUK,

Keller needs to go back to business school, since the more the NY Times pisses off it's readers the lower their stock price seems to go.

I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying somebody there ought to look at the numbers!

Barney Frank

JMH,

Nevermind. I have only now remembered TM's original post. Now I get. Insert embarrassed emoticon here.
Here's some more plaudits.

Bill in AZ

PeterUK - "May I point out the bottom line? Keller is the Editor of a commercial concern,he sell newspapers and advertising,all decisions are made,not on the basis of national interest,but hard business reasons.
This was done purely for the money."

This is ostensibly the reason that Keller should not be in charge of decisions on national security - severe conflict of interest. But I would argue that the real reason keller, mapes, rather, wilson, plame, etc do this sort of thing (take down the current administration) is their burning ideology. It's bigger than money. This stupid, inconvenient little war Bush created has derailed the steady march to socialism.

PeterUK

Clarice, Bob,
They are "liberals" they can't run anything,isn't this the number one problem with the progressive legacy,incompetence and arrogance in one package.
It is the old record company technique,keep throwing shit at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks.

Pisistratus

"Pis--you seem awfully sure that no criminal investigation of the NSA leaks is underway. I don't know on what basis that assurance rests."


Because if it was going on-I'd read about it in the New York Times!!!

I'm serious. You think Risen could get a subpoena and have it stay a secret?

clarice

True enough--but this time it seems to be sticking to their walls.
Malkin has listed the names and addys of the NYT's biggest advertisers and reports there's a rumor of a protest outside their offices.

What does this mean to them? After all the money is just pouring in there, isn't it?

It would please me no end if the people--subscribers and advertisers and stockholders and citizens--simply ran them out of business without the long and expensive bother of court proceedings. (Kind of like Putin ordering his troops to kill those who beheaded the 4 Russian diplomats in Iraq.) Just do it.

PeterUK

Bill in Arizona,
These are socialists,they still have a price.

PeterUK

Yes Clarice,typically progressive behavior,keep throwing money at the problem...not we are doing the wrong thing,we are not doing enough of it.

JM Hanes

Why thank you, Barney! It's the very picture of a gentleman, you are. :)

clarice

Also PUK pay no attention to little number crunchers..all hail the luftmenschen and their natural ability to see everything in a broad,nuanced perspective..Like Times Select.LOL

Bob

Yes PeterUK... just look at our public school system to see how liberals run a business - into the ground that is!

Pisistratus

Yes. Google is tanking.

Lurker

How's the NYT stock doing in the last few days?

How big is the protest? Will the protest sway NYT? Nah, I don't think so but getting addys to pull out and declining subscriptions might.

David Walser, good post.

TS, amazing how different NYT's (and others like cleo, pissant, jerry) perspective is between the Plame "leak" (where there isn't a leak and no crime) and NYT's published story about SWIFT.

windansea

Israeli jets just buzzed the house of Syrian President Assad. I ownder if it will takes six days this time?

after his coffe cup stopped rattling Assad got up to change his shorts :)

Bob

Pissant,

It's not uncommon for the super rich to feel guilty about their wealth... the funny thing is that even though the likes of Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, all are run by liberals, I'm not sure you'd respect them in the morning if you saw how they made their money.

But heh you love Soros too!

David Walser

Lurker, thanks. I appreciate the notice.

Other Tom

Pis--Pay attention. I'm not suggesting that anyone from the Times has been subpoenaed (yet). That would only come at the tail end of an investigation, when Justice would be able to demonstrate to the court that testimony from such people is required. What would be occurring right now are polygraph exams and FBI interviews with CIA employees. When, and only when, that phase of an investigation is concluded would anyone be subpoenaed. Your assurance is not at all well founded.

JM Hanes

David W

Ditto Lurker on that. Excellent points, argued with clarity.

Pisistratus

My hunch is based it on the gross incompetence the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated in public. If you want to think they are deadly silent Ninja killers when it comes to leak investigations-go right ahead. It's the conservative Fitzmas.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame