President Bush on Monday added to his administration’s criticism of The New York Times for reporting about the government’s surveillance of international banking records, calling the story “disgraceful.” “We’re at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America,” Bush said.
Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, countered the administration’s main arguments against printing the story. In response to the argument that exposing the program would cause international bankers to quit participating in it, Keller said: “We don’t know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it.”
And in response to the administration’s argument that exposing the program would cause terrorists to change tactics, Keller said that the terror financiers already know that the United States is taking every measure to follow the money. “But,” he wrote, “they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.”
Treasury Secretary John Snow dismissed Keller’s defense as “incorrect and offensive,” but Keller was right to point out that the founders “rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the president at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.”
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- GMC70 on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
138 Comments
The so-called “war on terror” is a self-perpetuating ugly anti-American slap in the face. A farce. A con-man’s delight. It may be well-tailored to suit the Israeli-firsters-Neoconservatives plans, but, as is obvious, American core constitution values must be sacrificed in its prosecution.
That price is asking too much. Too high.
Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush/Rice cabal has twisted the war-power act in ways it was never intended to be used. A product of signing statements effectively changing law.
And with that loss of honesty, spreading though congress with the speed of a highly contagious virus, American politics suffers a grave, and possibly unrecoverable absence of integrity. Lying has now become spin.
The United States, under President Bush has dropped its membership in the World Court at the Hague, to insulate itself and Israel against being indited for war-crimes.
Token justice is metered-out sparingly, serving political needs rather lawful compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and the President chastises newspapers for exposing a government run amok. The first amendment is not for sale.
Changing the leadership in congress should now become property of all loyal Americans and Free Press alike.
Politics should be set aside until regaining control of our resource of checks and balances takes precedent.
Ed Friedemann
Ya wanna know what they are saying in freeper land? They are calling for the murder of NYT reporters. This is one of YOUR sites boys.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655965/posts
Oh, and another funny thing…
… the program wasnt even secret. Both the preznit and darth cheney have spoken about it in the past.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×1514341
No harm no foul. Well unless you are in the sacrifice freedom for “security” crowd.
All this did was give bush a chance to stamp his foot and stir up his base.
Maybe Coulter will call for a tactical nuclear strike on the times now!
And MSNBC has videos of Joe Scarborough saying this is a tempest in a teapot, that the program was not secret.
And there is the video from chris matthews last night where his guests were saying the terrorists knew this bank snoop was on long before the NYT broke it.
But then, this will just be a leftist democrat tinfoil site….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/
Will “Bullet-Boy” don his cape?
Funny JR. You know godless already said this:
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.Ann Coulter
More humor from the woman defended and quoted by hank and nathan. but hey, it’s just good humor, right?
If you want to see more of the greatest hits, google ann coulter + new york times
They should stick to leaking what the Bush people want them to “leak.”
Then they’d be fine.
“And there is the video from chris matthews last night where his guests were saying the terrorists knew this bank snoop was on long before the NYT broke it.”
The above is undoubedly true, which begs the question “why is GW Bush/Cheney throwing such a fit about it at this time?”
After all, they don’t really care how polls, press, history, etc., etc. treat them. Surely the 2006 elections aren’t this important to them, are they? Maybe they are…
When was Bush given full war powers?
All I remember is Congress giving him an okay to use force, if necessary, only after certain criteria were met. Not that he bothered with the details of that…
DD, with states outlawing Diebold machines and going for machines with paper trails. that’s an excellent question. ;)
Speaking of Diebold… LOL
I was at one of the BWCU branches on Friday, depositing my daughter’s paycheck into her account while she was on vacation. I pulled up to the place with the window, not the tube, and the drawer that popped out for me said Diebold on the side. I almost drove off. *grin*
I saw something earlier, although I’m not sure where, about a black woman in Ohio prior to the 2004 elections. A registered Democrat, she said she received tons and tons of calls from Republicans who knew how many children she had, the schools they attended, and other “personal” information.
Your tax dollars at work…
The actions of the New York Times is treasonous. Bill Keller should be arrested, tried, and shot.
The hatred these people have for the Bush Administration, and their desire to see him fail at all costs, if harming our country.
What if the New York Times had published a story on June 1, 1944 describing in great detail the planned landings at Normandy? Would they have hid behind the Constitution as they are doing now?
Freedom of the Press does not mean freedom from responsibility.
Wow a nut!
Gentle PantLoads:
From the original Times article:
“The Bush administration has made no secret of its campaign to disrupt terrorist financing, and President Bush, Treasury officials and others have spoken publicly about those efforts. Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.
“Bill Keller, the newspaper’s executive editor, said: ‘We have listened closely to the administration’s arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration’s extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.’”
Full article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?pagewanted=2
The Times responsibly considered the government’s request. The NY Times made the right decision, in my opinion.
It’s digracefully patriotic.
Wow, we have another non-issue that shrub and the other sofa samurai are trying to exploit for their own gain. I personally despise the Times but it has been practice and common knowledge that our government has been monitoring banking transactions for some time now. The original rationale for the scrutiny of financial records was money laundering related to DRUG TRAFFICKING! These neo-conartists are becoming desperate, dangerous and unhinged.
V.L.R.B
LOL Tracy!
DD, that’s the same I heard. It wasn’t as if the NYT discovered the ploy and just published it. They did, indeed, go to the WH and discussed it. But the WH was a bit wishy-washy about the why-you-can’t-print-this (IOW, no solid reason), so NYT went ahead.
Ok, let’s see how far you’re willing to compromise the security of the US in order to harm the Bush administration.
What if the location of Bin Laden were known and the US were about to launch a raid to capture him. Let’s say this information was leaked tothe New York Times. Let’s say that in their infinite patriotic wisdom they splash this story on the front page complete with maps and time tables.
Would it be permissible in your value system to compromise the capture of a man responsible for the deaths of 3,000+ innocent people, or is harming President Bush more important?
KFG, I read your link. It’s like I said before, they not only dissagree with us, they want to kill us.
And Republicans have all the guns.(Almost all, heh, heh, heh, heh…)
Here’s what a real man said about the office of the presidency during World War 1–
“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”
“Teddy Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star”, May 7, 1918
LRB,
Given our government’s progress on capturing UBL, maybe the strategy you describe might help them. And maybe if they had a flashlight…
That example is patently rediculous to the extreme of not even being worthy of comment. But hey I’ll play.
Well”LRB” newspapers have deadlines. As Osama is constantly on the move it is HIGHLY unlikely that there would be any time for leaks of an operation to get him. You are talking about time windows within an hours or even minutes frame. Couple this tiny window of time for a leak and place it against the reality of a news deadline. The chance of all this converging is……..not impossible. But certainly not relevant. Thank you though for playing. Put together another hypothetical and try again.
This issue is not about President Bush. This is about finding terrorists.
Your hatred of Bush is a lens which distorts your view of everything.
Someday President Bush will be out of office but the terrorists will still be gunning for you. After reading the responses here I am no longer sure preventing terrorism is a good idea anymore. Perhaps it will take the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans to wake you up. But by then it will be too late.
“Well”LRB” newspapers have deadlines. As Osama is constantly on the move it is HIGHLY unlikely that there would be any time for leaks of an operation to get him. You are talking about time windows within an hours or even minutes frame. Couple this tiny window of time for a leak and place it against the reality of a news deadline. The chance of all this converging is……..not impossible. But certainly not relevant. Thank you though for playing. Put together another hypothetical and try again.”
So, the chance of increased revenue from running this story is worth more than the lives of those in the battlefield. I see …
People like you are not worth risking one’s life for.
LRB, your blind devotion to Bush is a lens which distorts your view of everything.
Just FYI, since you’re new here, HATE is not an emotion I embrace. George W. Bush and his entire administration do not rate the waste of energy it would take to hate them.
As for the Bin Laden tale you spun, I seriously doubt ANY news agency would do what you presented, even if the opportunity arose, which, as JR pointed out, would be pretty much impossible. Besides, most reputable news agencies wouldn’t believe it until they saw it, like most of the rest of us.
“Is he hiding in under here? Nope.”
Methinks someone took an eggbeater to someone’s brains…
Oh PLEEEEAASSSSE let LRB be a new poster and not just someone switching nics!
Welcome? to the forum LRB.
“LRB, your blind devotion to Bush is a lens which distorts your view of everything.
Just FYI, since you’re new here, HATE is not an emotion I embrace. George W. Bush and his entire administration do not rate the waste of energy it would take to hate them.
As for the Bin Laden tale you spun, I seriously doubt ANY news agency would do what you presented, even if the opportunity arose, which, as JR pointed out, would be pretty much impossible. Besides, most reputable news agencies wouldn’t believe it until they saw it, like most of the rest of us.
“Is he hiding in under here? Nope.”"
I didn’t vote for Bush. I’m a Progessive. Unlike both you liberals and cconservatives I can still discern right from wrong.
Publishing a story that aids the terrorists s wrong.
That’s 3 posts LRB. I am rooting for you!
If ya make it to 10 you’ll likely survive. But …laughing….it will be.. …difficult for you here.
That’s 4. And you are becoming interesting in a confusing kinda way.
I’ll just watch for a bit.
Somebody else help me out here. Welcome this possibly new poster. A moderate progressive who posts conservative extremisms. I say interesting!
A progressive what?
Apparently your reading was disrupted. The enemy was already of aware of this, long before it appeared in the NYT. The only people it was news to were US, the citizens who are also affected by this.
Gawd, I love it when they say “you liberals!”
So what am I? A puppet to do your bidding JR? :)I’m like you I’m waiting for future posts like you said – interesting in a confusing sort of way.
LRB – welcome. Don’t know quite what to make of you yet. I hope you do continue to post. Please be able to back up what you say with links, not a lot of trusting souls around here.
Links help. I can’t post them but I get by. That is blogging 102.
Blogging 101 is posting an opinion and LRB came out swinging! I am rooting for LRB! But you KNOW what a newbie is up against. Trying to ease ya into it LRB.
This whole “story” is just ridiculous. Muslim terrorists use a mehtod of money transfer outside of regular banks and that system leaves NO paper trail!
To answer the original question, under Hawala, a person living in country A gives local currency to Hawala dealer. The dealer, through an affiliate or a subsidiary dealer in country B, delivers the funds to the beneficiary in country B in that country’s currency. The entire transaction is requested, processed, and executed verbally. There is virtually no paper trail except, of course, the dealer in country A must somehow communicate with the dealer in country B, i.e., via email, fax, or phone. The transfer is almost as fast as a wire transfer through a commercial bank if not faster. The exchange rate used to deliver funds is several units of currency (of destination country) lower than the open foreign exchange market of the destination country but higher than the official bank rate, or what is called ‘interbank’ rate. Commercial banks charge a fixed fee for wire transfers regardless of the amount being wired whereas Hawala charges per unit of currency transmitted. Therefore, from purely financial utility point of view, Hawala may be cheaper for the sender than a wire through a commercial bank as long as the amount in question is a few hundred dollars. Beyond that equilibrium amount, Hawala will lose its immediate financial benefit. For example, assume that you wanted to send US$400 to your family in Pakistan from the United States and that the open market exchange rate in Pakistan is Rupess 60 per US dollar and the interbank rate is Rupees 55 per US dollar. You will give that amount to a Hawala dealer in the U.S. The dealer will inform you that the exchange rate will be, say, Rupees 57. The Pakistani affiliate of that dealer will deliver Pakistan Rupees 22,800 to your family. Remember, the US dollars you gave to the dealer did not leave the U.S; There was no exchange of funds between a US bank and a Pakistani bank; and the dealer did not file any regulatory report with the IRS.
Also, the pure financial utility of Hawala will diminish if the open market exchange rate and the interbank rate in the destination country are so close together that there is no room for a profit margin for the dealer. Such is the case in most Western European countries, Malaysia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries with strong economies.
Most countries’ tax code requires financial institutions to report money transfers of above a ceiling amount per customer per day to that country’s revenue department. In the U.S., financial institutions are required by the Internal Revenue Code to report to the Treasury Department when a customer transmits $10,000 or more to a foreign country on a single day.
The analysis of Hawala presented by the prior post seems accurate. There are a couple of issues that should be borne in mind.
Now let us examine these issues.
1) Muslims are required (by Quran and Hadith) to write the transactions amongst themselves and have the transactions witnessed. Granted that writing of transactions is not a Fardh like prayer or fasting or the like. However, the Hawala system, as it exists today, does violate that requirement.
2) We know that the funds transmitted through Hawala do not circulate through the foreign exchange market of the country they are sent to. We also know that the system is practiced by expatriates of mostly developing Muslim countries. Although the individual end of sending the funds for the family is served adequately, the collective end of benefiting from the additional foreign exchange is ignored in the Hawala system. In the end, the family receiving the funds needs local currency and will get local currency either way. In Hawala system the local foreign exchange market will be deprived of its precious product, foreign exchange. Could that be ‘unpatriotic’?
3) Foreign exchange dealerships are state licensed and, to a limited extent, federally regulated. Hawala dealers are not licensed or registered with any regulatory authority. Therefore, if someone does request them to transfer funds in excess of the per day ceiling established by the regulation, they do not report it.
Hawala was a usual mode of money transmission up until early twentieth century. With the advent of International Monetary Fund in mid-twentieth century, most countries of the World had enacted legislation to regulate foreign exchange transactions. Of course, there are still countries that have no regulation of foreign exchange, but most countries have some degree of regulation. Usually, the poorer the country, the higher the regulation of foreign exchange. With the exception of a handful of Muslim countries, all have strong regulation of foreign exchange.
Having examined that, I personally do not share the ‘concerns’ of the media. I do see, however, that the Hawala system has the potential for abuse given its nature.
Allah knows best.You can read more about hawala in the following publicationshttp://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog/archives/veiled4allah/006198.php
Viva La Raza Blanco!!!
WHOA sometimes I read too fast. Since you are posting our own stuff back to us, here is some yours LRB.
“So, the chance of increased revenue from running this story is worth more than the lives of those in the battlefield. I see …People like you are not worth risking one’s life for”
Uh hang on.Just how did you get that out of my calling your hypothetical far fetched?Not only do I not ask anyone to risk their life for me, I sure as hell don’t value a newspaper getting a story over anyones life!
I started out calling you a nut. You made a baseless mistaken assumption about me.
We are even.
Step right up, folks. See loud mouthed right-wing idiot get bitch slapped.
Won’t answer the question of who should decide what the paper runs, the paper or George Bush’s government.
Enjoy.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/06/26/bernie-ward-smacks-down-wingnut-talk-show-host
RainMan,
I saw that one last night. LOL
Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post:********************************************************************The potentially damaging political problem here is that the evidence continues to grow that the Bush White House’s exercise of unchecked authority in the war on terror poses a serious threat to American civil liberties and privacy rights. It wasn’t that long ago, after all, that an American president used the mechanisms of national security to spy on his political enemies.
The sum total of the administration’s defense against this charge appears to be: Trust us. Trust that we’re only spying on terrorists, and not anyone else.
But what if the trust isn’t there? And what if they’re breaking the law?
That’s why it’s better to attack. It makes for great soundbites. It motivates the base. And perhaps most significantly, it takes attention away from Bush’s own behavior.********************************************************************
Whole article here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Excellent, DD.
And farther down that same page, there’s more, especially for LBR’s benefit.
This from Dean Baquet , the editor of the Los Angeles Times:”We sometimes withhold information when we believe that reporting it would threaten a life. In this case, we believed, based on our talks with many people in the government and on our own reporting, that the information on the Treasury Department’s program did not pose that threat. Nor did the government give us any strong evidence that the information would thwart true terrorism inquiries. In fact, a close read of the article shows that some in the government believe that the program is ineffective in fighting terrorism. . . .
“History has taught us that the government is not always being honest when it cites secrecy as a reason not to publish.”
And it gets even better. According to the transcript of Bush’s exchange with reporters yesterday, he insisted that members of Congress were aware of the banking program.
“On the issue of Congress being briefed, by the way, Peter Wallsten and Greg Miller write in the Los Angeles Times: “The ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Monday that she and many of her colleagues on the panel were briefed on the program by Treasury Department officials only after the administration learned it would be exposed in the press.”
If they found out where Bin Laden was, Bush would leak it first to the Saudi’s, then to the NYT! Binnie’s been his ace in the hole for years.
Terrorist are thought by this admin. to be so dumb as to not know the gov. wiretaps, and checks bank transactions after 9/11. That’s why the admin. is doing so poorly fighting them.
What I want to know is this Swift program ran by the same people that ran the Swiftboaters program?
Information is the currency of democracy. If Bush (really Dick Cheney, the stealth president who cut his teeth in the Nixon administration), doesn’t want this, then he is an anti-democratic plutocrat.
It’s like the “war” in Iraq that was set up to be unwinnable. Like 150,000 troops? Vietnam had four times as many troops–and we didn’t win there.
Yes I remember Bush himself mentioning such a program some years ago, and PWN is right about the system that is used to move money in the Middle East. In fact I hear about the system when Bush first mentioned tracing large amounts of money transfers. And how Bush’s system would not work, but none the less I feel there is a balance. Reporting this is meaningless in the sense it was not a well kept secret, but in the fact it really had no need to be reported.
Unlike the NSA wiretapping and the collecting of numbers called within the U.S. which is a violation of Privacy. Only those that were unaware would have been surprised by those revelations. I.E. the American public. This tracing program is geared to the fight on terrorism, as such of all three is had the best chance of being effective.
But banks already routinely report the transfer of large sums of money, so based on the fact this had already been public and that the terrorists do not normally use the banking system. It was not the greatest of National secrets. Still it should not have been news worthy enough to have been nothing more then a tattletale. Where is the MSM on the white paper that the A.G. gave to Congress back in January that said the same powers granted to G.W. to authorize the warrant less wiretapping also gives him the power to authorize warrant less physical searches?
Where was the reporting on the riff between the Director of the FBI and the administration on this and the tactics that are being use to investigate suspects and interrogate enemy combatants?(U.S. News and world report , March 27, 2006)
Throw the Times in jail. Treasonous bastards.
I make no excuses for Bush, but anyone that couldn’t figure out that in this cyberage, in a war on terror, that our government wouldn’t be listening in on telecommunications with certain foreign countries, or closely following financial transfers, needs to leave the room now! It’s not rocket science, even the President can follow it!!
The better the name given by government, the worse it is: I.E. “Patroit Act,” as un patroitic as it gets.
I.E. The war on “terror.”… Terror is the name given to people when they fight back after being horribly wronged.
When the People of Iraq fought back after being invaded, they were called “terrorists.”
With a name like “terrorist” killing them goes down easier.
I’m sure the president doesn’t want anyone following his own money trail, and I’m sure it has been and continues to be just as convoluted as the terrorists’.
What money?
Disgraceful!
Now see what you’ve done? you’ve upset Joe.
Everybody go to your rooms!
Welcome LRB. How long will you last?
Rain Man, are you a newbie? Loved the link!
The New York Times felt differently a few years ago.
This from a Sept. 24 2001 Times Editorial.
“The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists.** Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America’s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies. ”
More here-http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F6071EFF3F5E0C778EDDA00894D9404482
The staff of the NY Times and the LA Times continue to aid the Jihadiis and cost American lives. They need a date with a couple of teams of stout horses and some sturdy hemp rope.
When you threaten to kill people, Heckler, isn’t that a crime?
NAL, that is standard practice on this blog. Threats are a way of life….
Not a Lawyer
It’s quite obvious that you are not a lawyer by your comment. If you were you would recognize that I did not advocate murder which is a crime. I may have implied killing but what is Capitol Punishment if not killing?
Why does it seem that republicans are always advocating killing someone? They’re so pro-life!
Gee, can you still get hemp rope? I thought hemp went out when oil came in and is considered an evil, as it’s part of the marijuana conspiracy.
Can andbody else see the logical falacy of the “Since I can’t see where any harm is done then it’s ok to publish” argument?
Seeing the way the minds of both liberals and conservatives works sometimes leaves me breathless in awe.
XXX
We tend to favor killing people who are guilty of some grievous crime, not people who have never had an opportunity to commit a crime.
RD
I’d be willing to consider rawhide riata in lieu of hemp.
The publishing of the NY Times article is important. Not because the program might be illegal, not because they wanted to further discredit the Bush Administration, but to insure oversight.
Oversight has been sorely lacking since 9/11. The Administration claims that members of Congress were aware of their efforts; they weren’t, or they weren’t fully briefed.
Several horrible things have been done in the name of protecting our country. You know what? The price is too high.
What really scares me isn’t terrorists, or secret prisons, or the NSA monitoring our communictions. It is one person, or a group of persons, having too much power.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our government has checks and balances for a very crucial reason: to prevent anyone from having too much power.
The publishing of the article by the Times was the right thing to do. Because, unchecked, we could wake up one morning and find that we paid too much for something that isn’t freedom.
Mr. President, I don’t trust you. I’m afraid of you and your decisions. I consider you and your staff irresponsible. Please, don’t make us follow you over a cliff.
“The publishing of the NY Times article is important. Not because the program might be illegal, not because they wanted to further discredit the Bush Administration, but to insure oversight.
Oversight has been sorely lacking since 9/11. The Administration claims that members of Congress were aware of their efforts; they weren’t, or they weren’t fully briefed.”
I don’t know if your aware of the current financial situation, by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) tracks, and has tracked for a long time, any cash transaction over $10,000. If you went to a car dealer and paid $15,000 cash for a car – it would be reported to the SEC. That’s the way it has worked for decades. That’s how drug dealers and other criminals are caught.
Every credit card transaction you make is tracked. Every payment you make to a creditor is tracked. This has been going on well before 9/11.
The only difference with the new program is that information regarding International Banking transactions are now beig shared between governments.
Now you liberals sreech – “Oh the horror! There is no oversight.”
Why the pain? Because it involves the Bush administration and fact alone triggers your liberal hate gene to go into anguish overdrive.
Get real. We thinking folks can see through your folly.
I’ll admit, my previous comments are liberal. But it is my opinion, not proven fact. I could easily be very wrong about the Bush Administration. In all honesty, I really hope I am wrong. It would be a relief to know that the administration is actually answering to someone who has the authority to stop them if necessary.
I don’t like politics. I have no favor for either the Democratic or Republican parties. My only concern is that the people in office, who are ultimately to answer to us (the people), act responsibly with integrity.
“We thinking folks can see through your folly.”
“Thinking folks”? Funny, I would have considered your reactions to be more Pavlovian. Consider issues like Abortion, or Gays, or Religion. Seems more like reaction than thinking.
Some of us think the country has taken a wrong turn. Slowly but surely, our liberties are being stripped away by the current administration, all in the name of Terror.
When you consider the hit freedom has taken from our own government, the Terrorists are winning.
“I’ll admit, my previous comments are liberal. But it is my opinion, not proven fact. I could easily be very wrong about the Bush Administration. In all honesty, I really hope I am wrong. It would be a relief to know that the administration is actually answering to someone who has the authority to stop them if necessary.
I don’t like politics. I have no favor for either the Democratic or Republican parties. My only concern is that the people in office, who are ultimately to answer to us (the people), act responsibly with integrity.”
I have far more faith in the responsibly and integrity of the good people actually helping hunt-down terrorists through examining financial transaction records than I do the editorial staffs of the New York Times or CBS News. In one case you have people trying to do a genuine public service, in the other you have a group of people trying to manufacture news to sell advertisments.
BOO!
“We thinking folks can see through your folly.”
“Thinking folks”? Funny, I would have considered your reactions to be more Pavlovian. Consider issues like Abortion, or Gays, or Religion. Seems more like reaction than thinking.”
Speaking of Pavloian …
Anybody who disagrees with your creed automatically toes the opposing line on Abortion, Gays, Religion, etc.
Interesting.
Some of us think the country has taken a wrong turn. Slowly but surely, our liberties are being stripped away by the current administration, all in the name of Terror.
When you consider the hit freedom has taken from our own government, the Terrorists are winning.
At least we are allowed to express our opinions. The day that comes to an end will be the end of civilization as we know it.
Oh, that last sentence was a bit of a friendly jibe.
LRB, that made no sense. Why am I not surprised? Was there a point?
“Speaking of Pavloian …
Anybody who disagrees with your creed automatically toes the opposing line on Abortion, Gays, Religion, etc.
Interesting.”
I can probably guess your stand on each, but it would be an excersize in futillity. You’re predictable.
Here’s another reason that Jason’s call for oversight is so crucial.
We know the administration used extralegal, if not illegal, data mining to spy on US citizens (ie, outside FISA warrants) – and never told us until it was leaked.
We know they did the same with banking records – and never told us until it was leaked.
Why in the world would anyone assume they’d NOT spy on European financial transactions as well?
And if they did, what if the EU proposed new laws that shut out US efforts to monitor financial transactions altogether?
I guess where I’m going with this is that, given the administration’s signing statements and cowboy domestic spying activities, one very bad outcome might be that the US would NEVER have access to European data again.
That would be a clear demonstration of real harm done by the administration to US interests. And that would not be good.
I’d forgotten about this little bit of info. Add this to all the other disclosures by the Times and it just gets easier and easier to see who’s side the Times is on in the War on Terror.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago charged in court papers that Shenon blew the cover on the Dec. 14, 2001, raid of the Global Relief Foundation — the first charges of their kind under broad new investigatory powers given to the feds under the Patriot Act.
“It has been conclusively established that Global Relief Foundation learned of the search from reporter Philip Shenon of The New York Times,” Fitzgerald said in an Aug. 7, 2002, letter to the Times’ legal department.
“LRB, that made no sense. Why am I not surprised? Was there a point?
“Speaking of Pavloian …
Anybody who disagrees with your creed automatically toes the opposing line on Abortion, Gays, Religion, etc.
Interesting.”
I can probably guess your stand on each, but it would be an excersize in futillity. You’re predictable.”
You can probably guess where I stand on issues?! You must be a psychic.
The point is that in your effort to show the predictability of some you expose your own algorithmic predictablility. There is no difference between your attitudes and those you despise.
Kettle, meet pot.
Let’s consider some facts and ideas:
1. The NYT published The Pentagon Papers, exposing the thinking of the LBJ’s Dem-Party administration. I don’t think this cost us the Vietnam War. It did enlighten Americans about our leaders’ thinking and objectives (which were not to win an all-out war, but to test new measured-escalation warfare theories). We could have offered both North and South Vietnam major financial aid, albeit less than the war’s expense, and kept them out of the Soviet sphere.
2. Bush isn’t a conservative in the way he wants sheepish hinterlanders to think he is. Where are constitutional amendments banning abortion, gay marriage and flag-burning going? Nowhere. He’s not arm-twisting congressmen on any of these issues. People need to put 1 + 1 together. He took flack for speaking at Bob Jones University. That got visceral-issues votes. But he sent his daughters Jenna and Barbara not to Bob Jones, or Oral Roberts Universities, or any other fundamentalist institutions. In fact, he didn’t even send them to right-leaning mainstream institutions. He sent Barbara to Yale, and Jenna to UT-Austin, two of America’s leading higher-education bastions of gay rights and far-left-of-center liberalism.
3. Mr. Bush was reportedly an indifferent student at Yale, a heavy-drinking frat boy, his early attempt to follow his father’s life in oil pumping failed, as did his attempt to get into Congress like his dad. He eventually ran an energy company that tanked–after he sold out his stock before bad financial results were reported to the SEC, which some alleged bore more than a hint of oder of insider trading. His dad’s friends then set him up managing and owning shares in a baseball team, which made money only after a socialist taxpayer-funded ballpark was built, alleviating the Rangers’ owners of the full cost of running a sports operation. Then he was elected Governor of Texas, which according to Texas experts is more ceremonial than substantive.
Any honest person would have to conclude, “Gee it sounds like he doesn’t practice what he preaches, and he never accomplished anything significant before being (almost) elected in 2000 and 2004. (Again, it was nice that he got some “help”.)” But can a thinking, honest person say, “Well he’s Our President now,” so we have to do whatever he says, which is whatever his handlers tell HIM to say.”
This sounds really dumb to me, but that’s just my opinion.
Welcome Jason! I’ve not seen you post before. That very first of yours was eloquent! I like your take on this.
Julie, XXX, and RD!LRB survived!! LRB? We DO throw each others words back and forth with “reposts” as you are doing. But MOST of us exercise a little more restraint? You do not have to remind of every single word. That just takes up space. Also, reposting what XXX said and mixing in your take here and there is confusing!
But so far you are confusing anyway!
“We thinking peopel
“The point is that in your effort to show the predictability of some you expose your own algorithmic predictablility. There is no difference between your attitudes and those you despise.”
Typical conservative. You don’t understand “disagree”, now it’s “despise”. Unlike you and your ilk, I despise no one.
You’ve obviously run out of ideas when your only response seems to be to copy, paste, repeat and restate my statements.
“Algorithmic predictablility”? Ooh, I’m so impressed!
Try again.
Welcome Jason! I’ve not seen you post before. That very first of yours was eloquent! I like your take on this.
Julie, XXX, and RD!LRB survived!! LRB? We DO throw each others words back and forth with “reposts” as you are doing. But MOST of us exercise a little more restraint? You do not have to remind of every single word. That just takes up space. Also, reposting what XXX said and mixing in your take here and there is confusing!
But so far you are confusing anyway!
“We thinking folks can see through your folly”.
Not surprised XXX jumped ya there!
Excuse us your majesty! Sorry bout all that “folly” ’round here! Hell given your qualifications for being a “thinking person” (namely someone that agrees with you) you gotta be feeling real lonely! Looks like only Heckler and Joe Blow qualify.
I like the way Jason put it. That and my earlier take. This is just an overblown chance for bush and Cheney to stamp their feet and stir up folks like LRB.—–
Obviously I hit post once too early. Mea Culpa
yeah X. Whadya think of this character? Kinda fancies himself huh?
Let’s refute your “facts” one at a time.
“1. The NYT published The Pentagon Papers, exposing the thinking of the LBJ’s Dem-Party administration. I don’t think this cost us the Vietnam War… (snip)”
This is a non-sequitur. The premise that tracking finacial transactions is “like” the war in Vietnam is only a liberal nocturnal emission.
“2. Bush isn’t a conservative in the way he wants sheepish hinterlanders to think he is. (snip) ”
This has nothing to do with the tracking of international financial bank transfers. If you want to bash Bush why not just do it in some liberal echo chamber like moveon.org?
“3. Mr. Bush was reportedly an indifferent student at Yale, a heavy-drinking frat boy, his early attempt to follow his father’s … (snip)”
Again you stray from the point. The only thing you have yet to do is attack the Bush family pet. But I’m sure that’s coming.
Why is it so hard for the liberal mind to stay focused? Perhaps that explains you you guys can’t win elections.
Ooooooooo!
LRB is intelectually dishonest I think.
Didn’t you introduce yourself as a progressive LRB?
Didn’t you initially decry EQUALLY liberals and conservatives?
But scratch away a little, poke a pin in that ego and pop! Out pops just another bush apologist.
You get no points for ATTEMPTED moderacy LRB. Ya didn’t hold the guise long enough.
Clearly RD was right when she asked “A progressive what?” She caught it the first time you used the term “you liberals”
Ya gotta be who ya are LRB. You aint a good enough actor!
LRB,Your “snips” correlate to very little of what was actually written. The basic point, if you can keep up, is Bush pretty much failed in all his endeavors as a private citizen. Even his military record is suspect. As such, does any thinking person want this so-called leader of the free world making decisions about things that may or may not jeopardize any of our freedoms? Or better still, does anyone want this person making any decisions at all?
JM- So sad, but soooo true.
I want to hear how LRB distinguishes between liberal and progressive too.
What is the main difference in your opinion?
And don’t bother to cut and paste me like they do on FreeRepublic.
Just answer the question.
Thank you.
Brown, if you take away his cut and paste, he’s mute.
LRB,”Let’s refute your “facts” one at a time.”
Since you missed altogether, how much longer shall we wait?
I don’t think you even touched JR.
“LRB,Your “snips” correlate to very little of what was actually written. The basic point, if you can keep up, is Bush pretty much failed in all his endeavors as a private citizen. Even his military record is suspect. As such, does any thinking person want this so-called leader of the free world making decisions about things that may or may not jeopardize any of our freedoms? Or better still, does anyone want this person making any decisions at all?”
All of which has nothing to do with tracking international banking transactions to find terrorists.
Do you have a cogent point or are you just ranting?
Um LRB?
So far about 80% of what you post is….. reposts! The rest is your rather feeble attempt to discedit the repost.
So FAR the MOST you have had in your OWN words is that the editor of the Times “should be arrested, tried, and shot”
(I note here a presumption of “guilt” and pronouncement of punishment…… before trial)
Your george bush underoos were showing from the start!
But since you won’t answer an indirect question, let’s try to let you define yourself with a direct one.
Scooter Libby MAY have outed an active, covert, CIA agent. Is Prosecutor Fitzpatrick wasting his time and our money? Should Libby be shot? Karl Rove was also suspect in that matter……
Dang I wish we had your system of justice!
As soon as you get some words of your own and the courage to post them , you are going to be tremendous fun!
“I want to hear how LRB distinguishes between liberal and progressive too.
What is the main difference in your opinion?
And don’t bother to cut and paste me like they do on FreeRepublic.
Just answer the question.
Thank you.”
A liberal thinks the government can cure all of society’s problems.
A conservative thinks God, and free enterprise, can cure all of society’s problems.
A progressive thinks that changing the environment the governement and free enterprise work in can help cure society’s problems.
—
For example: The problem of high fuel prices and the effect on the working man.
A liberal will jerk his/her/its knee and declare the people need assistance. They believe the oil companies are fixing the price of oil and they would have Congressional hearings on the subject. They will punish the oil companies and then they will fix the price of gasoline at some artificially low level. The result will be the average working family will be punished by the laws of supply and demand in the form of gasoline shortages. Which, in turn will trigger yet another round of Congressional hearings and market manipulation. In this aspect the liberals are as relaible as the sunrise.
A conservative will turn to the holy book of Adam Smith and declare that the invisible hand of supply and demand will cause automakers to produce more fuel efficient cars – someday. Meanwhile SUV’s will flood the dealers. And the people will pay more and more while the politicians say to have faith.
A progressive would mandate that all cars sold in the US must have a 35mpg fuel efficiency. And then let the market fight it out on its own. A progressinve changes the rules the economy must work within.
I am not a liberal, conservative of moderate. I reject your labels and the box in which your entire mental framework exists.
“A progressive would mandate that all cars sold in the US must have a 35mpg fuel efficiency. And then let the market fight it out on its own. A progressinve changes the rules the economy must work within.”
I agree with this solution, except it should be 40MPG – which is doable with current off the shelf technology. BUT, this sounds like the government imposing its will on the market place which does not seem much different than your criticisms of liberals. Surely some progressive “mandating” anything would have to be backed by the government. I am not seeing a clear distinction in your definitions/constructs. But I think your viewpoint is valid despite what I see as distinctions that don’t amount to much of a difference.
This is actually simple.
1. You have people who want to have access to knowledge and want to widely disseminate knowledge.
2. You have people who want to have access to knowledge, but restrict OTHER PEOPLE’s access to knowledge so that THEY DON’T ACQUIRE KNOWLEDGE.
The current administration is in group #2. But if the people don’t have knowledge, then democracy ceases to be possible.
“I agree with this solution, except it should be 40MPG – which is doable with current off the shelf technology. BUT, this sounds like the government imposing its will on the market place which does not seem much different than your criticisms of liberals. Surely some progressive “mandating” anything would have to be backed by the government. I am not seeing a clear distinction in your definitions/constructs. But I think your viewpoint is valid despite what I see as distinctions that don’t amount to much of a difference.
Yes the government can, and should impose its will on the marketplace. It already does. The govenment dictates weights and measures. The governments dicates the currency used. The government dictates labeling and content. So on and so forth.
A liberal, as defined by their methods, would try to cure a case of diarrhea by playing with the toilet’s plumbing.
A conservative would insist that all things will pass.
A progressive would prescribe medicine.
Our economy and society need medicine. Strong medicine Not plumbers or faith healers.
Now let’s return to the subject at hand. Terrorism requires money to work. Large sums of it for large acts to be performed. I see nothing wrong with the government watching for Aziz Ben Fez wiring millions of euros to Akmed Salami who is currently stuydying viral pathology at MIT. My advice to the government boys – knock yourselves out. If your work means you might glance at my checkbook activity inadvertantly, let me help you out. I’ll scan and email my statement to you them each and every month if this means you keep one islamo nutsack from killing a busload of children.
The knowledge the government is trying to restrict is the voters knowledge of what they are doing? Any other knowledge restriction that they might be doing is not coming to mind. Could you clarify what you’re talking about, please?
“I see nothing wrong with the government watching for Aziz Ben Fez wiring millions of euros to Akmed Salami who is currently stuydying viral pathology at MIT.”
I don’t disagree with your basic point, though I might have said it a little differently. My concern about giving up privacy rights is the fear that once they are given up, they don’t come back. Having fewer rights, I would contend, diminishes my quality of life — which is something I am against on general principal.
If you could be perfectly protected from terrorism strikes, but this perfect protection meant that you had no privacy rights — would it be worth it. I would say, no.
It is kind of funny, but if you think about it, terrorism protection is kind of like the the Bush administration’s “great society” — we will give you protection from Al Qaeda but to have this you must give up all of you privacy rights & let us decide what is best monitored by courts/congress, etc. I think welfare for “‘fraidy cats” is an apt analogy. LRB – are you saying that is what you want?
Obviously we give up complete freedom in order to live in any society. But, when does the reliquishing of privacy need to stop before it infringes on my basic freedoms? I don’t know the answer to that one, but I don’t like giving up any I don’t have to. Living in a free country means living with some risks. Living period is accompanied with risks.[end of speech]
I think you’re living under an illusion that your life has been private before 9/11. I feel I’m talking to Neo before he took the red pill.
How do I welcome you to the real world?
I like your taste in movies, that was a good one. Hopefully that crack was allegorical, rather than a reflection of what you think our “true” world is like.
Yes, I was aware that we were monitored before 9/11. It has gotten worse. I invite you to give up all of your privacy rights if you so desire. I will decline.
LRB
“All of which has nothing to do with tracking international banking transactions to find terrorists.
Do you have a cogent point or are you just ranting?”(Thought I’d do a bit o the cut/paste thing myself)
What I wrote (I won’t repeat it as it would just give you more to cut and paste, which makes me wonder if you’re sniffing the glue you’re using for pasting)has everything to do with tracking international banking records by this administration, mainly Bush. Or have you forgotten, with all your sniffing, who authorized the tracking?
Seriously, and doing that with you in mind is difficult (I want to chuckle loudly), Bush has made a habit of bypassing laws set by congress, as well as the Supreme Court, so everything he does is suspect. The writing of the transactions by the New York Times was neither disgraceful nor patriotic: it was news that falls under the first amendment of the United States.
We have a right to know such things, especially when more than one news agency reported it, and indeed, the white house had unwittingly referred to it on an earlier occasion. KFG provided the link. Perhaps you would like to cut and paste that also.
I suggest you use the childs paste from now on. Your current brand, stickwithbushforever, has affected your thinking.
JM- Speakin’ of keeping your strings tight- you’re there!
“Hopefully that crack was allegorical, rather than a reflection of what you think our “true” world is like.”
No, I actually think our “true world” is much more complex, and dangerous, than we are led to believe. Our right of privacy is an illusion.
Can I call ‘em or can I call ‘em?
I said LRB was gonna be interesting. Very interesting.We got another poster here kinda like you. Very opinionated but kinda confusing as to his stands. I won’t name him. He will find you soon enough.I’m glad you loosened up a bit LRB?
Again…..just a little word of advice….(God I hope I don’t live to regret helping this one out) Dial back abit on the reposts huh?And as to the thread.
LRB wheter you are a conservative or a liberal, or a progressive, you have to see that this conservative admininstration is accumulating more and more power to itself. We do not yet know how deeply communications are monitored, now we learn financial transactions are being monitored. We have certain troubling elements of the Patriot Act that has been renewed. This President has taken onto himself many times over than any other the power to alter laws with signing statements.
Now except for the renewal of the Patriot act, all that above this admininstration is doing not just in secret from the people but with very little oversight from the peoples representatives in Congress. Is all this shady accumulation of power to the executive justified in your opinion? Are you perhaps privy to details of the (in my opinion) rather minor threat from terrorists?
I quote this all the time LRB. But you are new here. Are you not familiar with Benjamin Franklins opinion on liberty vs. security?
Welcome to the forum.
“No, I actually think our “true world” is much more complex, and dangerous, than we are led to believe. Our right of privacy is an illusion.”
While I enjoyed the Matrix, I fear you might be living there.
Delusional ideas have a contemporary influence. During WWII paranoids were afraid of Japanese and Nazis, communists were the favored evil-doers in the minds of 1960s paranoids. The Matrix and its story is now favored by many delusional people. Not saying that this necessarily applies to our new friend here, but just a little trivia I couldn’t keep to myself.
“Are you not familiar with Benjamin Franklin’s opinion on liberty vs. security?”
LRB: Mr. Franklin …
Ben Franklin: Call me Ben.
LRB: Ok, Ben, in our age we have a threat to our country from Islamic terrorists, now ..
Ben Franklin: Yes, yes, we had the same thing. Our problem was the Barbary Pirates. A scruffy bunch of pedophilic thieves they were. They would stop our merchant ships at sea and demand alms. They would take the young boys. Awful people they were. The Europeans would gladly pay the alms for their security, but we refused to play this game. We …
LRB: The Europeans haven’t changed much today.
Ben Franklin: Nor would I expect them to. Still frightfully consistent in their accommodation with evil, I assume?
LRB: You could say that.
Ben Franklin: Anyway, we sent a detachment of Marines to their base in Tripoli and hung the head Mullah from a flagpole. He …
LRB: We couldn’t do that today.
Ben Franklin: And why not, pray tell?
LRB: People today are predisposed with certain “sensibilities”. A refusal to even appear to be targeting a particular group of people.
Ben Franklin: You’re pulling my leg.
LRB: No, seriously. Why we can’t even track the financial transactions of these terrorists without people crying about the loss of liberty.
Ben Franklin: Wha …
LRB: Remember, your quote about Liberty at the cost of freedom and not deserving either?
Ben Franklin: But the context was within the spirit of personal responsibility. As a Democratic Republic you shared your rights with those elected to serve you.
LRB: Well, a few close elections can change that.
Ben Franklin: You’re pulling my leg…
Oh, and I forgot, terrorists are increasingly focus of delusional ideas.
Conversations with long dead historical figures…. Hmmm….
Told ya this one was gonna be “interesting” DD.
Interesting play there LRB. Clever even.
Your basic take on the accumulation of power to the executive? THAT your little vignette did not address.
There are other threads LRB. Your take on them would be interesting and informative.
“Your basic take on the accumulation of power to the executive? THAT your little vignette did not address.”
I’ll let history do that.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl834.cfm
LRB–
Okay, nice try.
Under your definition, Nixon was a “liberal” because he imposed a wage and price freeze. Clinton was a “conservative” because he rammed NAFTA down our throats.
I accept that you refuse to be put in a box. So why do you put yourself into a box?
I subscribe to “The Progressive” and to “The Progressive Populist.”
Neither one of them would call you a “progressive,” but if it feels good, do it, baby.
Re-reading a comment for the umpteenth time has become tedious and boring. I’m taking a nap.
“LRB–
Okay, nice try.
Under your definition, Nixon was a “liberal” because he imposed a wage and price freeze. Clinton was a “conservative” because he rammed NAFTA down our throats.”
Not everything in the world can be neatly fix into a series of little boxes. The world is not monochromatic.
“I accept that you refuse to be put in a box. So why do you put yourself into a box?
I subscribe to “The Progressive” and to “The Progressive Populist.”
Aging socialists and hippies. No relation to true Progressives.
“Neither one of them would call you a “progressive,” but if it feels good, do it, baby.”
Thank God.
Do a little more research on the Progressive Party. Use Bob La Follette as your search key.
You are starting to be just a wee bit scary LRB.
Normally I do not bother clicking on links to the HERITAGE FOUNDATION. Around here that site is considered “tin hat”. I gave the link a cursory read.
LRB you have to be in a box of some sort. I aint gonna pigeonhole ya just yet. But my guess is you are some sorta progressive Libertarian. Not an easy beast to define.
Your comparison of Lincoln circa civil war with bush circa today is flawed. Jingoistic rhetoric aside, we are not “at war” War has not been declared. Further, war powers reside according to the Constitution with the Congress. I know I know Presidents have been getting around that for ages.As of yet Habeus Corpus has not been suspended. If bush did that you’d get another civil war…….I hope.You have not yet answered forthrightly about accumulation of power to the Executive.
LRB, in your somewhat “tinted” view, the Times did something wrong. I’m sure you and your conservative friends will continue to wail about it for some time to come.Point is, they did what newspapers do and there’s nothing illegal about it no matter how bad you want it to be.
If the Times had done something wrong, sombody would be in jail now. That hasn’t happened. Unless and until there are charges brought, there’s nothing wrong with the Times reporting.
“we are not “at war” ”
We are at war. More people died in the WTC than did at Pearl Harbor. The only difference is that the enemy does not have a homeland.
But that’s the subject of a different thread.
—
“I’m sure you and your conservative friends will …(snip)”
I have some conservatives as friends. I even have some liberals as freinds. The main difference being the liberals, generally, don’t play golf.
LRB–
Did you major in political science or something? Because the hairs you’re splitting are mighty fine.
Here’s what Wikipedia says about Bob LaFollette and the Progressive Party:
The United States Progressive Party of 1924 was a national ticket created by Robert M. La Follette, Sr. to run for president in the 1924 election. It did not nominate candidates for other offices, carried only Wisconsin, and vanished after the election. La Follette had created the “Progressive” faction inside the Republican Party of Wisconsin in 1900. In 1912 he attempted to create a Progressive Party but lost control to Theodore Roosevelt, who became his bitter enemy. In 1924 the party called for public ownership of railroads, and other leftist causes. La Follette ran with Senator Burton K. Wheeler, Democratic Senator from Montana. The party prepresented a farmer/labor coalition and was endorsed by the Socialist Party of America, the American Federation of Labor and many railroad labor groups. La Follette’s run for the presidency under this ticket garnered 17% of the popular vote, but carried only one state (his native Wisconsin). La Follette continued to serve in the Senate as a Republican until his death the following year, and was succeeded in a special election in 1925 by his son, Robert M. La Follette, Jr.
*****
A party that backed FDR and the New Deal, that was endorsed by the Socialist Party and Labor.
Okay, well, thank God you’re not a uhm . . . liberal.
“We are at war”
No, by the Constitution we are not.
But hey the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper according to the folks who tell bush what to say.
Curiouser and curiouser folks. LRB mentions Bob La Follete. In my webtv limited capacity, I did some digging. La Follete was something of a rogue politician circa 20’s and 30’s. He was liberal in the sense that he was for worker rights and unions but he was also an isolationist. Perhaps LRB will indulge us further. I did not find much on the “Progressive party”.
I still call ya interesting LRB. Perhaps if I had seen “the Matrix” I would understand you better. So far I cannot tell whether you are an anarchist survivalist or some other strange breed of extremist or simply a crusading nut.
“But that is the subject of another thread.” So why don’t you post to some other threads LRB? This one is going stale. The Times did it’s job under the first Amendment. As XXX posts, are there charges filed? Beyond the pandering to the far right of a few in Congress who are demanding an investigation of the Times, this is no more than I said it was. Bush stamping his foot to stir up his base. That and mysterious folks like you calling out for summary justice and capital punishment for the editor of the Times.
Posts overlapped brown.
I saw the same wikipedia as you.
This LRB is a tough one to figure.
JR,
While interesting, LRB seems to be a pretty confused guy/gal. I’m not sure how much we can help him/her here.
Regards.
There seems to have been a whole bunch of newbies as of late. By the way, whatever became of CrusaderX?
viva La Raza Blanco!!!
Let’s see now – release the identity of a CIA operative – GOOD. Release information about illegal activities of the BushBots – BAD.
Perhaps if BushdaBum had been a bit more diligent in ferreting out the traitor in his administration who leaked Plame’s identity his crying wolf about leaks wouldn’t ring so hollow.
“Okay, well, thank God you’re not a uhm . . . liberal.”
I thank him every day for that.
“I thank him every day for that.”
Since “him” is not capitalized, one can assume you’re refering to Bush:-)
Spend a moment and examine your illogic.
President Bush did XI don’t agree with X
Therefore it’s permissible to disclose secret information used in the fight against those who want to kill me.
Get it?
LRB are you hiding under your bed? Do you wet yourself anytime you see an arab? Do bright and shiny objects alternately get your attention/ send you fleeing in panic? Yeah?
I’m sorry folks like you suffer so. I personally do not. I am not prepared to sell out liberty after liberty to a pResident who I quite frankly do not trust, like, or regard as remotely interested in anything but the growth of his own power.
The Times did the correct thing. Not the “right” thing but the correct thing.
[q]LRB are you hiding under your bed? Do you wet yourself anytime you see an arab? Do bright and shiny objects alternately get your attention/ send you fleeing in panic? Yeah?
I’m sorry folks like you suffer so. I personally do not. I am not prepared to sell out liberty after liberty to a pResident who I quite frankly do not trust, like, or regard as remotely interested in anything but the growth of his own power.
The Times did the correct thing. Not the “right” thing but the correct thing.[/q]
I bet those whose family members were killed by terrorists would disagree with you. But since you live in a secure place you can afford to look upon distain on those who fight to provide your security.
In other words, a typical liberal.
5 paragraphs your last post LRB. Three of them mine reposted. That is getting tiresome. You are getting tiresome.
Some folks who lost relatives to 911 agree with me some with you LRB. I live in the same “place” more or less as you do. Though your take on reality is a little different from mine. You must be a little more paranoid and easily led (misled) than I.
Oh and LOOK now you are accusing me of “looking with disdain” on those who fight to provide my security! If you mean the idiot bush I got nothing but disdain for him. I don’t accept for a fraction of a second that he gives one whit about me. Trust him all YOU like. Be a good little follower!
Times did the right thing LRB. Barring any further more interesting developments I’ve no further comment for this thread.You can get back under the bed now LRB with your plastic sheets, duct tape and canned food.
“5 paragraphs your last post LRB. Three of them … (snip)”
1. I never voted for Bush.
2. I see little difference between the religious right and the Taliban.
3. I see little difference between political zelots like yourself and the Iranian mullahs.
4. The action of the New York Slimes benefited no one except the terrorists. No liberties were preserved. No freedoms were protected. Their actions are treasonous.
“4. The action of the New York Slimes benefited no one except the terrorists. No liberties were preserved. No freedoms were protected. Their actions are treasonous.”Posted by: LRB | June 29, 2006 at 09:03 AM
———————————–
By way of Drum @ http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_06/009100.php
‘In the closing months of 2003…the carefully constructed global network of sigint and what can be called finint, or financial intelligence, started to go quiet.
In short, al Qaeda, and its affiliates and imitators, stopped leaving electronic footprints. It started slowly, but then became distinct and clear, a definable trend. They were going underground.
….”We were surprised it took them so long,” said one senior intelligence official. “But the lesson here is that with an adaptable, patient enemy, a victory sometimes creates the next set of challenges. In this case, we did some things that worked very well, and they started to evolve.”
Or devolve. The al Qaeda playbook, employed by what was left of the network, its affiliates and imitators, started to stress the necessity of using couriers to carry cash and hand-delivered letters. This slowed the pace of operations, if not their scale, and that was, indeed, a victory.’–Ron Suskind, “The One Percent Doctrine”
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743271092/qid=1151531493/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9075656-0623221?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Now if the administration would just do this for the “Bendict Arnold” corporations that keep outsourcing their profits.
“‘In the closing months of 2003…”
Therefore it’s permissible to publish anti-terrorists efforts.
Already refuted. Already shown to be illogical.
Anything else?
LRB–
Check out the Keith Olbermann report at http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/
He’s got GW himself bragging about SWIFT and how effective it’s been.
These people have a website and a magazine for heaven’s sake.
It is about as secret as the bases that we’re not building in Iraq.
Another ridiculous ploy to get the brownshirts grabbing their pitchforks and torches.
You’d think that eventually stupid people would get tired of being used by this administration, but their enthusiasm to lynch people who “deserve it!” knows no bounds.
I was just browsing another website that also deals with politics and came across a joke posted on October 25, 2004.
Along with the idea that publishing this actually HELPS the GWOT (I’ve written here about this before), the timestamp on this joke serves as buttress:
There was an old Iraqi man who had lived 40 years in the USA (Chicago) and who wanted to plant potatoes in his garden. However he was a little too old and frail to till the soil before planting so he wrote an e-mail to his only son who was in Paris studying at the time, explaining his problem.
Dear Ahmed,I am feeling very sad because I will be unable to plant my potatoes this year. I am far too old for such heavy work. If only you were here my problems would disappear, for you are young and strong and could till and turn the soil without any bother.Love Papa.
A couple of days later he received a mail from his son.
Dear Papa,Whatever you do don’t touch the earth in our garden. That is where I have the “you know what” hidden.Love Ahmed.
That night at 4am, the garden is invaded by the local police, the FBI, the CIA, a SWAT team, the Rangers, the Marines, Steven Seagal, Silvester Stallone and a few more of the Pentagon’s elite. They dig for hours looking for bomb making equipment, anthrax etc. but find nothing and eventually leave discretely.
The next day the old man receives another mail from his son:Dear Papa,I am sure by now the earth is perfect for planting your potatoes. It’s the best I could do under the circumstances.Love Ahmed.
The Republican House’s actions on this story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062901904.html
I wonder if this strategy is going to work.
I got home in time to catch the end of PBS’s “Washington Week.” A reporter was saying that the topic of your story, DD – “House Republicans accuse NYT of treason” – is one of those talking points. Heavily coordinated the last part of the week, repeated over and over.
The reporter speculated that Republican incumbents in the House, working in concert with the White House (i.e., Karl Rove), are really, really pushing this.
Gwen Ifill, the program hostess, noted that no charges have been filed, and I believe the WSJ reporter said she’d heard that the GOP isn’t interested in filing charges. What they want is enough mud against NYT’s wall that nobody will take the newspaper seriously going into November.
So it’s another Swift Boat thing, only this time it’s the NYT instead of Kerry.
It is kind of like constantly saying over and over again that the elections were rigged in Ohio and Florida?
Perhaps, some of us actually think that printing classified material dealing with how we are trying to hunt down terrorists…is well…treasonous?
And is your complaint kind of like saying that Vice President Dick Cheney’s authorized disclosure of a working CIA covert operative isn’t…well…treasonous?
The problem with you and the administration both is that you’re both selective as hell about leaks while insisting that you’re completely objective and fair.
IOKIYAAR
The bottom line is that it is not up to the New York Times to decide what is secret or not. Because their value judgements are based upon what will sell more newspapers and advertising space. They have no other responsibility.
“I say it is time to stop arguing and address the issue proactively.There is nothing to lose by doing so.”
If you don’t understand the cause how can you be sure the solution will do even more harm?
As recently as 1901 “scientists” trying to combat malaria placed potted plants around workers barracks in Panama believing that the plants would “absorb” the bad humors of the evening air. In reality the open water in the potted plants provided yet another ideal breeding ground for malaria carrying mosquitoes.
—
Step one: Understand the problem.
Step two: Address the problem.
Step three: Never ignore step one.