2
   

Newspapers Reject White House Request to Kill Records Story

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 03:21 pm
You pull the cloth of distortion over your own eyes because of your prejudices.

This is why you are fooled by such things all the time.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 04:34 pm
Speaking of bias, I am sure if Clinton had been in office and the same thing was being done, the New York Times and all of you would be bragging about the program and talking about all of its accomplishments in terms of prevention of terrorist acts. The same applies to NSA programs. The hypocrisy is indeed transparent and plain as day.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 04:46 pm
So...you are suggesting that Clinton would not be blowing hot air about prosecuting the Wall Street Journal, The NYT and the LA Times?


(Oh, the Bushies ARE including the Wall Street Journal in their hysterical denunciations, are they not? YOU don't appear to be, but surely there is SOME fairness somewhere in Bushland?))
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 05:01 pm
I have no idea what Clinton would do. And I don't care what he would do, since he did very little about terrorism anyway when he was in office.

It is my understanding the New York Times was the lead story and once they decided to publish, the other papers only followed the lead.

Incidentally, I just heard Senator Roberts being interviewed, and he is MAD as **** about this. He did not say the treason word, but that is clearly what he thinks. He also says the paper does not know the details of the program, he does, but he obviously cannot elaborate, but the introduction of the story places at risk the unknown or classified details of how it actually works. Senator Roberts made the point that apparently there is no such thing as classified information anymore in the government. We might as well cast in our chips and give up now.

Many of us happen to respect Senator Roberts, and I agree 100% with what he had to say. The liberal, arrogant, know it alls that call themselves journalists nowadays are nothing more than pathetic. Very pathetic.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 05:16 pm
okie wrote:
I have no idea what Clinton would do. And I don't care what he would do, since he did very little about terrorism anyway when he was in office.

It is my understanding the New York Times was the lead story and once they decided to publish, the other papers only followed the lead.

Incidentally, I just heard Senator Roberts being interviewed, and he is MAD as **** about this. He did not say the treason word, but that is clearly what he thinks. He also says the paper does not know the details of the program, he does, but he obviously cannot elaborate, but the introduction of the story places at risk the unknown or classified details of how it actually works. Senator Roberts made the point that apparently there is no such thing as classified information anymore in the government. We might as well cast in our chips and give up now.

Many of us happen to respect Senator Roberts, and I agree 100% with what he had to say. The liberal, arrogant, know it alls that call themselves journalists nowadays are nothing more than pathetic. Very pathetic.



Who the hell is Senator Roberts and why should his madness matter?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 11:23 pm
okie wrote:
Speaking of bias, I am sure if Clinton had been in office and the same thing was being done, the New York Times and all of you would be bragging about the program and talking about all of its accomplishments in terms of prevention of terrorist acts. The same applies to NSA programs. The hypocrisy is indeed transparent and plain as day.

Clinton did expand America's snooping programs greatly (mostly outside the US). I, for one, was not bragging at the the time, and I don't remember the New York doing so.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 07:01 am
The NY SLIMES has already admitted that it bias to liberal causes and bias against this administration. Therefore, one can only conclude that you can NOT get the truth from this Old Gray Rag.

"Times self-examination of bias
In summer 2004, the Times' then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote a piece on the Times' alleged liberal bias. He concluded that the Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues, gay marriage being the example he used. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City.

Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of "hard news", such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties. However, he noted that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was, among other things, insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration (see below). (In May 2005 Okrent was succeeded by Byron Calame.) Calame has not been very visible in moderating criticism of the New York Times alleged bias."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times#Times_self-examination_of_bias
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 07:03 am
"From now on, remember this: anyone who tries to claim that the Times exposed a secret program and helped the terrorists (I'd mention the Journal, but hey, they won't) is a liar.

From today's Boston Globe:

A search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.
'There have been public references to SWIFT before,' said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. 'The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.'


From Victor Comras, a counterterrorism expert formerly with the State Department and United Nations:

Reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group , on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries. The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website. Paragraph 31 of the report states:
'The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.' " http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-koppelman/lets-call-those-attackin_b_23979.html
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 07:12 am
blueflame1 wrote:
"From now on, remember this: anyone who tries to claim that the Times exposed a secret program and helped the terrorists (I'd mention the Journal, but hey, they won't) is a liar.

From today's Boston Globe:

A search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.
'There have been public references to SWIFT before,' said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. 'The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before.'


From Victor Comras, a counterterrorism expert formerly with the State Department and United Nations:

Reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group , on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries. The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website. Paragraph 31 of the report states:
'The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.' " http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-koppelman/lets-call-those-attackin_b_23979.html


WHO OWNS THE GLOBE????

HUFFINGTON IS A DOPE. Quotes.."The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002." Well, maybe they knew and maybe they didn't.

"'There have been public references to SWIFT before" - Public Reference???
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 07:14 am
woiyo wrote:

"'There have been public references to SWIFT before" - Public Reference???


I've my doubts there as well - though SWIFT themselves said so ...

[My bank - and supposingly others as well - send a letter with such to their customers the other day.]
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 07:27 am
woiyo, hahaha. Bushie has been caught in yet another attempted deception here. It's no secret that the US is tracking terrorist finances and fundraising. Bushie himself has mentioned it more than a few times in speeches. His feigned outrage is a not so SWIFT bit of politicking. Everybody knows.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 07:51 am
The SWIFT financial organization has had a web site for a long time. They also have a magazine. In both, the search for terrorist money wiring program has been discussed since 9/11.

http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=57169

http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=43230

The phony uproar about Press revealing Bush's secret programs is nothing more than mining for conservative base votes in the November election.

BBB
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 08:08 am
Of course we all know we are trying to track down terrorists, financial ways being one of them, and Bush has said this repeatedly. Everybody knows that. The problem obviously arises when a newspaper begins delving into, and writing stories about just how we are doing it, which gets into classified information. Even though they may not know everything about it or get much of it right, the portions that they do publish concerning the details that do help terrorists understand better how we are doing it is obviously stabbing us in the back and helping terrorists avoid being caught.

It would help if some of you would use just a slight touch of common sense here.

And just to put Bush into context here compared to Democrat' hero icon, FDR, during World War II:

"In 1942, a livid President Franklin Roosevelt briefly contemplated sending Marines to occupy Tribune Tower because of a report in this newspaper that naval officials feared would tip the Japanese that the U.S. had broken their military code."

The above came from the following article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0606270238jun27,1,5962461.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 09:06 am
Okie
Okie, what a pathetic attempt at rebuttal. If you had any common sense, you would know the difference between revealing the Japanese Code had been broken, which was a deadly mistake, and the Press story about a program that president Bush discussed publically many times as well as the SWIFT organization discussing the program on it's web site and it's magazine.

Try to get your common sense and brain in gear before your next rebutal attempt and you might get taken seriously.

BBB
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 09:11 am
Bushie tracking terrorist fundraising? Who knew? Everybody!!!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 09:12 am
BBB
blueflame1 wrote:
Bushie tracking terrorist fundraising? Who knew? Everybody!!!


Blabber mouth! :wink:

BBB
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 09:13 am
"Chris Floyd's Global Eye"

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Let's say that federal investigators raid several Muslim charities suspected of financial links to al-Qaida. Let's say that one of these suspect groups has funneled big money to a Republican Party organization. Let's say this Republican organization shares an office with the man known as "the field marshal of the American Right," one of the most influential advisors to the President of the United States.


That would be big news, right? There'd be wall-to-wall coverage in the U.S. media, right? It would be plastered all over the "liberal press," right?

Wrong. Although last week's raids on American-based Islamic charities did garner a mention or two in the stateside media, you had to go all the way to Britain's Guardian to learn of the connection to President George W. Bush's hard-right guru, Grover Norquist.

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=6846
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 11:30 am
Re: Okie
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Try to get your common sense and brain in gear before your next rebutal attempt and you might get taken seriously.
BBB


Many things should be obvious here without having to explain it, but one of the reasons the administration does not want this stuff published is the fear mongering and paranoia, which causes people / banks to quit cooperating with us in tracking down terrorists.

Use your head, Bumble Bee. Some of you must think that the people that are upset about this are clueless. Has it ever occurred to you that you and your likeminded political friends might be the clueless ones?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 11:46 am
Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) today on the House floor
"In a free society the media cannot be a lap dog of any Administration. The First Amendment states, 'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech', except of course, under this Administration."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 12:24 pm
A free society will not survive if significant portions of that society aid and abett the enemies of that society.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2022 at 06:26:54