2
   

Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to reveal.

 
 
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 01:22 pm
Oh man, this guy is ON THE MONEY.

Olberman not only addresses the absurdity of this right wing attempt to distract from Bush problems, but he actually plays NUMEROUS video clips of president Bush ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT IT.

Click here for link and video

Not like the truth is actually going to make rabid Bush supporters stop bitching about it. Still, good for some of you to have the link and send around.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,278 • Replies: 116
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 02:05 pm
Re: Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to
JustanObserver wrote:
Oh man, this guy is ON THE MONEY.

Olberman not only addresses the absurdity of this right wing attempt to distract from Bush problems, but he actually plays NUMEROUS video clips of president Bush ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT IT.

Click here for link and video

Not like the truth is actually going to make rabid Bush supporters stop bitching about it. Still, good for some of you to have the link and send around.


Then why did the NY SLIMES report it as a SECRET PROGRAM??
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 02:20 pm
Re: Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to
woiyo wrote:
JustanObserver wrote:
Oh man, this guy is ON THE MONEY.

Olberman not only addresses the absurdity of this right wing attempt to distract from Bush problems, but he actually plays NUMEROUS video clips of president Bush ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT IT.

Click here for link and video

Not like the truth is actually going to make rabid Bush supporters stop bitching about it. Still, good for some of you to have the link and send around.


Then why did the NY SLIMES report it as a SECRET PROGRAM??

I would surmise that it was designated as SECRET PROGRAM because the Whitehouse kept congress in the dark. In other words, everyone knew about it (including Al Qiada) except the House and Senate who were busy dealing with more importatant matters such as gay marriage and flag burning.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 02:34 pm
Re: Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to
dyslexia wrote:
woiyo wrote:
JustanObserver wrote:
Oh man, this guy is ON THE MONEY.

Olberman not only addresses the absurdity of this right wing attempt to distract from Bush problems, but he actually plays NUMEROUS video clips of president Bush ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT IT.

Click here for link and video

Not like the truth is actually going to make rabid Bush supporters stop bitching about it. Still, good for some of you to have the link and send around.


Then why did the NY SLIMES report it as a SECRET PROGRAM??

I would surmise that it was designated as SECRET PROGRAM because the Whitehouse kept congress in the dark. In other words, everyone knew about it (including Al Qiada) except the House and Senate who were busy dealing with more importatant matters such as gay marriage and flag burning.


A tip of the hat to you, dyslexia. As soon as I read "NY SLIMES," I just tuned him out.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 08:53 pm
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/8527/englehart9vj.gif
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 09:26 pm
And so it goes.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 11:33 pm
Re: Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to
JustanObserver wrote:
Oh man, this guy is ON THE MONEY.

Olberman not only addresses the absurdity of this right wing attempt to distract from Bush problems, but he actually plays NUMEROUS video clips of president Bush ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT IT.

Click here for link and video

Not like the truth is actually going to make rabid Bush supporters stop bitching about it. Still, good for some of you to have the link and send around.


Olberman, the former Sports Reporter!

Funny, how likely would it be for our friends on the Left to denigrate some dumb jock who had the nerve to intrude upon political thought...from the RIGHT? (Not that the nebbish Olberman was ever a jock.)

No never. They are patriots AND sports fans ---and they are heterosexual to boot! (Well at least some of them, and the ones who are don't, at all, hold it against the ones who are not!)

Olberman's shitick was pretty funny when it was applied to the pseudo-serious world of sports, but now he has taken it to the world of politics where it actually matters whether or not he is accurate and not just amusing.

Bush may have referred a million and one times to a program that was linking financial transactions to terrorists, but he never went into the specifics addressed by the NY Times et al.

It is utterly absurd to suggest that the prior comments of Bush or members of his administration were the equivalent of the stories published by the NY Times et al. In fact, acknowledging that Olberman is a man of intelligence one can only assume that he is deliberately engaged in misrepresentation for the purpose of currying continued favor with his mindless liberal audience.

What is to be expected from someone who didn't think sports was equal to his talents?

His blatant attempts at pandering to the Left, as demonstrated by his assumption of the idiotic role of O'Reilly Killer, reveal a rather pathetic individual who is striving for some personal meaning, not-with-standing his willingness to whore himself to that purpose.

But he's glib in a studio, and that's all that counts for so many people.

Who cares if what he says is BS? If it agrees with me and it flows ---man. that's a star!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 06:15 am
So now it isn't the revealing of the program itself but the revealing of the details? Funny how the arguments always change once holes in the arguments of the administration and its blind supporters are pointed out.

Everyone has always known we were tracking the terrorist suspect's money. It makes sense to track the terrorist money. What the big deal is about is tracking without warrants or oversights in which abuse could take place without anyone being the wiser. If they have enough of a reason to suspect someone of being linked to terrorist to track their money transactions then they have enough of a reason to get a warrant.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Jul, 2006 09:10 am
Re: Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Bush may have referred a million and one times to a program that was linking financial transactions to terrorists, but he never went into the specifics addressed by the NY Times et al.


What about the all the detailed information provided by the SWIFT website and magazine? Moreover, a simple internet search pulls up all sorts of information on the program. There was hardly any "secrecy" involved.

Did you watch the video?

The closer you look at the situation, the more clear it becomes that this really is just a bunch of manufactured hype. I was a bit annoyed when I heard about it as well. Until I looked into it further. Then I was thinking "are you kidding me? THIS is what they're pissed about?"
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2006 10:12 pm
Re: Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to
JustanObserver wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Bush may have referred a million and one times to a program that was linking financial transactions to terrorists, but he never went into the specifics addressed by the NY Times et al.


What about the all the detailed information provided by the SWIFT website and magazine? Moreover, a simple internet search pulls up all sorts of information on the program. There was hardly any "secrecy" involved.

Did you watch the video?

The closer you look at the situation, the more clear it becomes that this really is just a bunch of manufactured hype. I was a bit annoyed when I heard about it as well. Until I looked into it further. Then I was thinking "are you kidding me? THIS is what they're pissed about?"


Why then did Lee Hamilton and John Murtha urge the Times not to print the story? Puppets of the Administration?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 07:55 am
John Murtha is credible now?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 08:33 am
Re: Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Why then did Lee Hamilton and John Murtha urge the Times not to print the story? Puppets of the Administration?

No, just believers in security through obscurity. Their belief false, but bi-partisan.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 04:35 pm
Re: Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Olberman, the former Sports Reporter!


as was Ronald Reagan!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 11:24 pm
revel wrote:
So now it isn't the revealing of the program itself but the revealing of the details? Funny how the arguments always change once holes in the arguments of the administration and its blind supporters are pointed out.

Of course not. It has always been about revealing the details of the program. The arument hasn't changed. What are you talking about?

Everyone has always known we were tracking the terrorist suspect's money. It makes sense to track the terrorist money. What the big deal is about is tracking without warrants or oversights in which abuse could take place without anyone being the wiser.

But of course if you knew anything about the program you would realize that there are redundant oversights. But, hey that would just put a brake to your self-righteous leftist shpiel.

It's a secret government program, ergo it is is sinister. Thus sprach the NY Times!


If they have enough of a reason to suspect someone of being linked to terrorist to track their money transactions then they have enough of a reason to get a warrant.


Get a warrant, get a warrant, get a warrant! The new leftist mantra.

Warrants are not an issue in this matter.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 11:29 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
John Murtha is credible now?


Not to me, but I figure he holds quite a cache for you folks.

Do you mean to tell me that because I think he is a fool, that citing him as a reliable source to those who believe him to be credible is somehow dirty pool?

Either you think him a Great Man (or at least a credible one) or you don't. It shouldn't matter what I think of him.

Let me see if I have this straight:

Murtha urged the NY Times not to publish the story.

Conservatives have an ill regard for Murtha

Therefore Murtha's urging of the Times not to publish the story was of no consequence.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2006 11:33 pm
Re: Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to
yitwail wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Olberman, the former Sports Reporter!


as was Ronald Reagan!


Typically, yitwail you didn't get it.

I have no problem with Olberman being a former sports reporter any more than I had a problem with Reagan being one.

Accurately or otherwise, my comment was a challenge to lefties and their legendary disrespect for sports.

But hey, keep popping off with your idiotic gotchas. I'm sure they make you feel special.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 07:06 am
Re: Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Accurately or otherwise, my comment was a challenge to lefties and their legendary disrespect for sports.

But hey, keep popping off with your idiotic gotchas. I'm sure they make you feel special.


like their legendary disdain of Muhammad Ali?

i hope you don't mean "special" as in special ed, or i may have to take offense.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 07:17 am
I haven't been able to keep up with the breaking news or it's details. But, when I heard a snippit last week about this I wondered what the big deal was since following the money, shutting down laundering and connections to the bank in DC have all been reported. We know they are tracking transactions, and I can imagine all the ways they might do that.

Did Al-Queda not know? Could they not think as well as I and figure it out? Was that the secret?

And, wasn't there something in the Patriot Act right after 9/11 that included following the money?
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 07:46 am
here's a link to the NYT article that caused the furor; judge for yourself how much it harmed anti-terrorism efforts:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?ex=1308715200&en=4b46b4fd8685c26b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

with regard to Al Qaeda, an LA Times article has this to say:

Quote:
Current and former U.S. officials said the effort has been only marginally successful against Al Qaeda, which long ago began transferring money through other means, including the highly informal banking system common in Islamic countries.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-swift23jun23,0,7150719,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jul, 2006 10:11 am
squinney wrote:
I haven't been able to keep up with the breaking news or it's details. But, when I heard a snippit last week about this I wondered what the big deal was since following the money, shutting down laundering and connections to the bank in DC have all been reported. We know they are tracking transactions, and I can imagine all the ways they might do that.

I knew it, Squinney! Obviously you're one of the terrorists. Your post has been forwarded to the DHS. Since I'm probably not supposed to leak that, I will be posting this under a false name.

Yours sincerely,

Jack
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Turns out there WAS no "secret" for the NYT to reveal.
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/10/2020 at 10:04:42