New York Times Part 2

I agree that someone in the 'guvmint' needs to be investigated and hanged for leaking this information (the gallow pole next to the one holding the VA data disk theft will do)

As to the NY Times and other media, they will print any thing that they get. In this case, they broke a promise, which in this day and age, means nothing, sadly.

Yes, investigate, but I am not certain that the NYT can be held legally responsible for printing the story.

Every one in the media wants to be Woodward&Bernstein and get that Pulitzer, no matter what the damage to others may occur.

 

Just a question for both sides here.

I've been away from the news for a few days here when this broke and am trying to catch up so I'd like to hear from both sides on this issue. Right after the 9/11 attacks, there were several rather high profile cases where people/organizations were busted due to the government tracing money transfers to known terror groups. These cases caught quite a bit of press at the time and nothing was implied that the monitoring of money transfers was any kind of seceret. My question is, is the program reported on by the Times something different than the original?

The second part is something I heard but not in great detail. While I was at the Rapid City airport with my head berried in a couple gate computers, the MSN monitor was carring a story about this. Someone was saying on the broadcast that the people we were trying to chase down was already aware of this long before the story broke in the paper and were using other means to move money around. If this is the case, should there be all the hype this has been getting?

 

They can start investigating the NY Times just as soon as all of those in the PLAME leak case have been prosecuted and start serving their time.

Now...who is it we declared war against again? No country. No Government. Oh....those that attacked us? Osama Bin Laden then. We declared war against him. And how is that going?

 

The Far Left media in this country could care-a-less about the harm it does to the US. It's almost a game to them remember when the Marines were going ashore in Somali? The media rushed down to the beach with their lights and lit up the landing craft and then the men as they tried to deploy on the beach. Now they have revealed to the terrorist how the higher echelon leader was caught. So they don't have to guess they can go back over their tracks and pick up their mistakes and eliminate any operatives that the CIA had out there gathering or tracking these transactions. They have also curtailed any country wanting to coop with us on covert missions cause we can't keep a secret. So all of you saying no big deal they already knew are a bit short sighted.

Even with all that I still don't believe that we should prosecute cause the SOB's will use the legal system to gather more information to reveal to our enemies.

The best we can do is boycott anything to do with that rag. . .

Wildkow

p.s. Here's another bit of hyprocisy. The New York Times shortly after 9/11 called for implementation of the exact program they are hollering about now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 27 2006, 01:31 PM) [snapback]277528[/snapback]</div>

I understand you're not serious with this challenge, but for posterity's sake, I'll answer it.

We declared war against global terrorism, with overwhelming support from liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans and Independents. We passed sweeping legislation to enable the government to use expanded domestic surveillence on residents in the form of the Patriot Act. The only vote against the Patriot Act was cast by Sen. Russ Feingold. The only vote.

Like the "Cold War", the Global War on Terror is not against a single entity or person. That concept was said so many times that people "got sick" of our officials stating it. They should have repeated it one more time.

If a country supports terrorism, as the Taliban did in Afghanistan, it is the policy of this country to confront them. This is to prevent them from killing more Americans, which most of us think is a bad thing. We want more Americans to live, and not jump out of burning buildings. We want Americans to live, and not have their throats slit as they kneel in the aisle of an airplane as a "lesson" for the rest of the American passengers to sit back and just wait as they fly into a building.

We have identified specific countries that support and aid terrorism ... Iraq, Iran, Iraq and North Korea were specifically mentioned in January, 2002. I suspect everyone clapped except for Sen. Feingold, but I don't know for sure. It certainly sounded unanimous when the joint session of Congress stood and applauded wildly. In case you missed it, here's the section of the State of the Union speech:

From the very beginning, it has not been solely about OBL. He has his day coming, if not in this life, then as my Jewish friends say, "may his name be blotted out". It has always been about a widespread conspiracy and plot to kill ME and put YOU in a burka.

Here's the thing: it is now officially our policy that if you try to kill us, we will hunt you down and kill you. If you support those who want to kill us, we will hunt you down and kill you too. So don't try to kill us, and don't support those who kill us.

Libya got the message. Iraq has the message. Syria appears to have gotten the message. North Korea and Iran still have to go to school, it appears. But maybe they'll get the message too, if we don't "turn tail and run".

In case anyone really asks "what country did we declare war on", refer them to the last 5 years of American history. Perhaps they were asleep.

 

Russ Feingold for President!

 

A stronger, less watered down nation would determine that we have declared war on terrorism in the world... Our soldiers and military are engaged in war with the terrorists... And, that helping, supporting, or being a terrorist is treason.

A stronger, less watered down nation would start holding some trials for treasonous acts and start using some of that rope we have in the warehouse.

A weaker, more watered down nation (France, for example, maybe the USA) will probably just sit back and wait to be wacked in another 9/11 style attack from the terrorist enemies who are being helped and supported by these traitors.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 27 2006, 01:31 PM) [snapback]277528[/snapback]</div>

Very well, thank you!

No one has managed a 9-11 style onslaught since we took the war to radical Islam.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 28 2006, 12:49 AM) [snapback]277946[/snapback]</div>

Why!?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 28 2006, 12:49 AM) [snapback]277946[/snapback]</div>

"During those first few hours after the attacks, I kept remembering a sentence from a case I had studied in law school. Not surprisingly, I didn’t remember which case it was, who wrote the opinion, or what it was about, but I did remember these words: “While the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.†I took these words as a challenge to my concerns about civil liberties at such a momentous time in our history; that we must be careful to not take civil liberties so literally that we allow ourselves to be destroyed."



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 28 2006, 07:20 AM) [snapback]278021[/snapback]</div>

Good points!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jun 28 2006, 10:49 AM) [snapback]278033[/snapback]</div>

I seen that line of "reasoning" show up a few times now. You actually believe that is a basis for any sort of position :lol: ?????

There have been two 9-11 type attempts in all of history on U.S. soil. The first WTC bombing which wasn't very successful and 9/11. 9/11 is the only one that can really be considered an attack of any significance. So 2 attacks in 13 years. The most significant of which occurred while Bush was President. And you manage to somehow equate that impressive database to anything whatsoever :blink: :blink: , much less that "Bush is protecting us". Gee, I'm convinced you're right.....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix @ Jun 28 2006, 09:47 AM) [snapback]278093[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm,

I notice that I responded to 2 separate posts, yet my responses were put together in to one.

The second answer "Why" was addressed to Godiva's offer of Russ Feingold for president.

The 2 comments were mutually exclusive.

Yes, I do believe that by taking the fight out of the USA and in to Afghanistan and Iraq, that those who would harm US soil are otherwise engaged in fighting elsewhere; ie: Iraq. And, as long as there is a wedge between Iran and Syria, that is also a good thing. This is not fact, only my opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 28 2006, 01:16 PM) [snapback]278109[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 28 2006, 01:16 PM) [snapback]278109[/snapback]</div>

Sorry accidental reply above.

As to your comments, you are extensively overreaching and reading in WAY TOO MUCH. I was simply stating that you can't draw conclusions from 2 data points in 13 years! I see people trying to do that (the same comment has shown up in several threads) and it just gives me a chance to totally discount anything further that commenter has to say. It is such a completely baseless and flawed line of reasoning that anyone who buys into it can't possibly be capbable of rational thought. Thats all.

 

I think we could have taken a different road. That road could have protected us from further attack without eroding our personal liberties, driving us into obscene deficit and killed our youth. An added perk would have been not making the U.S. the poster child for hate in Islamic countries and Stupidity in the rest of the world.

Russ Feingold seemed to be the only one thinking with his head in a time of great emotion. He put that above gaining points for re-election or an emotional response, even if it meant being personally attacked by those that don't agree with him. If the guy also doesn't cripple the budget with mounds of pork he'd get my vote.

(Nothing like a good war to send those profits through the roof. I have to wonder how many politicians were thinking exactly that when they waded into a "war" with an unfocused enemy that wasn't thought out completely. A great weakness of U.S. policy is failing to see beyond the next fiscal year or the next election. Failing to consider all of the ramifications. Exactly where are we going to be in ten years? The Japanese have a long range plan. Toyota has a long range plan. That's why there is a Prius.)