| USA Today | 0 | |
| CNN | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| Jen Rubin | 0 | |
| Fox News | Source: Powerful Sedative Propofol Found at Michael Jackson’s Mansion |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Flyswatter in Chief:
"He had this fly that was persistently buzzing around him during the interview...he swatted his hand and he said ‘I got the sucker’...it was a, you know, Dirty Harry ‘make my day’ moment."- The NYT's John Harwood, describing Obama's killing of a fly - 6/16/09
Prez slams leak of financial transaction monitoring story
WASHINGTON – President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. “The disclosure of this program is disgraceful,” he said.
“For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America,” Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program “makes it harder to win this war on terror.”
The program has been going on since shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. It was disclosed last week by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times.
Using broad government subpoenas, the program allows U.S. counterterrorism analysts to obtain financial information from a vast database maintained by a company based in Belgium. It routes about 11 million financial transactions daily among 7,800 banks and other financial institutions in 200 countries.
“Congress was briefed and what we did was fully authorized under the law,” Bush said, talking with reporters in the Roosevelt Room after meeting with groups that support U.S. troops in Iraq.
“We’re at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America,” the president said. “What we were doing was the right thing.”
“The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do,” Bush said. He said that to figure out what terrorists plan to do, “You try to follow their money. And that’s exactly what we’re doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror.”
NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller tries to explain the NYT’s rationale here (or you can read the Wizbang Reader’s Digest version), but I’m not buying it. Neither are Hugh Hewitt and Tom Maguire. Maguire writes:
Tell me again whether there are any checks at all on this “power that has been given us”. Where is the accountability at the Times – can We the People un-elect Bill Keller? How can we make him stop?
Or, if there is no accountability, is that really how we want to run our democracy? Don’t We the People have the right to decide that some national security secrets need to be kept secret? Or can any bureaucrat with an agenda overrule his elected superiors?
Let me re-phrase that – can any bureaucrat with an agenda with which the Times is comfortable overrule his elected superiors on national security issues?
Don’t expect Keller to be answering those questions anytime soon. Because to Bill Keller and other higher ups in the MSM, the gov’t should be held accountable while the media, OTOH, should not.
Patterico blogs about the LATimes explanation for why they published their version of the story as well.
Michelle Malkin has a link roundup of blogger/pundit reax.
Others blogging about this: Captain Ed, Austin Bay, QandO, Anchoress, Stop The ACLU, AllahPundit, Right Wing Nut House (heh!), All Things Beautiful, Decision ‘08, Iowa Voice
Related:
- NYTimes continues to undermine national security in the name of the ‘public interest’
- Memo to the NYT/IHT: Trying to detect unusual calling patterns is not “eavesdropping”
- NSA ’scandal’ leak fallout continues – AT&T and Verizon being sued
- Latest NSA scandal leaves Americans unfazed
- The ACLU has a database of its own – and more NSA news
- The latest non-scandal scandal news involving the NSA
- FDR and domestic surveillance
- Sen. Russ Feingold demagogues NSA surveillance ’scandal’
- It doesn’t get any better than Jeff Goldstein (re: Feingold’s stunt)
- Senator Russ Feingold calls for censure of Bush
- House approves Patriot Act, Senate panel rejects broad NSA inquiry
- NSA Surveillance Program ’scandal’ – update
- Congressional probe of NSA surveillance may not happen afterall
- Admin briefs Congress on NSA surveillance
- Thomas Sowell on the NSA ’scandal’ controversy
- NSA ’scandal’ fallout: convicted terrorist conspirators wanting cases thrown out
- Intelligence officials: NSA leak has undermined ability to fight terrorism
- On politicizing the Patriot Act and the NSA ’scandal’
- NYT: NSA scandal is worse than WWII Japanese internment camps
- Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak?
- Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag
- NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
49 Responses to “Prez slams leak of financial transaction monitoring story”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
KSH laughingly wrote, “Michelle is about as good as my sources. Or worse.”
Are you saying that Bill Keller LIED about two 9/11 commission members and Murtha pleading for Keller not to run the article? Or are you saying that CNN didn’t actually have that interviewe on the air? You are more WACK than I thought.
Baklava,
That was a great link to Michelle Malkin. I think the fact even Murtha told the NY Times not to run the story, will confuse the hell out of KSH.
BTW KSH, Bush has been saying that the level of troops will be what the Generals in the theater are asking for ALL ALONG. No change in policy. In fact, the generals have already asked for and received in this last 12 months an increase and then decrease of troop strength from 130,000 to 170,000 then back to 130,000 so that the elections about 6 months ago could go smooth.
Talk about echo chamber. Get exposed to new info and you run! We on the right are CONSTANTLY exposed to the other side of the debate. It’s what makes our debate strong! We’ve grown up with the other side of the debate. Many of us used to be liberals like myself and ST.
A departure from what the generals are asking for to finish the job is NOT warranted and the left who have had 3 or 4 votes on the issue have FAILED in dictating a change in that policy KSH.
Do you recognize that FAILURE to change that policy or do you ACTUALLY think you have a point still about troop numbers?
/end sharp as a knife mind
Don’t know how you stayed up so late ST!
/begin go to bed sequence
- Now that the Left has decided their only way out of the “defeatist, cut and run” rep they’ve aquired is too suddenly try to switch horse’s and get in front of Bush’s Iraq strategy, their next step will be to watch to see which way things go and then instantly “adapt” that situation as “their plan”. Must be political hell to be always scurrying to try to catch up.
- Bang
KSH…You are a great representative of the lefties. It’s quite obvious that you’re no longer sure of where you stand on this issue. Feel free to come back when you have some type of argument that holds up.
KSH:
you say “I have no idea how well this ADMINISTRATION has done in the “WOT”, or how effective its policies have been in preventing another terrorist attack.” then you ask for definitive proof of that efficeincy.
so… the absence of ANY successful terrorist attacks on America is in your opinion what? lazy terrorists/luck ? give me anything I can sink my teeth into other than you have no idea. thats obvious.
Baklava: Michelle recanted her earlier statements regarding Murtha. Yep, good source alright. Very reasoned and thought out, not reactionary at all.
With regard to troop strength – “the level of troops will be what the Generals in the theater are asking for ALL ALONG.” Yep, you’re absolutely correct. But, as I’ve said earlier, there’s nuance there that you missed. A more correct statement would be “…what the Generals [that agree with the administration] in the theater are asking for ALL ALONG.” Your statement neglects the concerns by many – including the well-known and well-respected Schwarzkopf and Powell – that the troop strengths were initially far too low. Schwarzkopf suggested 500k! Indeed, Thomas White was pushed out of his role as secretary of the Army due to his unwillingness to be a yes-man for the administration. When you surround yourself with yes-men, you’ll get what you want: the politically palpable number of troops, not the number of troops senior generals believed was needed. And you get your talking point – congrats! Rumsfeld did this, of course, because “we’d be greeted as liberators”. That sure worked out great. With regard to current troop draw-downs, with majorities of the country against the war in some polls, keeping troop levels high is a political loser. So why not bash Dem proposals with “cut and run” rhetoric – one of which was contingent on realities on the ground – and then have your own guys ask for it? Brilliant (politically), but in the end, as I’ve said, not much different from the Dem leadership plans – they asked Bush to draw up such a plan; it looks like Casey’s done it. Casey will “cut and run” when it’s politically expedient – when the Pres can get behind it!
Bang – What change in strategy? Change of horses? Another strawman. You sure are good at setting up strawmen. Too bad I’m not a crow.
G-monster – Linking two opinion pieces regarding the Plame story hardly constitutes victory. A good place to start would be a timeline of events, but I really don’t have the time. Claim any victory you want, but do see the recent statements by a panel on the pre-war intelligence on CSPAN (rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter062606_senate.rm), they are highly relevant to the Plame discussion. A snippet:
JONES: […] how did these people so early on get so much power that they had more influence in those in the administration to make decisions than you the professionals.
WILKERSON: But I understand it. I’d answer you with two words. Let me put the article in there and make it three. The Vice President.
He doesn’t get 100% agreement with his statement. It’s not absolute, like so many other things. But it’s becoming more clear – not that there isn’t a lot of print out about it already – that the Office of Special Projects (OCP) under Cheney politicized the intelligence to make the case for war on Iraq. I’m sure there’s more of this to come. BTW, nice strawman “you’re no longer sure where you stand”. Whatever. I sleep, and it takes time to formulate arguments based on printed articles, rather than just strawman arguments & ad hominem attacks. In the end, to call our rhetorical discussions (and yes I include myself) an “argument” is mostly laughable.
- Once again, like all Liberals, you veer away from responding to anything thats been said. In your case you follow the “progressive party echo chamber” screed, that anyone or anything that disagree’s with you is “setting up strawmen”, even as you busily set up strawmen of your own to avoid having to answer to comments by others. I’ve made dozens of points, and in hundreds of words you yet to respond to a single item I posted. I don’t blame you. I’d hate to have to lie like you do. Liberals are trully whack jobs.
- Bang
KSH-
You are right. Murtha’s name has been crossed out from Michelle Malkin’s story. Maybe if Murtha had spoke to the NY Times they wouldn’t have done this stupid thing.
KSH without detail said, “what the Generals [that agree with the administration] in the theater are asking for ALL ALONG.””
Names buddy. Names. We can wait here for you to make up one. This accusation is FALSE as far as I know and I’ve read a LOT on the subject. The generals have gotten increases and decreases and will continue to get what they ask for UNLESS THE LIBERALS WERE TO BE IN POWER!.
KSH mentioned two people that are as good as Wesley Clark because they are not generals (active) in the theater by saying, “including the well-known and well-respected Schwarzkopf and Powell”
You made a good point there. Maybe next time the president should DISRESPECT the generals in the field and ask every other general what their opinion is. Smack.
KSH wrote, “So why not bash Dem proposals with “cut and run” rhetoric“. Even Democrats vote against those proposals in high numbers. Your problem isn’t Yes men conservatives, libertarians or Republicans. Your problem is more than 60% OF THE PEOPLE in Congress and the Senate. Depending how it’s worded more than 90%. Do you recognize that?
KSH, I’m not sure why you are so vitriolic and filled with such hate and disdain. It’s Bush, Rumsfeld, Casey, etc. Why can’t it be we do our job and let the people in the field get the job done without forcing votes to change that dynamic? When the Iraqi’s are able to stand up we’ll be able to stand down. If that is such a hard proposition to you then be miffed but to say things you say is really distorted logic and nobody who has studied the issue will be CONVINCED with your rhetoric. I’m not sure I’ll convince you either because you are very entrenched in your belief and saying statements like, “Rumsfeld did this, of course, because “we’d be greeted as liberators””
You’ll believe what you want to believe. Contrary evidence such as troops in the field testimonials about how they are received by many Iraqi’s won’t sway you. You’ll believe what you want. I think our side is saying the truth. That there is great evidence of a tough situation in Iraq but there are also very haeartwarming stories. There has been progress and there is many areas that have higher levels of electricity more hospitals, more schools, better water infrastructure etc. The Iraqi’s who joint security forces and stand in line to do so after a recruiting station was bombed. The Iraqi’s who are working cooperatively to help rid their country of the haters and perverters of Islam and foreign fighters. There are also the agitators and IED makers and etc but you do NOT relay any evidence that you are able to move past the DNC talking points and let the job be FINISHED. We would like this politization to end. There is NOTHING we can do except keep responding to the likes of you so that political newbies who may be reading this realize that your rhetoric is not what should be employed and full of false accusations.
If responding to the likes of you make us the politicizers then I have one thing to say. Keep bringing it on. You’ll lose this debate everytime and not even know it.
I am all for supporting our troops and democracy. That is why I support impeaching Bush, removing him from office, and prosecuting him for treason. The incompetence and corruption of this administration has to stop, if we are to save this great nation. The rabid right has spread their message of lies, hate and fear long enough. Joe McCarthy, Nixon, and Bush Jr. have shown this country what unprincipled Republicans are capable of. Had Enough?
Well, I’ve had enough of the Left “brownshirts”, working against the survival of America if thats what you’re asking. The only way you “soft Marxists” support the troops, is as long as they’re not doing their jobs, and defending American from her enemies. This is not Fwance, much to your chagrin.
- Bang
LOL I would love to see someone come up with 1 shredd of evidence of treason from GW. Unlike the last Dem President. We can find all sorts of treasonous activity in his administration. More group think from the inteligencia on the left. When are you guys going to stop with all of this and come to an honest evaluation of the situation that the last 40 years of do nothing against terrorism has gotten us into?? Wake up Ca Dem!!!! You are living a dream in a world that is in trouble and you are blaming the fix as the reason we are having these problems. The war in Iraq is, although bumpy, going fairly well. Yes it is tragic that we are losing some of the best and brightest people this country has to offer. But I think it is better to honor their sacrifice than to continue with this impeach Bush line of thinking when he only has 2 years to go. It would take you 3 years to come up with anything to impeach him on anyway. – Lorica