Prez slams leak of financial transaction monitoring story

Posted by: ST on June 26, 2006 at 12:31 pm

Go get ’em, tiger:

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


RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • Flopping Aces trackbacked with The Best Kept Secret?
  • A Blog For All trackbacked with Not So SWIFT
  • 49 Responses to “Prez slams leak of financial transaction monitoring story”


    1. Person of Choler says:

      Bush can jab his fingers until the cows come home and it won’t make a nickel’s worth of difference to self righteous twits like Keller. What he needs to do is tell his law enforcement agencies and Attorney General’s office to start investigating and prosecuting the crimes of disseminating classified information.

      I predict nobody will be prosecuted and Keller and company will continue to pull worse stunts in the future.

      Go get ’em tiger, indeed.

    2. Severian says:

      It’s well past time that we need to start prosecuting these people. Both the leakers themselves, and the sanctimonious, self righteous, holier than thou members of the press who publish these secrets. A free press is not a right to break the law and endanger the country by releasing classified information. The press, and liberals, treated Linda Trip far worse than they have treated any of these traitorous leakers. It is not up to the media to decide what is and is not classified, and they should have to pay a heavy price for this kind of idiocy.

    3. Baklava says:

      jabbing his finger for emphasis

      Smack. Biff. Bam. You tell ’em. And now prosecute ’em. I’m behind you Mr. President if you have them prosecuted. And I’m thinking you’d see a groundswell of support.

      We can’t have the 5th column working against us in a time of war. We need our LAWS to be OBEYED. Classified information needs to be treated as classified.

      Doctors can be held accountable (it may be hard) for malpractice. Mechanics can be held accountable for harm they cause and Journalists need to be held accoutable also.

      YEARS went by before Cuban missile crisis documents were declassified. And when the War on Terror documents are declassified that is WHEN news organization can get and report on the details.

      Before D-Day according to an interview on 560 KSFO this morning of a professor from the Naval War College (can’t remember his name) he said that there WERE reporters who KNEW the details of the D-Day invasion coming up. Those Reporters acted with good conscience and didn’t act against America because ultimately is America that provides for their freedom during a time of war. You want to report on the bird flu or the harm that illegal immigration causes to hospitals, the environment, education, crime, etc. Report on that. Do your due diligence journalists and stop with the freedom to cause harm line of reasoning because you aint looking so good right now. That’s you Bill Keller. You look like someone (can’t remember the name) who provided classified information to the enemy (Russia) during the cold war and was put IN JAIL.

    4. Baklava says:

      JAIL for Mr. Keller is my point. And then jab your finger into his chest when he is behind bars. And publicize an open letter to Bill Keller after he is behind bars explaining why he was made an example out of.

    5. Seth says:

      For all his talk about reporting accurately and giving great consideration before printing stories, it’s amazing how “all the news that’s fit to print” only includes the left side of a story, ignoring anything, no matter how important it may be to the story itself, that might even remotely hint that anything positive maybe, just maybe, might have resulted from anything the Bush Administration has done. Hence, the millions of folks who get all their information from the NYT and its fellow travellers have absolutely no idea of events in Iraq, for example, except the running total the left continues to expound on U.S. casualties, Abu Ghraib, etc.

    6. – I think that theres a rather simple rule of law thst espionage/espionage reporting, could be covered under. I know the former is; the “leakers” are definately involved in a specific crime against America, both by statute, and by dent of personal signed allegience, which all government workers, with or without clearences, are required to sign and abide by.

      – Publishing companies, and their various media, could be held to account for “receiving stolen secrets”, just as a fence is in possessing or selling stolen property. I’m not sure how well the present laws delineate this aspect of the crime. If not, it should be punched up so it does.

      – Seems a no-brainer that we should be able to police espionage at least as well as we do stolen property. That we may not is probably a testiment to how far we go in trying to bend over backwards to protect the 1st amendment. Unfortunately some have shown a lack of interest, or prospective, in respecting the responsibilities that go with our freedoms.

      – We should, for the sake of our survival, adapt an “You abuse, you lose” approach, and put a stop to the Liberal espionage pipeline.

      – Bang **==

    7. Mark says:

      We’re kidding, right? The terrorists didn’t think anyone watched the money trail? The Prez mentioned this as a tactic I think on maybe Sept. 12, 2001. He said, we’re going to scrutinize their finances. This isn’t even news, much less the kind of news that alerts terrorist organizations to anything. Tempest in a teapot.

    8. KSH says:

      Many have noted that this leak will “damage our ability to fight the war on terror”. As of yet, no real proof of this is offered. Conversely, the Times has stated that this is of interest to the American people. Some have contended that this is not the case. Time will tell.

      Interesting, to me, that the administration’s intentional leak of V. Plame’s name, which has significantly damaged our ability to monitor Iran (current and former intelligence officials have said as much) – a country that probably actually possess WMDs – but nobody seems to be angry and the Administration for this.

      Double standard?

      Have fun!

    9. “Interesting, to me, that the administration’s intentional leak of V. Plame’s name, which has significantly damaged our ability to monitor Iran (current and former intelligence officials have said as much)”

      Source for all of the above please. Thank you.

    10. – Obviously there is no source for those claims ST. The Left is desperate to keep the “PlameGate BlameGate” non-story alive. Wilson and a cadre of reporters were behind the entire scam, because Wilson didn’t get the Martyrdom reaction he was hoping for from the White house, so they came up with the “eposure” angle. So far the only person we know of that spent any time in jail in connection to the case, is a Liberal reporter. Some “expose'”.

      – Nice threadjack attempt though. NEXT!

      – Bang **==

    11. Charlie says:

      While I just posted a thread on this at the BP Forum, I knew I could rely on my favorite Sis to be all over it :) Anyone frequenting the BP may guess that I am more than fed up with the media and the Left’s political tactics…slander is one thing, using lies to accuse the government of lying is predictable…treason is unforgivable. Am I using the “T” word because I’m mad as hell and unable to control my emotions? Hardly. I’m using it because it fits. Two points:

      1. The NYTimes published classified information-SECRET, for those who need simplification. It is not up to the Times to decide whether it is acceptable to publish secrets when they know something is classified and admit it, yet publish it anyway.

      2. If, indeed, the NY Times is so concerned with the welfare of the public, why do they not turn over the leakers of secrets? THERE is an item of INTEREST to the public. As noted with clarity in Andrew McCarthy’s piece:
      The media aspire to be the public’s watchdog? Ever on the prowl to promote good government? Okay, here we have public officials endangering American lives. Public officials whose violation of a solemn oath to protect national defense information is both a profound offense against honor and a serious crime.

      What about the public interest in that? What about the public interest in rooting out those who betray their country in wartime?

      To say the NY Times is disingenuous would be a compliment. They are liars and they care not one bit for the country or the people. They are champions of their own egos and desire the destruction of their political opponents…at any cost.

      Angry? Me? You bet your as* I am…we all should be.

    12. Charlie says:

      Oops;)…Link to McCarthy at NRO:


    13. Raw Story and Washington Note?

      Get real.

      As Bang said, nice attempt at sidetracking, though.

    14. KSH says:


      Not trying to hijack – just injecting a different view. Please provide proof as to NYTimes stories – either one (Dec 2005 or Current) – damaging US efforts. Do these exist? If no, then perhaps both sides have no evidence (i.e. Bush “This damages our efforts” = Bull, as is the counter claim “Government is turning into Big Brother”, also Bull). I have not searched for “Big Brother” proof lately.

    15. Charlie says:

      Interesting, to me, that the administration’s intentional leak of V. Plame’s name, which has significantly damaged our ability to monitor Iran (current and former intelligence officials have said as much) – a country that probably actually possess WMDs – but nobody seems to be angry and the Administration for this.

      Double standard?

      Have fun!

      Comment by KSH @ 6/26/2006 – 7:08 pm

      You have fun KSH…if the NYTimes is soooo concerned with publishing ther name’s of leakers, you’ll call them and demand they publish the names of those who leaked this story…I’m sure your integrity would compel you to…correct?…as an item of interest to the people…or is that too politically incorrect for you?…we are curious ;-)

    16. KSH says:

      Sister Toldjah,

      Fair enough, we each believe what we want.

    17. – Might have some gravitas KSH, but unfortunately, like everything else claimed by the Left concerning the PlamGate game, no sources of any of the rumors and claims of the entire piece at the washington note site are attributed.

      – I can make up all sorts of accusations, and then attribute to “insider sources”, or “unnamed administration officials”. The truth is you have nothing but your own convictions that somehow, someway, Bush and the adminstration is breaking some law. It’s what you need desperately to believe, and not based on any proven “facts”. Give it a rest. Its become boring.

      – Bang **==

    18. KSH says:


      I presume they aren’t giving the names of their sources for the same reason Scott McClellan – or Miller or Novak or Cooper – didn’t want to mention Libby or Karl.

      But hey, I’m not blind to the fact that the Plame story is considered invalid here. So perhaps I should drop it.

    19. Charlie says:

      Comment by Baklava @ 6/26/2006 – 1:06 pm

      “…there WERE reporters who KNEW the details of the D-Day invasion coming up. Those Reporters acted with good conscience and didn’t act against America because ultimately is America that provides for their freedom during a time of war.”

      That is because the press acted with their conscience and judgement then…they act with only their judgement currently-judging that anything damaging to our troops and the administration be printed…ask the NYT, the LAT, the Wasshington Post, the MSM Television to run front page/headline stories, with photos of the atrocities the terrorists commit…beheadings, video of them…photos an videos of the mass graves uncovered that Sadaam’s regime filled…ask them and they will say no. it is intersting to them, but it’s not damaging to the soldiers and administration; so it will be kept “classified” on the cutting room floor.

    20. KSH says:

      Yeah, back in those days they didn’t discuss the private affairs of politicians, either. Much has changed, perhaps both for the worse.

    21. KSH says:


      Again, fair enough. Without better sources we both must rely on what we feel: me, that the Adminstration has done damage, you, that the NYTimes has. I remain unconvinced that Al Qaeda didn’t realize we were tapping their phones. With regard to these records, I honestly don’t know. I haven’t read the article and don’t know what it “reveals”. Perhaps it went over the line; I’ll read it.

      I know that the Prez has made claims to the latter; but… where’s the beef, baby? In my opinion “Wolf” has been cried too many times.

      I admit I thought I had better sources. I don’t.

    22. KSH – No need to guess. I’ll tell you what I “feel”. I don’t personally care whether or not the “leaks” helped or didn’t help the Jihad. The idea that some people are taking it on themselves to decide National secrets policy is the issue, and one that you on the Left would be screaming about if you really gave a damn about America’s interests. But you won’t, simply because its absolutely necessary for the Left to marginalize and deny this war on terror.

      – The reasons are two fold in my estimation. In the first place, you believe that the Bush doctrines have been so effective that the WOT no longer exists as such. That may or may not be true. There is still a fairly large number of al Qaeda supporters out there, so its problamatical whether they have the resources to mount any specific attacks against us at this point. Personally I don’t think it wise to roll the dice on something you can’t be sure of when lives are at stake.

      – the second reason resides in a historical fact politically. Any party thats in power during a successful war campaign, tends to maintain office for at least a generation afterwards. That leaves the Left looking at a possible minimum of 12 more years of Republican leadership. Of course you have to demonize Bush and minimize the WOT. Its a given. Just don’t expect the rest of us tyo fall for the rhetoric. Isn’t going to happen.

      – Bang **==

    23. KSH says:

      Bang –

      America’s interests and direction are not completely encompassed by the “WOT”. Don’t presume “your side” alone – which I presume is the right – speaks for those. My opinions and I am as American as you are. Don’t put up a straw man for the left that “doesn’t give a damn” about those interests. That’s not an argument. There is a difference in opinion as of how this “WOT” is to be conducted, and as of yet all we have is speculation on either side as to what outcome a different approach would yield.

      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. I’m not convinced the Admin has offered proof of its policies efficacy, either. If there’s definitive proof out there, offer it up. We’ve already rolled the dice by entering Iraq – and lives have already been lost there – so I’m not sure what you mean by “[not wise to] roll the dice […] when lives are at stake”.

      With regard to your “sucessful war campaign”… public opinion is mixed to that regard. This month they believe it, next they do not. We’ll see in November – and this isn’t a prediction, I cannot read the future and do not presume to know the outcome. Oh, but then again, Iraq wasn’t part of the “WOT” until we went in there, anyway. Hopefully we can eventually get out with a positive outcome. It is not yet clear what the outcome of Iraq will be, but it seems clear to me which rhetoric you’ve already fallen for. It appears to have already happened in your mind, although I believe history has yet to decide.

      I don’t come here to change minds. I come here to see how well people – including myself – can argue their positions.

    24. Baklava says:

      I think this link should take care of ALL doubts that KSH is on the WRONG side of the issue.

      But then again….. I love it when hard leftists WITHOUT PERSPECTIVE speak. November can’t come sooner when liberals show themselves to be the 5th column like this. Which liberals will it be this time? Murtha or not Murtha?:-?

    25. KSH – I’m willing to listen to whatever tortured logic you can come up with to justify announcing the slightest details of our tools of war to the enemy. The Left, as a group has the right to make as big a fools of themselves as they want to.

      – Bang **==

    26. Charlie says:


      I presume they aren’t giving the names of their sources for the same reason Scott McClellan – or Miller or Novak or Cooper – didn’t want to mention Libby or Karl.

      But hey, I’m not blind to the fact that the Plame story is considered invalid here. So perhaps I should drop it.

      Comment by KSH @ 6/26/2006 – 7:48 pm

      I wouldn’t say the Plame story is invalid. A guy, with help from his wife, goes to Africa, takes the word of a few people with no intellegence gathering to back HIM up…he comes back, writes an editorial and expects no one will know who his wife is…what always bothered me about Wilson was, how much did he care about his wife’s “security” if she was “covert”?

      With a husband like that, who needs enemies?

      Re: the NYT piece…they print something they don;t think is “secret”? So why not divulge and make a hero out of whoever leaked it…Lord knows anyone offing the governement for abusing my civil rights deserves some recognition…isn’t ther a reward for “whistle blowers”?

    27. G-Monster says:


      I’ll argue a position. You want to talk about Valerie Plame. Let’s go the source. Robert Novak.


    28. KSH says:

      Baklava, Michelle is about as good as my sources. Or worse. That Murtha isn’t black and white on these things – complex issues that deserve nuanced responses rather than knee-jerk reactions – is to his credit. Undoubtedly he will be berated for it; nuance isn’t welcome in a “with us or against us” world. What perspective do you bring that’s so valuable? Your attack on my patriotism is bogus, valid to the choir on this page and nowhere else.

      Interesting that a General just issued a withdrawal plan that smacks of what Murtha’s been suggesting for some time.

      Bang, logic is typically required for an argument. I haven’t necessarily relied on much – but neither do you. I’ve given some opinions, tried to to provide facts if possible, and noted where your facts are lacking. Your statements seem to be as much rhetoric as mine, and the right has its share of fools.

      Charlie – I do no agree with the simplicity of your summary (Plame). It’s too bad the sources won’t come forward. They obviously thought it was important enough to risk their jobs to make it known. They would of course be heralded as traitors by some, and saviors by others. They are both.

      Enough of trying to talk in your echo chamber. Claims -vs- counter-claims; it’s all rhetoric.

    29. G-Monster says:

      This link kind of nails it.


    30. Baklava says:

      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. :d

    31. G-Monster says:


      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.

    32. Baklava says:

      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.

    33. Baklava says:

      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

    34. – 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 **==

    35. G-Monster says:

      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.

    36. wonkanator says:


      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.

    37. KSH says:

      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://, 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.

    38. – 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 **==

    39. G-Monster says:


      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.

    40. Baklava says:

      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.

    41. California Democrat says:

      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?

    42. Big Bang Hunter says:

      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 **==

    43. Lorica says:

      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