A few months back the newyorktimes were all over Bush like White on a House for trying to track the finances of terrorist organizations. You remember the story. Bush is bad, infringing civil liberties, blah fuckin blah.
Well now it seems they think we are not doing enough...
"The document tracing the money flows acknowledges that investigators have had limited success in penetrating or choking off terrorist financing networks. The report says American efforts to follow the financing trails have been hamstrung by several factors. They include a weak Iraqi government and its nascent intelligence agencies; a lack of communication between American agencies, and between the Americans and the Iraqis; and the nature of the insurgent economy itself, primarily sustained by couriers carrying cash rather than more easily traceable means involving banks and the hawala money transfer networks traditional in the Middle East.
“Efforts to identify key financial facilitators, funding sources and transfer mechanisms are yielding some results, but we need to improve our understanding of how terrorist and insurgent cells interact, how their financial networks vary from province to province or city to city and how they use their funds,” the report says. It also says the United States must help the Iraqi government “to excise corrupt officials from its law enforcement and security services and its ministries” and “to prevent smuggled Iraqi oil from being sold within their borders.”
link
Notice they didnt mention how they themselves have hindered this effort by revealing top secret American plans to monitor the banking transactions of known terrorist orgs. It seems that once again the newyorktimes wants to be able to bash Bush and eat it too. Jackasses!
EE-Aw!!!
19 comments:
No one ever said that the government shouldn't track terrorist finances--the Times merely reported that we were doing so. Which surely the terrorists and anyone with half a brain already knew.Leaving out Sean Hannity. It was a news story--it did not compromise our national security but the Rabid Right used it to trash the Times.
Did you see where Newt Gringich said that freedom of speech" should be "re-examined" in light of the War on Terror? Ann Coulter talks all the time about killing liberals, Michael Savage calls them traitors, David Horowitz says that liberals support the terrorists. It is slowly becoming clear who the traitors are.
It wasnt a news story it was a mistake and they have since admitted as much. You are wrong as always. If the terrorists did in fact know, then why were they still doing it???? Becasue they didnt know to what extent we had access to their records and which countries were cooperating. They do now.
...and comparing Hannity, Coulter, Savage and Horowitz to a supposed credible and legitimate news source (aka the paper of record) shows your ignorance and just how little grasp you have on the dynamics between policy makers, the actual media and poli-hacks.
Its too bad you dont care as much when Durbin and Murtha or the NY Times and Lawrence O'Donnell are calling our soldiers murderers as you do when Coulter says something outlandish.
Perhaps the Times made a mistake or perhaps not but either way calls for hanging the publisher of the Times for treason are outrageous.
The liberalism = treason theme is prevalent on the Right.
Well maybe that is because liberalism + treason is prevalent on the Left.
You can not deny that there are some on the left that want us to lose this war, strictly for political reasons.
To cite just one example...
Would you not classify the actions of Lynne Stewart to be treasonous?
I am not going to defend Lynne Stewart. I don't have a problem with her zealously representing her client but passing messages to his followers went too far.
I do not agree that liberalism + treason is "prevalent" on the left, anymore than on the Right. Outing Valerie Plame for political reasons was equally "treasonous." But that makes Karl Rove a traitor, not "conservatives."
If liberals are traitors then they should be arrested and imprisoned or executed. That is what these proto-fascist so-called "conservatives" want, as we slowly give up our civil liberties and drift toward a police state.
You are wrong Ben. The entire jist of the times argument was concerning the secrecy of our banking monitoring and trying to scare American citizens into thinking big brother was looking into their accounts (which they werent)
Its no coincidence that they mention that a number of terrorst's transactions are now being conducted on a strictly cash basis, considering that they now know which countries not to bank with (whom were once thought to be safe havens)
Any ways you look at it...its a bad job on the times part. For arguments sake Ill take "traitor and treason" out of the equation for a moment...I hope we can all at least agree that it was hurtful to our campaign against terror.
Zontar, Rove did not leak Plame. Try to keep up.
Sorry i'm late. Been busy.
Zontar, as donkey said Rove didn't leak the plame thing, and besides that, there was no crime since she wasn't undercover. ALSO, the reason why we don't hear anything about it anymore is because it was all BULLSHIT to begin with, and joe wilson has been exposed on numerous occassions to be a flat out liar.
Zontar, it's not "slowly becoming clear" it is well known. Liberals root against their own country. they are traitors.
coulter and savage calling for the publisher of the times to be hanged does not make them traitors. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy makes you a traitor. (ny times) giving secrets to our enemies and writing speeches for them makes you a traitor. (j.carter) meeting secretly in paris with the enemy during wartime to negotiate a surrender without your governments knowledge makes you a traitor.(kerry) working with the enemy to undermine a sitting president makes you a traitor. (t.kennedy, dodd)
No, it is not "slowly becoming clear" it's been clear for quite some time now.
Rhino and Donkey, your problem is that you believe the LIES put out by the people who committed the offense in the first place. They outed an undercover operative, and her front company,damaged our national security, and smeared a reputable public servant, for momentary political gain.
The problem with arguing with a conspiracy guy is that EVERYTHING is a lie to them except what they believe, PLUS they don't need any facts or proof, just whackball ideas. Also, when the truth comes out, and everyone knows they were wrong, they just say it's not the truth. However, just because i'm not busy anymore i'll waste my time and tell you that it was armitage (anti war, friend of the press) who "outed" plame.
It was her husband who claimed it was rove and then took pictures for the cover of vanity fair.
"EVERYTHING is a lie to them except what they believe, PLUS they don't need any facts or proof, just whackball ideas." Describes you wingnut rightwingers perfectly.
So Armitage outed Plame? Novak's original column said he had TWO sources. Rove was the other one.
so you put a ? after armitage. does that mean that this is news to you?
I'm not surprised. By the way, rove isn't even a suspect, AND was eliminated as a suspect almost immediately. PLUS, as i've said before THERE WAS NO CRIME COMMITTED. the only reason we even had an investigation is because fitzgerald is a partisan hack who abused his position for political reasons. Now that the election is over you will see that the whole thing is going to dissappear. No court case, no indictments, no jail time, no more subpeona's. He never had a case, he could never get a grand jury to agree to anything with his lack of ANY EVIDENCE of ANY CRIME, and he knew it.
I could educate you further, but you'll just come up with some crazy theory about how the cia already killed fitzgerald and this guy is a robot or something. So now lets just be done with this tired subject.
Again, Novak had TWO sources, Armitage and ROVE.Perhaps years from now, when the CIA's damage assessment is public, we will know just how much damage was done. Read Larry Johnson's posts on the subject--he is former CIA and knew Valerie Plame. Stop repeating rightwing spin as fact, please.
Technically you got us on that one Obi-Wan.
But big difference....
The argument could me made that in your example the actions were motivated in protecting American interests, yet in our examples (the times revelations of classified info) that quite the opposite seems to be true, and terrorists are the ones to benefit most.
So the October Suprise machinations that Donsky describes are only "technically" treason? Interfering with President Carter's negotiations with Iran, delaying the release of the hostages, seems to me to be in the interest of Ronald Reagan's interest in being President. Otherwise, Carter would likely have been re-elected, and today Democrats would be giving Carter credit for winning the Cold War, as Republican do Reagan.
Youre probably right Zontar. You know, because the 1980 election was soooooo close. Those swing votes would have made a huge difference.
Jimmy Carter could have cured cancer and he still was not going to be re-elected.
You might be right. Reagan did have a very decisive electoral college victory, but only about 9% in the popular vote. If Carter had brought the hostages home it might have made a difference. At least that's what the Reagan team was afraid of. It's called motive.
Two words.
Land
Slide
So maybe the Republicans didn't have to make a treasonous deal with Iran to win in 1980. But they did it anyway?
Post a Comment