Cheney trashes media

New York Daily News ^ | 06/24/2006 | Kenneth Bazinet

[StatenIsland]

WASHINGTON - Vice President Cheney raked the media yesterday for exposing a secret Bush administration project to look into financial transactions of Americans as part of the war on terror. "What I find most disturbing about these stories is the fact that some of the news media take it upon themselves to disclose vital national security programs, thereby making it more difficult for us to prevent future attacks against the American people," Cheney grumbled at a GOP fund-raiser in Illinois. "That offends me."

The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal first broke the story, infuriating Cheney, who has been on a crusade to get the press not to reveal programs the White House deems necessary to fight terror but have been denounced by some privacy advocates.

Earlier this week, Cheney said the news media should withhold publishing stories when the government asks them to, on the grounds of protecting national security.

The White House was upset last month when news leaked that it was eavesdropping on Americans without first getting warrants.

The White House contends it's not an invasion of Americans' privacy to sift through international financial records.

"This terrorist tracking program ... is really government at its best. It's responsible government. It's effective government. It's government that works," outgoing Treasury Secretary John Snow contended yesterday.

"This is not a fishing expedition. We're not simply trolling for data. We're not mining data. We are, rather, making precise inquiries," Snow said.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government began secretly looking at records from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The Belgium-based cooperative routes about $6 trillion daily between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other financial institutions. The program did not include looking at everyday transactions by ordinary Americans.

The records helped track Riduan Isamuddin, known as Hambali, the suspected Al Qaeda boss in Southeast Asia, according to The Times.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

Hatred blinds people in strange ways...for some that's enough. For others, I suspect other agendas, too.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

I agree!!! But, the POTUS needs to stay above the fray. There are plenty of Pubbies and commentators that can do the job quite well. We have got to take of the gloves and tell like it is!!! This Democrat vermin and scum needs their hearts ripped out. I go to bed every night thinking of all the American innocents, the American military folks, thousands of innocent Iraqi's, coalition soldiers these bastards have helped and aided the enemy kill. The current Democrat Party needs to be utterly destroyed by the American voters. If not, doomsday for Americans and America is but around the corner. You can bank on it!!!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

You must think all of the enemy is overseas///

[JLAGRAYFOX]

I hate to say it but, you are right to a certain degree. However, the bottom line is that the American people choose the slates we vote for. It's still an American voter problem.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Leftists have an Agenda.......

There is a book,:

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)

*******************************

And a review:

****************************************

Communism is dead. Long live Islam!, September 30, 2004

Reviewer:

Kevin Beckman (Sacramento, CA) - See all my reviews

It sounds absurd: why would Leftists make common cause with a religion that is diametrically opposed to everything the Left stands for? David Horowitz explains that it is really quite logical given the Left's first principle: America is evil and anything or anyone opposed to America is good.

Part I of the book is a brief history of 9/11 through the end of major combat operations in Iraq, and the Left's behavior during this time. Horowitz includes the reaction of Katha Pollitt of The Nation magazine: "The flag stands for vengeance, and jingoism, and war." Anthropology Professor Nicholas De Genova of Columbia University said he hoped for "a million Mogadishus." His colleagues objected, not to the despicable sentiment, but because of the bad publicity it brought their "teach-in." Our tax dollars at work!

Part II is the heart of the book: a history of the American and international Left. Horowitz calls them Neo-Communists or Neocoms. The Neocoms of old believed in the Soviet Union the way religious people believe in God. Those who spied for the USSR didn't see themselves as traitors to their country, but rather loyalists to humanity and an ideal of America that's never existed. When the Soviet Union fell, a few of them stopped for some introspection but most pressed on as if nothing happened. Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm put it nicely: "Without the Revolution, my life and my work are meaningless."

Now that they no longer have to defend an indefensible regime, modern Neocoms are simply nihilists. They know what they oppose but they have no plans for the aftermath of the revolution which they still believe will happen. They don't know what they want, but they know what they hate: the United States, capitalism personified.

So why are they allying with radical Islam? Horowitz says that the Neocoms still believe in Marx's dictum that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Once private property is abolished, the need for religion will vanish, and Islamic radicals will stop being Islamic and radical. The only thing standing in the way is the United States.

Sound insane? It is. They are. I highly recommend this book. Horowitz makes the insanity understandable.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

It's on my list of books.

I've been reading a bunch of stuff written between 1999 and 2003 about the WOT...interesting to see what they say (hits and misses) and today.

And of course, Godless.

When that's done, this will be next.

[ardara]

I think we need a civil suit against the reporters, editors.publisher and owners of the N.Y.Times for damages[including punitive]for willfully endangering the safety of the citizens of the United States of America.

[Cementjungle]

The NYT owners are scared their income tax avoidance schemes will be exposed.

Or the Dems' campaign finances.

[silverleaf]

Read the fine print. Many become void if the loss that occurs can be attributed to an act of war. We declare a state of war (against whom by the way?) and if you die in a terror attack, your life insurance most likely is void. If you travel on an airliner that is downed.... no claims for loss will be honored due to an act of war.

Other companies revert to limitations on claims. Many consumer protections against loss that we enjoy during "normal" conditions ... no longer have to be honored by insurance carriers if the customer lives in a war zone. Imagine an America going about its business without insurance backing against loss claims.

Undoubtedly there are also changes that occur in our government operations, international and domestic, if the nation is declared to be "at war", as well as federal govt arrangements with commercial businesses such as airlines and merchant shipping and suppliers of numerous goods and services.

I believe this economic blow back is one understated reason Congress has historically (since WW2) been so reluctant to make a formal declaration of war. Even Korea was never declared to be a war.

[DC Bound]

You are referring to a "war clause" on life insurance policies. They are rare, today. They were last used by the majority of insurers in the Vietnam era. Most policies in force that were written after Vietnam contain no war clause, and are payable no matter the manner of death, or where it occurs. (With exception of the suicide exception, that lasts two years.) A war clause cannot be added to a policy after the fact, and any insurer that tried to do so would be dragged to court and would lose. Because the insurance company gets to write the policy, they are presumed to have meant exactly what they said when they wrote it. Insurance companies make very bad defendants, and usually settle out of court for that reason.

[stopem]

Thanks, I will look for the book this weekend,I have one book to read first. Perhaps this will explain the unexplainable.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Perfectly safe in this country to spy as a journalist

See this,...

Issues & Insights [NYT & War On Terror]

Don't be fooled by that mild headline....IBD is making some serious allegations....will need to read the full article.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

bookmarked it.

I want maybe to create a blog or something called "War on Two Fronts" about the WOT out there and the War against America back home.

Reminds me both of the last few years of the Roman republic and the build up to the American Civl War.

[SierraWasp]

"Cheney for President in 2008!"

Who should be his running mate? Shelby Steele?

[SierraWasp]

Well... He's afraid the MSM will go ape (BLEEP) and howl "first amendment rights, first amendment rights," exactly like either Guber or Gomer used to yell "Citizuns Arayust, Citizuns Arayust" at Barney Fife in Mayberry on the Andy Griffith show!!!

Come on you people! You know how this works to make sure it doesn't work for people that actually love America!!!

[GOPJ]

Now that they no longer have to defend an indefensible regime, modern Neocoms are simply nihilists. They know what they oppose but they have no plans for the aftermath of the revolution which they still believe will happen. They don't know what they want, but they know what they hate: the United States, capitalism personified.

So why are they allying with radical Islam? Horowitz says that the Neocoms still believe in Marx's dictum that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Once private property is abolished, the need for religion will vanish, and Islamic radicals will stop being Islamic and radical. The only thing standing in the way is the United States.

This is the first explanation that fits. I've known these kinds of people. Years ago, I knew kids who were going to vote for Goldwater because they thought his election would bring on the revolution. Just based on his election! It seemed so out of touch. But extreme liberals saw their politics as an extension of who they were - and being a radical commie had connotations of cool -- being "with it" - and somehow antiestablishment. Edgy. Intellectual.

Which was never really true, as communism was just one more horrible totalitarian doctrine - an especially brutal one at that, but reality's a different story than the fantasy they held of their own uniqueness.

Useful idiots had their fun, people died. Neocoms became Unitarian, went on retreats, made silly (profound) independent movies, got jobs teaching at Universities, and created the cultural elite.

I think Horowitz is right. I'll do an Amazon on his book. Thanks for the ping.