the Times's new publisher, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr ... was a sixties anti-war activist who famously declared that in a confrontation between an American and a North Vietnamese soldier he'd want to see the American get shot."
Posted on 06/26/2006 5:16:35 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
TREASURY TO KELLER: "IRRESPONSIBLE;" MURTHA, KEAN, HAMILTON INTERVENED By Michelle Malkin · June 26, 2006 07:24 PM
Just in...Treasury Secy John Snow's letter to the blabbermouth NYTimes. Snow reveals something significant I hadn't seen anywhere else yet (at least not in the NYTimes):
It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story.
Kean and Hamilton haven't exactly been the Bush administration's strongest allies on War on Terror issues. Their entreaties are noteworthy--but not in the eyes of Bill Keller. Guess this is what he means by "half-hearted?"
More just in: AJ Strata notes that in an interview with CNN, Bill Keller reveals that John Murtha--yes, that John Murtha--also joined Kean and Hamilton in pleading with the Times not to run the story...
Keller is doing an interview on CNN at 7:05 PM Eastern and has dropped a bomb shell bit of news. There were three people outside the administration who asked the NY Times to not expose the terrorist financial transaction monitoring program. Two of them from the 9-11 Commission where the co-chairs Lee Hamilton and Thomas Keane. The third person who tried to tell the NY Times they should not expose this important program was Democrat Representative John “Jack” Murtha! That’s right - Mad Murtha himself. Of course, this makes sense in an odd way. Murtha would rather not fight terrorism militarily, and this financial tracking program was a good option to military action.
*** Full letter:
Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor The New York Times 229 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036
Dear Mr. Keller:
The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.
Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.
Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror.
Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.
You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.
Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.
What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.
Sincerely,
[signed]
John W. Snow, Secretary U.S. Department of the Treasury
Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/
This is better than nothing, but reveals again the hopeless wimpiness of the Bush administration. Protest letters are not enough. Criminal prosecution is what is needed.
If I owned a newspaper and those three morons came to me and begged me not to run a story, I'd put it on the front page every day for a month.
I suppose it's not politically correct to sign it, "F-off" or "Bite Me". ;)
I agree! Also, spread the word, "Censure Murtha Now!"
bttt
If the NYTs can't be prosecuted, the reporters and all those involved should be jailed until they give the sources of the leak.
Kind of like Levin ranting about Maliki's possible amnesty in Iraq, but want us to let everyone at Gitmo go home.
correction: but they want
"And just how do you get around the 1st Amendment to prosecute? What law did they break? How do we get around this?"
The 1st Amendment is not absolute. All rights have limitations. You can go to jail for yelling fire in a crowded theater. You can also go to jail for what you publish in your newspaper.
Years ago I cancelled my local subscription because they carried articles from the lieing NYTimes. I bet your local paper does; it will feel just as good to call the head honcho of your local paper and cancel because of their relationship with the NYTimes.
Thanks for answering that for me. The media would never have done such an unpatriotic, disastrous thing during WWII.
On the few occasions when this administration decides to act conservative, they are so half-hearted, tentative, and clumsy that they actually make things worse. This President and his father have demolished the legacy of the Reagan Revolution. He is a disaster. He should have been on TV months ago, angrily denouncing the Slimes and the other leftist media organs.
NYT says: Bush Admin "most secret Administration ever"
NYT does: not reveal its sources of damaging leaks
NYT says: Bush assumes extra-Constitutional power (despite fact that Bush was elected and President is granted warmaking power in the Constititution)
NYT does: assume power for itself to decide what information should remain classified (despite fact that it is NOT elected and has NO governmental power under the Constitution)
NYT says: Terrorists cannot be defeated militarily, it's best left to law enforcement
NYT does: render every non-military law-enforcement program working to hunt down terrorists useless by publishing methods and prigam specifics
NYT says: Administration should implement all the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
NYT does: render one of the most important programs that complied with the Commission recommendations useless, by publishing it OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE CHAIRS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION
The First Amendment does not shield anyone from charges of treason as far as I know. The acts of the New York Times, especially in this case, are objectively treasonous because the effect of their disclosure serves no purpose whatsoever except for giving our enemies aid (i.e. there was no "watchdog" or "whistleblowing" involved, the Times knew the program was legal and did not even involve American institutions, subpoenas were issued, Congress was informed). The Times also commits treason IMO when it usurps Congressional authority to oversee the Executive Branch and pass judgment on its determination that information should remain classified. This is a straight case of a private entity assuming powers reserved to the government by the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.