Posted on 06/30/2006 12:50:30 PM PDT by Reagan Man
"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."
So said President Bush of The New York Times' revelation of a secret U.S. program to monitor the international cash transfers of suspected terrorists. "Disgraceful," added an angry president.
Vice President Cheney assailed news organizations that "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."
Of the Times' decision to expose the secret program, House Speaker Dennis Hastert says: "This is not news. This is something that has been classified; something that is top secret."
Treasury Secretary John Snow wrote Times editor Bill Keller, "In choosing to expose this program despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle ... the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorist program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails."
The U.S. government has thus declared that what the Times did was reprehensible, and rendered aid and comfort to the enemy.
But if Bush believes that, why hasn't his Justice Department been directed to investigate these crimes against the Espionage Act and acts of treason in a time of war?
Rhetoric aside, the core issue here is this:
Does Bush believe the Times committed a crime in exposing the secret financial tracking program and the secret National Security Agency program to intercept U.S. phone calls of suspected terrorists -- for which the Times won a Pulitzer? If he does, why has he not acted?
Why has he not ordered Justice to dig out the disloyal leakers and prosecute their media collaborators, who refused White House requests not to compromise these vital programs? If Bush believes what he is saying, why does he not do his duty as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?
Asked if the White House would retaliate against the Times, Press Secretary Tony Snow said, "The New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live."
Nice statement, but the Times' response is: We did reflect, Tony, and we decided to publish. An unstated corollary is: And what are you going to do about it?
The answer so far is that the Bushites are going to do nothing other than fulminate and pound the Post and Times. Bush has every right to do so, and the tactic is effective, for even opponents of the war do not believe journalists are above the law and enjoy special rights to expose security secrets to sabotage any war effort they no longer agree with.
On this issue, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is right. He has called for an investigation of the leakers of these secret programs and criminal prosecution of the editors and the publisher of the Times:
"The time has come for the American people to realize and The New York Times to realize we're at war and they can't just be on their own deciding what we declassify, what to release."
Editorialists at the Times and The Washington Post and their kennel-fed columnists and "media critics" are trotting out all the bromides about "the meaning of the First Amendment," "the people's right to know," "the role of the press in a democratic society," etc. And it is a slam-dunk prediction that more Pulitzers and People's Hero awards, like the ones Walter Duranty and Herbert Matthews collected for the Times, are ahead.
Behind the Times' defiance of the law surely lies a gnawing need for redemption. For the Times has been through a bad patch. First, it was revealed Jayson ("Burning Down My Master's House") Blair had hoked up three dozen stories and smoked them right past the Times' editors, who were blinded by the brilliance of their black prodigy. Then, there came the revelation that editor Howell Raines directed the paper to run three dozen stories on the human rights atrocity at Augusta National, where some good ole boys had conspired to keep the girls out of their tree house. After that, there was the Judith Miller fiasco, where the Times stood firm -- then folded in the face of some really big-time fines.
Keller and publisher Arthur Sulzberger appear to have decided the way to recapture lost credibility is to publish national security secrets, as in the Pentagon Papers days of yore.
And, thus far, for all their huffing and puffing, the Bushites have blinked. But this cannot stand. For appeasement will beget new acts of arrogance and aggression by the Times, and other newspapers, until a White House finds the courage to demand that the Times, too, obeys the laws and respects our national security secrets, even if it means putting Bill and Art in the Graybar Hotel for a spell.
A. The GOP leaders who have claimed that the New York Times has broken the law are totally full of sh!t.
B. The Bush administration knows damn well that the Times has broken the law but has simply refused to uphold the law.
I'm just about 100% certain that (A) is the correct answer here -- and the real turning point for me came last weekend when Rep. Peter King started showing up all over the media to voice his complaints over the "crimes" committed by the New York Times. If there was any truth to this accusation, the GOP never would have had such a dopey, mediocre spokesman to make the point on its behalf.
"On the other hand, Bush doesn't appear to be one to duck a fight - he just picks his battles. I'm hoping that from now until the November elections the Administration will try to gain as much political traction as they can from what happened and then - particularly if they hold on to Congress - they'll pursue the issue legally. Hope."
Hope springs eternal in some people, but the fact is that the President & his party have controlled Congress and the WH for years and produced little for conservatives besides some tax cuts (when what is needed is radical tax reform anyway). We are constantly told to hang on and cough up more campaign donations to keep these people elected, then nothing happens.
The left has learned that Bush is all bark and no bite.
More whining. For your information, legitimate debate and criticism is at the heart of our Republic. Your aim is to stifle free speech and political dissent. Won't work. This is still a conservative website, not a GOP website.
Not for long.
algore usd to be prolife.
All G has to do is say he was wrong.
Like I said, conservative pro-lifers won't buy it.
King's doing that on his own. The criminal statutes would be hard to prosecute, so no GOP leaders are going to be throwing the word "crime" around.
There will be investigations aplenty into the leaking which is unambiguously a crime. Reporters will have to choose between unmasking their sources or doing time.
Nope. There isn't a shred of doubt not only that the Times has broken the law, and not just one of them, but at least two major felony statutes. The violations are egregious and willful. They would be straighforward of proof.
This is a clear case of Politics trumping Duty.
I think this whole thing is going to end up helping the President immensely. He's a great poker player.
***
GWB: HBS MBA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070924/posts
The American Thinker February 3, 2004 | Thomas Lifson
*****
One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.
By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, at least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.
*****
Another ten bucks says the New York Times got its "top secret" information from some mid-level civilian hack in Europe who can't be prosecuted under U.S. law in any case.
Yes, there is. I've posted mine a number of times on threads about this subject.
Keep in mind that I also thoroughly debunked the silly notion that the New York Times committed any kind of crime when it "revealed" all that information about a so-called "top secret NSA electronic surveillance program."
"The GOP leaders who have claimed that the New York Times has broken the law are totally full of sh!t."
Well there are constitutional lawyers who disagree with you.
Are you a constitutional lawyer?
See Mark Levin's article "Dealing with the Papers"
http://marklevinfan.com/?p=1222#more-1222
Excerpt:
"Keller and his co-conspirators should be pursued for their unprecedented betrayals, which have endangered the safety of the American people, and forced to defend themselves as any other common defendant. They are at least as disloyal to the nation and the rule of law in aiding and abetting the enemy as those in the government who are leaking to them."
Why don't you call his show and straighten him out?
"Keep in mind that I also thoroughly debunked the silly notion that the New York Times committed any kind of crime when it "revealed" all that information about a so-called 'top secret NSA electronic surveillance program.'"
You mean that your citation of a television newsclip from a liberal television station (to which you couldn't provide a link) was a "thorough debunk"?
It wasn't inadvertent in 1942. This was the same anti-FDR paper that, before the war, published a big "Secret War Plan" story trying to gin up opposition to FDR's preparations (which we desperately needed) in case we were attacked.
Ah. Ok, I see. The answer is, yes, Patsy is that stupid, then. Thank you for clarifying.
And as for "whining"....you are the MASTERWHINER!
Nailed in one and quite deftly! LOL
Oh ducky...you have NEVER been right. ;^)
"For the most part, Pat's opinion on this issue is about right"
What most part? Like AG Gonzales hasn't started an investigation already without being directed the Pres to do so? I'm sure he has.
Pat did us one favor, there is no Reform Party anymore.
" ... Bush is in fact the nation's chief law enforcement officer ..."
Um don't think so. AG Gonzales is, not Pres Bush.
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.