The Post Comes Clean: Will The Times Corroborate it?
I picked this story up this morning in LA. (Yes, I'm here on business; a de facto working vacation. It was great to see the "kids," but even I still have to earn a living.) It's from the Washington Post, and it's lends a bit of insight in regard to the New York Times "revelation" that the NSC is involved in domestic spying. At the sight of that headline, my only somatic reply was "no s**t, Sherlock."
The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication.
In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."
The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."
The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster.
The decision to withhold the article caused some friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the bureau, including Risen and co-writer Eric Lichtblau, had pushed for earlier publication, according to these people. One described the story's path to publication as difficult, with much discussion about whether it could have been published earlier.
In a statement yesterday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller did not mention the book. He wrote that when the Times became aware that the NSA was conducting domestic wiretaps without warrants, "the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."
"Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions," Keller continued. "As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time."
In the ensuing months, Keller wrote, two things changed the paper's thinking. The paper developed a fuller picture of misgivings about the program by some in the government. And the paper satisfied itself through more reporting that it could write the story without exposing "any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."
Uh-huh. You didn't reveal anything of relevance to our enemies except the fact the program exists, you twits!
This should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the continued malfeasance of the media, especially the New York Times. Yes, they ran it through their legal experts, and asked two key questions. First, can we be nailed on criminal conduct for printing this story, and second, can the Bush administration. The answer, in return, was assuredly an emphatic "no." The NSA can, without a warrant, "eavesdrop" on any US to foreign source, or vice versa. It's in their mandate. The FBI, CIA, DIA, and Justice Department are all well aware of this power the NSA has. Simply put, this move by the New York was a "red flag" to our enemies that we have other ways of keeping an eye on you than the Patriot Act.
Which it is interesting, and Thomas noted this to me in a phone conversation last night, that the Patriot Act's renewal talks in Congress seemed to coincide with the release of this story; the same day, as a matter of fact, that the Senate was to vote on it. Instead of doing what they did in 2001 with the inception of the Patriot Act, the Senate Democrats pulled a filibuster that four Republicans joined in on. According to Hugh, his interview with Barbara Murkowski shows that she lied about her vote. She stated--point blank, after hemming and hawing--that she would vote in favor of renewal, and against a filibuster.
My theory? The Times waited to run with this as the Patriot Act was coming up for renewal to give the liberals in the Senate an excuse to invoke a filibuster of the primary weapon we have against the terrorists wishing to do America ill. Without the Patriot Act, we are blind and deaf in this war; we are also without the teeth to bite these animals back before they strike. This story was no accident. It was coordinated. The Post points out that this story's path was "difficult," which means there was resistance to it's publication. And I'm wagering it wasn't due to legalities. It was, for the most part, to ensure the maximum amount of political damage to the president and the administration as possible. Calculated so much that it was timed to deal a blow to his rising poll numbers. But the president didn't hide about this today. The following is part of the president's address today. It's the meat and potatoes, folks.
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.
The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.
This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.
The president isn't hiding. He's in front of this. He's admitted it, and he's well within the confines of the law despite the complaints of liberals amidst the Democrat Party looking for a faulty opportunity, and the jokers in thew ACLU. The president has the authroization under the Constitution to take whatever steps necessary to protect this nation from harm. That's his job. He's not violating a citizen's civil liberties. He's disrupting the supposed "civil liberties" the liberals--that fifth-column group of bastards--support for non-citizens, and enemies of the United States worldwide. Let's face facts here, for them this is about weakening a nation. Worse, it's during a time of war. They had a classification for such an individual a long time ago, but the PC crowd in DC are afraid to say the word.
It's treason.
No, I'm not out on the fringe. I know what I'm talking about. Trust me, I'm in the legal profession. Scary thought, isn't it.
Granted, it's not easy to prove, and probably wouldn't be able to be proven, but I like to call a spade a spade.
I won't say the Times committed treason. They're enabling the liberals pushing for political opportunity. However, those same liberals are licking their chops at the prospect of catching the president in a no-no, and making it stick. I'm so sorry they have to be smacked in the chops, and told they don't have a case. Hell, they don't even have a prayer for an indictment. If they're pinning their hopes on this, then they're in deep trouble. There's nothing here except a president attempting to protect this nation, and a media outlet lending weak firepower to a pitiful party out of power lustfully longing for a return to such.
Mistress Pundit
I picked this story up this morning in LA. (Yes, I'm here on business; a de facto working vacation. It was great to see the "kids," but even I still have to earn a living.) It's from the Washington Post, and it's lends a bit of insight in regard to the New York Times "revelation" that the NSC is involved in domestic spying. At the sight of that headline, my only somatic reply was "no s**t, Sherlock."
The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication.
In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."
The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."
The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster.
The decision to withhold the article caused some friction within the Times' Washington bureau, according to people close to the paper. Some reporters and editors in New York and in the bureau, including Risen and co-writer Eric Lichtblau, had pushed for earlier publication, according to these people. One described the story's path to publication as difficult, with much discussion about whether it could have been published earlier.
In a statement yesterday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller did not mention the book. He wrote that when the Times became aware that the NSA was conducting domestic wiretaps without warrants, "the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security."
"Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions," Keller continued. "As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time."
In the ensuing months, Keller wrote, two things changed the paper's thinking. The paper developed a fuller picture of misgivings about the program by some in the government. And the paper satisfied itself through more reporting that it could write the story without exposing "any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."
Uh-huh. You didn't reveal anything of relevance to our enemies except the fact the program exists, you twits!
This should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the continued malfeasance of the media, especially the New York Times. Yes, they ran it through their legal experts, and asked two key questions. First, can we be nailed on criminal conduct for printing this story, and second, can the Bush administration. The answer, in return, was assuredly an emphatic "no." The NSA can, without a warrant, "eavesdrop" on any US to foreign source, or vice versa. It's in their mandate. The FBI, CIA, DIA, and Justice Department are all well aware of this power the NSA has. Simply put, this move by the New York was a "red flag" to our enemies that we have other ways of keeping an eye on you than the Patriot Act.
Which it is interesting, and Thomas noted this to me in a phone conversation last night, that the Patriot Act's renewal talks in Congress seemed to coincide with the release of this story; the same day, as a matter of fact, that the Senate was to vote on it. Instead of doing what they did in 2001 with the inception of the Patriot Act, the Senate Democrats pulled a filibuster that four Republicans joined in on. According to Hugh, his interview with Barbara Murkowski shows that she lied about her vote. She stated--point blank, after hemming and hawing--that she would vote in favor of renewal, and against a filibuster.
My theory? The Times waited to run with this as the Patriot Act was coming up for renewal to give the liberals in the Senate an excuse to invoke a filibuster of the primary weapon we have against the terrorists wishing to do America ill. Without the Patriot Act, we are blind and deaf in this war; we are also without the teeth to bite these animals back before they strike. This story was no accident. It was coordinated. The Post points out that this story's path was "difficult," which means there was resistance to it's publication. And I'm wagering it wasn't due to legalities. It was, for the most part, to ensure the maximum amount of political damage to the president and the administration as possible. Calculated so much that it was timed to deal a blow to his rising poll numbers. But the president didn't hide about this today. The following is part of the president's address today. It's the meat and potatoes, folks.
In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.
As the 9/11 Commission pointed out, it was clear that terrorists inside the United States were communicating with terrorists abroad before the September the 11th attacks, and the commission criticized our nation's inability to uncover links between terrorists here at home and terrorists abroad. Two of the terrorist hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon, Nawaf al Hamzi and Khalid al Mihdhar, communicated while they were in the United States to other members of al Qaeda who were overseas. But we didn't know they were here, until it was too late.
The authorization I gave the National Security Agency after September the 11th helped address that problem in a way that is fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities. The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time. And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.
The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland. During each assessment, previous activities under the authorization are reviewed. The review includes approval by our nation's top legal officials, including the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President. I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups.
The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it. Intelligence officials involved in this activity also receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization.
This authorization is a vital tool in our war against the terrorists. It is critical to saving American lives. The American people expect me to do everything in my power under our laws and Constitution to protect them and their civil liberties. And that is exactly what I will continue to do, so long as I'm the President of the United States.
The president isn't hiding. He's in front of this. He's admitted it, and he's well within the confines of the law despite the complaints of liberals amidst the Democrat Party looking for a faulty opportunity, and the jokers in thew ACLU. The president has the authroization under the Constitution to take whatever steps necessary to protect this nation from harm. That's his job. He's not violating a citizen's civil liberties. He's disrupting the supposed "civil liberties" the liberals--that fifth-column group of bastards--support for non-citizens, and enemies of the United States worldwide. Let's face facts here, for them this is about weakening a nation. Worse, it's during a time of war. They had a classification for such an individual a long time ago, but the PC crowd in DC are afraid to say the word.
It's treason.
No, I'm not out on the fringe. I know what I'm talking about. Trust me, I'm in the legal profession. Scary thought, isn't it.
Granted, it's not easy to prove, and probably wouldn't be able to be proven, but I like to call a spade a spade.
I won't say the Times committed treason. They're enabling the liberals pushing for political opportunity. However, those same liberals are licking their chops at the prospect of catching the president in a no-no, and making it stick. I'm so sorry they have to be smacked in the chops, and told they don't have a case. Hell, they don't even have a prayer for an indictment. If they're pinning their hopes on this, then they're in deep trouble. There's nothing here except a president attempting to protect this nation, and a media outlet lending weak firepower to a pitiful party out of power lustfully longing for a return to such.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:39 PM
1 Comments:
The timing of the story doesn't pass the smell test. The story itself should never been published. I hereby accuse the author and the NYT of Treason. So sue me. You are traitors. You give aid and comfort to our enemy when we have troops in harms way. You defile freedom of the press. You use it for your own selfish goal agenda with no regard to the harm and damage you do to this country. Why do you hate the soul of our nation? Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home