What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What The Leakers and NYTimes Have Accomplished: Insularity

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
They are putting both military and civilians at risk, so the natural outcome:


http://www.examiner.com/a-158586~White_House_becoming_more_secretive_after_leaks.html
White House becoming more secretive after leaks


By Bill Sammon, The Examiner
Jun 23, 2006 5:45 PM (2 days ago)
Washington, D.C. - The Bush administration is becoming more secretive in response to press disclosures about the tracking of global financial transfers and other counter-terrorism measures, said Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff.

In an exclusive interview with The Examiner, Chertoff criticized newspapers that revealed the financial tracking program on Friday. President Bush earlier complained that some of the same newspapers damaged national security by disclosing a classified terrorist surveillance program.

"Not only have these individual releases of classified stuff been damaging, but in the aggregate, it has led to a general impression that nothing is a secret and that causes people to ever more closely hold the information,"

Chertoff told The Examiner in his Washington office on Friday. "That's having a real damaging effect."

The damage is particularly acute at the White House, Chertoff said.

"You actually deprive the decision makers and the president of the ability to get the full range of advice because - if the president has to worry that

talking to people who have important things to say is going to result in something getting out - he's not going to have that conversation.

"And that's going to drive exactly the kind of insularity that the press claims they don,t like," he said.

Administration officials tried to convince the New York Times and Los Angeles Times not to publish the stories about the financial tracking program, but to no avail. That angered Vice President Dick Cheney.

"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 said Friday in Chicago. "That offends me."

Chertoff said "these unauthorized disclosures are tremendously harmful" because they allow Internet-savvy terrorists to change their tactics.

"It causes people to become more careful," he said. "It reminds them of the need to preserve their operational security, it suggests to them things that they may think are buried in a large mass of data actually may not be as buried as they think they are."

He added: "As you talk about areas where we are intercepting or collecting data, you are at a minimum reminding the enemy that they have to be very careful in terms of how they deal with those data."
p>For more details from this exclusive interview, read Bill Sammon's two-part series in The Washington Examiner newspaper and Examiner.com on Monday and Tuesday.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,586
Reaction score
17,907
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
The admin had no problem with leaks used to try to hurt someone who came out against it's policies and who told that the yellowcake story was a lie.

The admin also had no problem with using Judy Miller, at that same NY Times, to leak self-serving information prior to our entry into Iraq.

A bit hypocritical to complain when it doesn't like the info that's released, I think.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
jillian said:
The admin had no problem with leaks used to try to hurt someone who came out against it's policies and who told that the yellowcake story was a lie.

The admin also had no problem with using Judy Miller, at that same NY Times, to leak self-serving information prior to our entry into Iraq.

A bit hypocritical to complain when it doesn't like the info that's released, I think.
Speaking of hypocritical on both stories, widely discussed. :rolleyes:
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
384
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Kathianne said:
They are putting both military and civilians at risk, so the natural outcome:


http://www.examiner.com/a-158586~White_House_becoming_more_secretive_after_leaks.html

Already the most secretive administration in US history, except when it serves their political agenda to leak information, it is hard to concieve of the insular little group of Mayberry Machiavellis than make up the Bush Administration, becoming more secretive.

If it is anyone, it is the Bush Administration, needlessly putting people in harm's way to achieve their ends.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Bullypulpit said:
Already the most secretive administration in US history, except when it serves their political agenda to leak information, it is hard to concieve of the insular little group of Mayberry Machiavellis than make up the Bush Administration, becoming more secretive.

If it is anyone, it is the Bush Administration, needlessly putting people in harm's way to achieve their ends.
Not enough, not when the kind of stories coming out, come out.

Latest: NY Times discloses pullout timetables. :rolleyes:

poster0254tu.jpg
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
384
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
I thought Dubbyuh said there weren't going to be any timetables for the withdrawl of troops. So, if there aren't going to be any timetables, how could the NY Times disclose them?
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Bullypulpit said:
I thought Dubbyuh said there weren't going to be any timetables for the withdrawl of troops. So, if there aren't going to be any timetables, how could the NY Times disclose them?
I believe that was 'published timetables...' C'mon Bully, don't play semantics.
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
Bullypulpit said:
I thought Dubbyuh said there weren't going to be any timetables for the withdrawl of troops. So, if there aren't going to be any timetables, how could the NY Times disclose them?

Do you think your idiotic little "gotchas" are enough content to help your party win the next election?
 

bush lover

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
266
Reaction score
30
Points
16
I trust our government, led by our President, to decide what we have to do to keep safe from the terrorists. If our President decides our government needs to listen to our phone calls, read our emails, see what diseases we have in our medical records, or to follow our financial transactions, I trust his judgment. He will protect us from the terrorists and defend our freedoms, which the terrorists hate. They hate our freedom. I personally have nothing to hide. I trust our government to decide if I have said anything wrong or read anything bad on the Internets that could help the terrorists bomb us. I have not knowingly said anything bad or read anything or written anything bad (although I do confess to reading the liberal MSM a little) nor had a terrorist telephone call or bank deposit. Our government is totally trustworthy, as long as our President leads us. If the Democraps get in charge, then all bets are off. They hate America.
 

Emmett

Active Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
557
Reaction score
101
Points
28
Location
Murrayville, Ga
Is all this over this recent story by the NY times that government has been looking into our bank accounts. Dah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on people, wake up, they have already been looking into your bank accounts long before now. If you have not been sponsoring terrorism, running a drug business or depositing 8 times your W-2 reported income you have nothing to worry about. Otherwise, well, you do. What's the problem?

Well the problem is this! Something else to bitch about. You need to go back and check IRS activity during the Clinton Admin to find the most active encroachment on our privacy concerning banking in US history. There were more audits ordered from 1995 through 2000 than any 5 year period in history. The Dems argument: Yeah but that was for tax evaders. WRONG!!!!!That was because folks didn't play ball.

Look, what the hell is wrong with monitoring bank activity? PLENTY!!!!!! First of all it is none of your damn business how much money I have. Nor is it your business how much of it I am smart enough to know how to keep. When this country smartens up and endorses John Linders Fair Tax plan THEN you will have a reason to bitch when government TAPS your bank account. Right now they are doing it to find terrorists and honest folks have absolutely nothing to worry about.


When we get rid of this STUPID tax system THEN there will be no reason to spy on your bank account.

You know it's funny, dems never say anything about the way folks who earn a little money get treated when the government is holding them upside down shaking their coins out because they know they can spin that into their benefit when it comes voting time. Since most dems don't have more than a paycheck in the bank what the hell should they care if the gov knows it or not. One might inclined to think that some folks who are bitching have something to hide.


Before you slay me lefties, I have two bank accounts. 1 personal, 1 business. Neither is worth looking at. The gov won't be very impressed when they see them.
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
384
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
Emmett said:
Is all this over this recent story by the NY times that government has been looking into our bank accounts. Dah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on people, wake up, they have already been looking into your bank accounts long before now. If you have not been sponsoring terrorism, running a drug business or depositing 8 times your W-2 reported income you have nothing to worry about. Otherwise, well, you do. What's the problem?

Well the problem is this! Something else to bitch about. You need to go back and check IRS activity during the Clinton Admin to find the most active encroachment on our privacy concerning banking in US history. There were more audits ordered from 1995 through 2000 than any 5 year period in history. The Dems argument: Yeah but that was for tax evaders. WRONG!!!!!That was because folks didn't play ball.

Look, what the hell is wrong with monitoring bank activity? PLENTY!!!!!! First of all it is none of your damn business how much money I have. Nor is it your business how much of it I am smart enough to know how to keep. When this country smartens up and endorses John Linders Fair Tax plan THEN you will have a reason to bitch when government TAPS your bank account. Right now they are doing it to find terrorists and honest folks have absolutely nothing to worry about.


When we get rid of this STUPID tax system THEN there will be no reason to spy on your bank account.

You know it's funny, dems never say anything about the way folks who earn a little money get treated when the government is holding them upside down shaking their coins out because they know they can spin that into their benefit when it comes voting time. Since most dems don't have more than a paycheck in the bank what the hell should they care if the gov knows it or not. One might inclined to think that some folks who are bitching have something to hide.


Before you slay me lefties, I have two bank accounts. 1 personal, 1 business. Neither is worth looking at. The gov won't be very impressed when they see them.

So, if you're innocent you don't have anything to hide...Right?

Well golly, if that's the case, it's time for the Bush Administration to release the records of Dick Cheney's energey task force. ANd then there are the documents they've withheld on pre-9?/11 intel and Hurricane Katrina preparedness...Not to mention anything else they've been hiding behind the veil of executive priviledge.

And, while we're on the subject, perhaps they could tell us about torture and extraordinary rendition and the secret prisons scattered around the world. They could also tell us exactly how many times "Kenny-boy" Lay and Jack Abramoff visited the Oval Office, and they could finally let us know whose bright idea it was to leak Valerie Plame's name and why they did it.

And let's not forget the Downing Street memo and the lies they used to justify the war to begin with. And what about those unbid contracts to Halliburton? They were operating at a loss before Cheney became V-POTUS. And there's that little question of the Billions of dollars that simply vanished in Iraq under Proconsul Bremmer's oversight. And let's not forget the domestic spying program itself. Where are they so desperate to avoid oversight?

And maybe they could release records from Poppy Bush's administration which Junior, for no apparent reason, sealed on his first day in office.

After all, if the innocent have <b>NOTHING TO HIDE...</b>
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
384
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
bush lover said:
I trust our government, led by our President, to decide what we have to do to keep safe from the terrorists. If our President decides our government needs to listen to our phone calls, read our emails, see what diseases we have in our medical records, or to follow our financial transactions, I trust his judgment. He will protect us from the terrorists and defend our freedoms, which the terrorists hate. They hate our freedom. I personally have nothing to hide. I trust our government to decide if I have said anything wrong or read anything bad on the Internets that could help the terrorists bomb us. I have not knowingly said anything bad or read anything or written anything bad (although I do confess to reading the liberal MSM a little) nor had a terrorist telephone call or bank deposit. Our government is totally trustworthy, as long as our President leads us. If the Democraps get in charge, then all bets are off. They hate America.

Why don't you move to North Korea. Their "Great Leader" would absolutely love you. An uncritical, unquestioning little automaton. You and your ilk are why open societies fall. Look no further than pre-WW II Germany for the proof of that pudding.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Bullypulpit said:
So, if you're innocent you don't have anything to hide...Right?

Well golly, if that's the case, it's time for the Bush Administration to release the records of Dick Cheney's energey task force. ANd then there are the documents they've withheld on pre-9?/11 intel and Hurricane Katrina preparedness...Not to mention anything else they've been hiding behind the veil of executive priviledge.

And, while we're on the subject, perhaps they could tell us about torture and extraordinary rendition and the secret prisons scattered around the world. They could also tell us exactly how many times "Kenny-boy" Lay and Jack Abramoff visited the Oval Office, and they could finally let us know whose bright idea it was to leak Valerie Plame's name and why they did it.

And let's not forget the Downing Street memo and the lies they used to justify the war to begin with. And what about those unbid contracts to Halliburton? They were operating at a loss before Cheney became V-POTUS. And there's that little question of the Billions of dollars that simply vanished in Iraq under Proconsul Bremmer's oversight. And let's not forget the domestic spying program itself. Where are they so desperate to avoid oversight?

And maybe they could release records from Poppy Bush's administration which Junior, for no apparent reason, sealed on his first day in office.

After all, if the innocent have <b>NOTHING TO HIDE...</b>
I am sooo glad you feel that way! Lets get all the poop on Clinton's fiascoes while we're at it...Whitewater, Vince Foster, the N. Korea deals...all of it! And let's not forget the Hon. Jefferson et al too! Let's see if we can get the stuff on why we went into Bosnia and why are we still there?

There is plenty for any politician to hide...that's how they got where they are!
 

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
384
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
CSM said:
I am sooo glad you feel that way! Lets get all the poop on Clinton's fiascoes while we're at it...Whitewater, Vince Foster, the N. Korea deals...all of it! And let's not forget the Hon. Jefferson et al too! Let's see if we can get the stuff on why we went into Bosnia and why are we still there?

There is plenty for any politician to hide...that's how they got where they are!

Still living in the past, I see. And EVERYTHING is Goatboy's fault. Hows about living in the present and dealing with the multitude of fiascoes perpetrated by the Bush Administration? Or is that too much to ask?
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Bullypulpit said:
Still living in the past, I see. And EVERYTHING is Goatboy's fault. Hows about living in the present and dealing with the multitude of fiascoes perpetrated by the Bush Administration? Or is that too much to ask?

How about being even handed in your cries for justice?

Obviously, we have already ascertained that you and I don't agree on what is a fisaco....In fact, when it comes to national security, I like what Bush is doing (illegal immigration is one of the areas I am unhappy with Bush). Let's face it, the present is shaped and molded by the past...the reason we are facing a lot of the crises we have today (including terrorism, North Korea and Iran) is because of the Dems and their handling of foreign policy.... their domestic policy didn't give me any warm fuzzies either and we are still trying to cope with a lot of the "fiascoes" they created there too.
 

Gem

Rookie
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
2,080
Reaction score
783
Points
0
Bully Wrote:
PHP:
Still living in the past, I see. And EVERYTHING is Goatboy's fault. Hows about living in the present and dealing with the multitude of fiascoes perpetrated by the Bush Administration? Or is that too much to ask?

Yes, exactly...god forbid the Democrats had to actually deal with the fact that many of Bush's Iraq policies come directly from Clinton policies and intel OR with the fact that many of Bush's so-called "scandals" are things that the Clinton administration did frequently...but got a pass from the media who did things like offer two seperate approval ratings in order to keep Americans willing to accept the President.

Give me a break, Bully...the man was President of the United States and his administration's choices and decisions have direct relevance on the world we find ourselves in today. To state that we can not discuss him because he no longer sits in the oval office is ridiculous. (Well, its more sad in your case...because anytime you bring up this argument you are doing so to deflect away from his numerous scandals and/or poor policy decisions).

It is often quite useful to look back at previous administrations to see how we have gotten to where we are. Its useful in particular, as it relates to this topic, to look at all of Clinton's invasive intrusions into people's lives, his "charitable donations" of military intelligence to various nations, his statements and beliefs about what needed to be done in Iraq...to see not only a few reasons why the Bush administration may have proceeded the way it has...not to mention the way the mainstream media spins things the way they want to.

And you should consider the precedent you are working so despereately to set up here, buddy....after all, Bush won't be president forever...and are you seriously going to sit around telling people "Hey now...we can't talk about Bush's policies, decisions, mistakes, and/or scandals...hes no longer the President so he must be taken off the table immediately. Everything that is going on can ONLY be blamed on the current president...don't look at the previous administration for any indication of why we are where we are!"

No, of course you won't, Bully. Like so many others who have touted the "keep Clinton out of this!" argument, you will immediately jump your high and mighty ship - screeching all the way down about how its all Bush's fault.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: CSM

acludem

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
49
Points
71
Location
Missouri
This is little more than GOP political opportunism. The GOP will take any opportunity to take a swipe at the New York Times because they hate it. The New York Times printed the truth and the GOP hates it because it makes the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress look bad heading into election season. The information didn't compromise the war effort. It may piss some troops off, but so what? Why should the adminstration be allowed to lie to people who are dying for our country?

acludem
 

rtwngAvngr

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2004
Messages
15,755
Reaction score
512
Points
48
acludem said:
This is little more than GOP political opportunism. The GOP will take any opportunity to take a swipe at the New York Times because they hate it. The New York Times printed the truth and the GOP hates it because it makes the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress look bad heading into election season. The information didn't compromise the war effort. It may piss some troops off, but so what? Why should the adminstration be allowed to lie to people who are dying for our country?

acludem


It's classified operations information. Your partisanship has completely put you over the edge. WHy do you hate america so much?
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
acludem said:
This is little more than GOP political opportunism. The GOP will take any opportunity to take a swipe at the New York Times because they hate it. The New York Times printed the truth and the GOP hates it because it makes the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress look bad heading into election season. The information didn't compromise the war effort. It may piss some troops off, but so what? Why should the adminstration be allowed to lie to people who are dying for our country?

acludem

Amazing...simply amazing. The NYT may have printed the truth but they also compromised the the security of this nation. If you and others like you fail to see that, then you really are blind. Your lame attempt to bring the troops into this shows just how far you are willing to stretch the bounds of reality to fit your agenda.
 

Hobbit

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
5,099
Reaction score
423
Points
48
Location
Near Atlanta, GA
What if, on June 1, 1944, the NYT had printed the headline "Allies Plan Sneak Attack: False Intelligence Points Away From Real Beachead in Normandy?" Yeah, it's the truth, and the same flimsy arguments about keeping the government in check and enforcing fair play fit (it's not fair to hit them when and where they don't expect it). However, it gets people killed.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$180.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top