Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Speaking of hypocritical on both stories, widely discussed.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.
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
Not enough, not when the kind of stories coming out, come out.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.
I believe that was 'published timetables...' C'mon Bully, don't play semantics.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?
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?
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.
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.
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?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>
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!
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?
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?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
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
