Osama Bin Forgotten

[dd74]

Bush et al have NO CASE. They're just pissed because the NYT took down Bush with the NSA wiretapping, and now this.

By the way: no security has been compromised yet.

Most of all, Bush et al are embarrassed because they're dirty little secrets about their dirty little war were let out, proving they can't keep dirty little secrets.

And just so you know, many media, including conservative ones, would have done the same thing. News knows no responsibility but to their readers. Final.

Bush et al are barking up the wrong tree here, embarrassing themselves each and every time they yell "TREASON!" over the fact they can't get their own affairs in order.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by dd74
Bush et al have NO CASE. They're just pissed because the NYT took down Bush with the NSA wiretapping, and now this.

By the way: no security has been compromised yet.

Most of all, Bush et al are embarrassed because they're dirty little secrets about their dirty little war were let out, proving they can't keep dirty little secrets.

No security has been compromised yet?...Is this something you know, or something YOU WANT to believe because it validates your Bush hatred?...From all honest impressions the leaks destroyed those particular programs, programs that were in place because they were effective.

Bush et al are embarrassed because what dirty little secrets were let out?...Are you talking about the programs designed and implemented to prevent another terrorist attack?

[dd74]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
No security has been compromised yet?...Is this something you know, or something YOU WANT to believe because it validates your Bush hatred?...From all honest impressions the leaks destroyed those particular programs, programs that were in place because they were effective.

Bush et al are embarrassed because what dirty little secrets were let out?...Are you talking about the programs designed and implemented to prevent another terrorist attack?

Bush hatred? What gives you that idea?

[Rodeo]

July 7, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

The Treason Card
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The nature of the right-wing attack on The New York Times — an attack not on the newspaper's judgment, but on its motives — seems to have startled many people in the news media. After an editorial in The Wall Street Journal declared that The Times has what amount to treasonous intentions — that it "has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it" — The Journal's own political editor pronounced himself "shocked," saying that "I don't know anybody on the news staff of The Wall Street Journal that believes that."

But anyone who was genuinely shocked by The Journal's willingness to play the treason card must not have been paying attention these past five years.

Over the last few months a series of revelations have confirmed what should have been obvious a long time ago: the Bush administration and the movement it leads have been engaged in an authoritarian project, an effort to remove all the checks and balances that have heretofore constrained the executive branch.

Much of this project involves the assertion of unprecedented executive authority — the right to imprison people indefinitely without charges (and torture them if the administration feels like it), the right to wiretap American citizens without court authorization, the right to declare, when signing laws passed by Congress, that the laws don't really mean what they say.

But an almost equally important aspect of the project has been the attempt to create a political environment in which nobody dares to criticize the administration or reveal inconvenient facts about its actions. And that attempt has relied, from the beginning, on ascribing treasonous motives to those who refuse to toe the line. As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan "attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism."

Those of us who tried to call attention to this authoritarian project years ago have long marveled over the reluctance of many of our colleagues to acknowledge what was going on. For example, for a long time many people in the mainstream media applied a peculiar double standard to political speech, denouncing perfectly normal if forceful political rhetoric from the left as poisonous "Bush hatred," while chuckling indulgently over venom from the right. (That Ann Coulter, she's such a kidder.)

But now the chuckling has stopped: somehow, nobody seems to find calls to send Bill Keller to the gas chamber funny. And while the White House clearly believes that attacking The Times is a winning political move, it doesn't have to turn out that way — not if enough people realize what's at stake.

For I think that most Americans still believe in the principle that the president isn't a king, that he isn't entitled to operate without checks and balances. And President Bush is especially unworthy of our trust, because on every front — from his refusal to protect chemical plants to his officials' exposure of Valerie Plame, from his toleration of war profiteering to his decision to place the C.I.A. in the hands of an incompetent crony — he has consistently played politics with national security.

And he has done so with the approval and encouragement of the same people now attacking The New York Times for its alleged lack of patriotism.

Does anyone remember the editorial that The Wall Street Journal published on Sept. 19, 2001? "So much for Florida," the editorial began, celebrating the way the terrorist attack had pushed aside concerns over the legitimacy of the Supreme Court decision that installed Mr. Bush in the White House. The Journal then warned Mr. Bush not to give in to the "temptation" to "subjugate everything else to the priority of getting bipartisan support for the war on terrorism." Instead, it urged him to use the "political capital" generated by the atrocity to push through tax cuts and right-wing judicial appointments.

Things have changed since then: Mr. Bush's ability to wrap his power grab in the flag has diminished now that most Americans no longer consider him either competent or honest. But the administration and its supporters still believe that they can win political battles by impugning the patriotism of those who won't go along.

For the sake of our country, let's hope that they're wrong.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by dd74
Bush et al have NO CASE. They're just pissed because the NYT took down Bush with the NSA wiretapping, and now this.

By the way: no security has been compromised yet.

Most of all, Bush et al are embarrassed because they're dirty little secrets about their dirty little war were let out, proving they can't keep dirty little secrets.

And just so you know, many media, including conservative ones, would have done the same thing. News knows no responsibility but to their readers. Final.

Bush et al are barking up the wrong tree here, embarrassing themselves each and every time they yell "TREASON!" over the fact they can't get their own affairs in order.

No case huh? You really do live and work at Disney, in a fantasy world! When many of us wore a uniform, had we done what the NYT editor did, we would not pass go, and would head directly to Leavenworth Kansas, the federal prison and sit there awaiting trial. There is no doubt that we would then be convicted and spend 10-20 years making small stones out of large ones.

Disclosing classified information or programs is let me help you here since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake AGAINST THE LAW! These idiots made the govt's case when they plastered it on the front page.

Now, just because someone is a civilian, it does not remove the penalties for disclosing classified material. Various people and agencies told the jerks at the NYT that this program was classified and NOT TO DISCLOSE ITS EXISTANCE but they did it anyway to sell newspapers.

Doubt that this had any impact on you but hopefully some of it sunk in that thick skull of yours.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
***Disclosing classified information or programs is let me help you here since you seem to be a bit slow on the uptake AGAINST THE LAW! ***

Who are you indicting here, the vice president, Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, or the NY Times?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
The holocast never happened either.

The National Socialists killed between 6 million and 12 million people via the camps and other programs other than warfare. The 20th century Democide web site says more than 20 million, and that may be the most accurate. The actual figures vary according to who you hear it from.

The Chinese Communists are the worldwide murder by government leaders at more than 76 million dead, the Soviet Union is second at more than 61 million dead.

Number one and number two make the German's appear to be rank amateurs.

Source: 20th Century Democide, Democide meaning murder by government other than warfare.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
No security has been compromised yet?...Is this something you know, or something YOU WANT to believe because it validates your Bush hatred?...From all honest impressions the leaks destroyed those particular programs, programs that were in place because they were effective.

Bush et al are embarrassed because what dirty little secrets were let out?...Are you talking about the programs designed and implemented to prevent another terrorist attack?

There is no government secret worth keeping when it endangers America and American freedom. I'd rather have it all exposed and no secrets allowed than have a newspaper or other media not reveal government lawbreaking, or even government activities that don't comport with what America is and should be.

The NYT is way too socialist for me, but in this case I say pour it on, and let's have another please.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by fastpat
There is no government secret worth keeping when it endangers America and American freedom. I'd rather have it all exposed and no secrets allowed than have a newspaper or other media not reveal government lawbreaking, or even government activities that don't comport with what America is and should be.

The NYT is way too socialist for me, but in this case I say pour it on, and let's have another please.

As soon as you run for President and become elected, you can institute the ideas you espouse above as long as Congress and the Senate agree with you.

Until then IT'S AGAINST THE LAW to disclose classified materials. What part of this is so difficult to understand?

[Rodeo]

Where's the outrage against the president's team, the one that leaked classified information to multiple reporters in order to slam Joe Wilson and score some political advantage in the WMD debate?

Where's the IT'S AGAINST THE LAW all caps outrage that an undercover CIA Officer was exposed, and her entire team disbanded, for the sake of political expediency?

Where's the outrage?

[Rodeo]

Like everything else it touches, the Bush/Cheney administration has made national security political. It has used the security classification/declassification process to gain political advantage over its opponents.

Why? Because it can. Because it can make all the rules and nobody can do anything about it. "We'll tell you what we want you to know, what suits our politicall goals, and throw you in jail if you print something we don't want the public to know. We classify and declassify at our whim, and the public can do nothing about it except take what we feed them and stay in the dark about what we don't."

We can't let that happen. The president can't manipulate the flow of information to the public using or disregarding the classification process as he see fit, and then express outrage when a newspaper calls him on it.

This is a democracy. This is America. We can't let that happen.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Until then IT'S AGAINST THE LAW to disclose classified materials. What part of this is so difficult to understand?

It's against the law to invade another sovereign nation.

It's against the law to spy on American citizens.

It's against the law for the US government to imprison anyone, anytime, anyplace without charges and a speedy trial.

It's against the law to violate the Constitution.

What part of that don't you understand?

If the US government breaks the law, reporting that lawbreaking is always lawful.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
[B][i]July 7, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

The Treason Card
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The nature of the right-wing attack on The New York Times blah blah blah

It is treason and Krugman knows it, otherwise why would the Democrat media circle the wagons around the old gray lady?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by fastpat
It's against the law to invade another sovereign nation.

It's against the law to spy on American citizens.

It's against the law for the US government to imprison anyone, anytime, anyplace without charges and a speedy trial.

It's against the law to violate the Constitution.

What part of that don't you understand?

If the US government breaks the law, reporting that lawbreaking is always lawful.

That you persist in your lies, at a time when we are contending with enemies that want you dead.

[Tobra]

See now Rodeo, you were rolling along pretty well, then you had to go and throw Krugman out there and blow all your credibility.

[Rodeo]

Excellent rebuttal of the Krugman piece.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by fastpat
It's against the law to invade another sovereign nation.

It's against the law to spy on American citizens.

It's against the law for the US government to imprison anyone, anytime, anyplace without charges and a speedy trial.

It's against the law to violate the Constitution.

What part of that don't you understand?

If the US government breaks the law, reporting that lawbreaking is always lawful.

Oh we understand all right. How is it that you are soooooo ready to throw the "against the law" in your "I hate the Gov" rant but then you completely ignore "the law" here....

Originally posted by fastpat
There is no government secret worth keeping when it endangers America and American freedom. I'd rather have it all exposed and no secrets allowed than have a newspaper or other media not reveal government lawbreaking, or even government activities that don't comport with what America is and should be.

Note the bold. I said this before and now it is even more obvious. Pat does not care if it is against the law so long as it accomplishes his personal goal. Giving classified info out in print because you don't like the Gov. Rodeo you still agree with Pat?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Excellent rebuttal of the Krugman piece.

Krugman is a liar and a propagandist. What would you like me to rebut?...What unremitting fact is so obvious that it cannot be refutted? What revelation has Krugman offered that hasn't simply been reheated lefist think, repeated ad nauseum, and is now accepted as truth by them and those they mislead?

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by tobster1911
***Rodeo you still agree with Pat?

I agree that when the classification process is used by the government not to hide secrets from an enemy, but to hide politically inconvenient facts from the American public, then the patriotic thing to do is expose those sham "secrets" in the sunlight.

The only "secret" regarding the bank monitoring program was the admin was once again snooping into the private lives of citizens with absolutely no checks and balances. The "secret" was that our private bank accounts could be breached at the whim of the administration, with no accountability, no record, no lawful process.

I am certain that the Bush administration's political use of the classification/declassification process has damaged our country much more deeply than a NY Times story reporting that the US Government tracks terrorist finances (duh).

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I agree that when the classification process is used by the government not to hide secrets from an enemy, but to hide politically inconvenient facts from the American public, then the patriotic thing to do is expose those sham "secrets" in the sunlight.

This just seems to me like selective outrage. You (NYT) can break the law (allegedly) to expose "politically inconvenient facts" but they (WH) can not break the law (allegedly) to expose "terrorist funds"?

I agree that the classification process can be (you have already convicted them of) misused and abused. But that does not mean that it is ok to throw it out the window and do whatever one wants.