The NYT and LA Times — Are Now Gone From SNAFU to FUBAR
Posted By: 'Okie' | 12:30 pm — 6/26/2006 | 
10 Comments See comments below:
SNAFU stands for “situation normal, all f*** up, and FUBAR is an acronym for “f***ed up beyond all repair”, and that is exactly the state that both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times find themselves in today. With every new story that they print about their irresponsible expose of the government’s program to track International financial transactions of the terrorists groups, they double-down on their premise that they are only providing what the public has a right to know, when what they are really doing is trying to destroy George Bush — and in the end, we will all be screwed. Too harsh? I don’t think so!
The LA Times piece today, titled Congressman Wants N.Y. Times Prosecuted, once again outlines the finance-tracking program, just in case any terrorist group might have missed it last week, and did their level best to link these SWIFT-money-transfer investigations to the NSA program of warrantless surveillance, just to cement into its readers minds that you can’t trust the Bush administration, they’re spying on YOU! Yeah, right. Pathetic, paranoid putzes! (Don’t write angry, Okie — don’t write angry!
Hey, I am angry! I agree with the remarks made by Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) on FoxNews Sunday, as reported in the above linked LAT article:
“By disclosing this in time of war, they have compromised America’s anti-terrorist policies,” said King, referring to New York Times reporters and editors. “Nobody elected the New York Times to do anything. And the New York Times is putting its own arrogant, elitist, left-wing agenda before the interests of the American people.”
Calling the report “absolutely disgraceful,” King said he would call on Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales to begin a criminal investigation of the newspaper. [Emph. mine]
And, I’ve got lots of company. Powerline posts a letter from Lt. Tom Cotton stationed in Baghdad. Here’s an excerpt:
Not anymore. You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. (…)
And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others — laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars. [Emph. mine]
They also link to this AM’s remarks by President Bush as reported by the AP in Bush slams leak of terror finance story.
“The disclosure of this program is disgraceful,” he said.
“For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America,” Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program “makes it harder to win this war on terror.”“Congress was briefed and what we did was fully authorized under the law,” Bush said, talking with reporters in the Roosevelt Room after meeting with groups that support U.S. troops in Iraq.
“We’re at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America,” the president said. “What we were doing was the right thing.”
“The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do,” Bush said. He said that to figure out what terrorists plan to do, “You try to follow their money. And that’s exactly what we’re doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror.” [Emph. mine]
Press secretary Tony Snow correctly sums it up, “Certainly nobody is going to deny First Amendment rights. But 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[.]“
But, these arrogant Liberals of the MSM know no shame. In a long explanation of why the NYT splashed the classified program all over the Net and across the front page of the Friday edition, executive editor Bill Keller’s I am god attitude is represented well in these two graphs.
We weighed most heavily the Administration’s concern that describing this program would endanger it. The central argument we heard from officials at senior levels was that international bankers would stop cooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don’t know what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argument puzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authority of a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as the Administration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and well protected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have little trouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may be unpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of international terror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is too early to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating a banker backlash against the program.
A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported —indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.
The absurdity is too obvious for commentary. But, that second statement is not isolated to the executive editor of the NYT. Juan Williams from NPR made virtually the same point yesterday in the panel discussion of this issue on FoxNews Sunday while arguing with Brit Hume. Williams stated that exposure of the financial-tracking program would stop the terrorists from moving money around that way, and since that is the only efficient method of large-amount money transfer, then the NYT had actually contributed to our efforts in the GWOT, not hindered them. The mind of a Liberal has gotta be a convoluted mess!
Go check out Hugh Hewitt’s graph-by-graph fisking of the Keller explanation.
This incredibly weak response tells us that Bill Keller will not be responding to interview requests, at least not from any critic of the paper’s decision. He doesn’t have an argument. He doesn’t have any defense other than his position as editor of a once great newspaper.
Patterico does a similar service in its review of L.A. Times Washington Bureau Chief Doyle McManus’ explanation as to why it decided to follow the NYT down this particular Road to Perdition.
The bottom line is, of course, that McManus and his colleagues took it upon themselves to decide what classified information the public (and our enemies) should know about. Bizarrely, he claims that the critical factors in his decision were whether the program was legal and had adequate safeguards — even though, as I document in a related post, it was indeed legal and had extensive safeguards in place. Thus, his excuses are an apparent cover for some other motivation, as yet unrevealed.
I personally find the paper’s decision to publish these details to be appalling and reprehensible, but I applaud McManus’s willingness to discuss it publicly.
Glenn Reynolds puts it this way:
The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn’t give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the “freedom of the press” the Framers described was also called “freedom in the use of the press.” It’s the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry. (A bit more on this topic can be found here.)
Characterizing the freedom this way, of course, makes much of Keller’s piece look like, well, just what it is — arrogant and self-justificatory posturing. (…)
Michelle Malkin has much to say and scores of links to even more, plus she’s posting copies of letters to the DOJ urging prosecutions. On her Hot Air vent you can find out where the title to this post comes from:
At Hot Air today, we resurrect the Private Snafu cartoons from WWII to try and help the Fish Wrappers understand that blabbing carries consequences. Watch the whole thing. Especially what’s in the mirror at the end of the cartoon. A very fitting reflection of Bill Keller, in my opinion.
And, as usual, even though she deigns to comment profusely on the whole mess, the Anchoress sums it up well:
My sense is this gambit is going to wash back into the Times’ cup like toddlerspit mixed with bits of peanut-butter and jelly-on-white. Keller has made a complete and utter fool of himself, done a disservice to a once-great newspaper and – most offensively – compromised an important weapon in a time of war. He deserves to be ousted to whichever commune Howell Raines disappeared. As I wrote the other day, the Fourth Estate has long-been morphing into a Fifth Column. Seems they’re there, now.
From SNAFU to totally FUBAR — in record time! “All The News That’s Fit to Print,” states the NYT masthead. Not anymore . . . now it should read, All The News That Fits Its Agenda! (db)
Technorati Tags: New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Bill Keller, Rep. Peter T. King, President Bush
This entry was posted on Monday, June 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pm and is filed under G.W.O.T., Media Bias, Media Doin' It Wrong. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Recently Posted:
- Too Late To Apologize — Hard Rockin’ Founding Fathers Edition!
- Global Warming Is Dead, Dead, DEAD — Walter Russell Mead Says So!
- Even Some Die Hard Liberals Get It — Obama Presidency Is A Bust!
- Scott Brown Wins In Massachusetts — Hell Freezes Over, Pigs Be a Flyin’ — Dems On Suicide Watch!
- Dems In Massachusetts — They Can’t Win If They Don’t Cheat!
- More Global Warming Horse Hockey From The Scientific Consensus
- Scott Brown Ahead in Massachusetts Polling!
- America Rising
- Happy New Year?
- More On The Obama/Interpol Sovereignty SANFU
26 June 2006 | gregdn Said:
I notice the Wall Street Journal gets off easy- they published the same information but bloggers apparently are reserving their vitriol for the NYT and LA Times.
Double standard?
26 June 2006 | OkieBoy Said:
The NYT and its little buddy, the LAT broke the story first. After that the damage was done, and WaPo, WSJ and others followed the dynamic duo like lemmings.
I wish that they had kept mum, but what would have been the point? The NYT is everywhere, the LAT likes to think it is.
But, you do have a valid point. Shame on all of them!
27 June 2006 | Trevor Said:
Far beit for me to exercise common sense but where is the outrage for the individual(s) in the system who leaked this information to the NYT, LAT and whatever other so-called “Liberal” media outlets. These are the ones that broke the law and not the LAT or NYT. Another childish excuse to hate Liberals. This is America and we have a Constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech and free press. Sometimes that can be a bad thing but when you start calling for criminal investigations and prosecutions, well lets just all move to Iran where their press system is conducive to our “patriotic” values. “Oh think of our poor troops!!!” As if you honestly give a crap about them!!! When the MSM revealed the identity of a CIA NOC agent, it exposed and caused the plug to be pulled on a very effective operation in Niger that was vital in the war on terror. Now a terrorist organization can be in possession of yellow cake and planning on using it against our troops and the best the Right-wing can come up with in support of our soldier’s lives is “she wasn’t covert!” Oh that explains the grand jury hearings and Scooter Libby’s predicament because “she wasn’t covert!” It’s a Liberal plot. “If Liberals get upset over this treason, we’ll just attack their character…that’s how we’ll support our troops.” She was NOC…look it up and where were you in demanding that those responsible in the media and in the Administration were to be held accountable? “Oh but their not Liberals and can do no wrong so f##k our troops if they don’t like it!” Where was your outrage then? How many double standards do y’all have?
27 June 2006 | prying1 Said:
What gets me is the lefties seem to think that these programs are all about them and their privacy. As if these jokers have enough money in the bank to warrant being in the ‘Swift Database”. Same thing with the phone numbers.
The lefties seem to think that the surveillance is against lefties. Insignificant slugs that they be. – They need to be reminded that they are not worth the bitspace or bandwidth much less the manpower involved with these programs.
These programs were set up and utilized to capture bad guys. Although lefties have diminished brainspace and can be irritating at times this does not come anywhere near the interest level that the terrorists demand and receive from our government.
28 June 2006 | Trevor Said:
Yes prying1, your childish attempts at insults against the “Lefties” makes you a prime candidate for somebody who would need SWIFT. You need some help with more insults against the Left, my eight year old can give you a few good digs that have helped her on the playground at her school. My eight-year old may also teach you how to make a point in between childish banter which is something that a 2nd grade student knows how to do and she can teach you so then you can know how too. Another thing my eight-year old can teach you is how NOT to copy what all the other students are saying and actually come up with good childish banter on your own. My eight-year old calls it “thinking for yourself” as she doesn’t just copy-cat what all the other children are saying in unison as a desperate attempt to fit in with the masses of the clones. My eght-year old has her own identity so she doesn’t become just another of “the same”.
My eight-year old also knows that the SWIFT program is used by a bunch of very powerful financial institutions and their holding trusts and that many of these institutions have very wealthy clients who are guaranteed privacy under SEC, NASD, Commodities Boards, Options Boards and the Uniform Securites Act and expect the ultimate of sanctity and security when it comes to their overseas transactions. Alot of these wealthy clients are GOP and Democrat supporters and don’t like the barely legal immigrant Bush appointed as Attorney General monitoring their affairs. My eight-year old understands that some of these wealthy elite constitute the most important part of the GOP base and my eight-year old understands why the NYT and the LAT chose to release the story and why the WSJ was all over it too. My eight-year old understands that when you constantly whine and bitch and bad mouth the “Liberal Media”, well the so-called “Liberal Media” can strike back and strike back reaaaalllll good too. Hey, just call it Plamegate II but my eight-year old wants to make sure you know your place bitch…NEVER MESS WITH LIBERALS!!! My eight-year old can teach you more if you need.
28 June 2006 | Trevor Said:
And this still does not change the fact that people within the Administration’s system continuously keep leaking supposedly classified information to the press outlets. These are the individuals that continuously break the law. Is it the New York Times fault that this administration operates at such a low ethics level that it can’t even gain the trust of it’s own team members?
28 June 2006 | OkieBoy Said:
It looks like we have a troll here at “Okie”. I’m leaving Trevor’s comments unedited so that we all can learn what an un-hinged Liberal-in-the-wild is like. With the above two comments, he raises “your childish attempts at insults” to an art form.
I think he’s been spending too much time around 8-year olds!
Seriously, Trevor –
Whether the NSA warrantless communication program was “legal” or not will probably be decided in the Supreme Court, but many Constitutional and legal scholars believe that the Executive Branch has this power, especially in a time of war. The SWIFT program has not been called “illegal” in any of the NYT or LAT or WSJ articles, but it was always referred to as a “classified” program, and leaking classified info is ALWAYS against the law. You might want to consider that.
And, if it’s such a worry to be rich and powerful, you might want to start watching out for what Ted Kennedy, Diane Finestein, John Kerry, Jane Harmon and Nancy Pelosi are doing — they are some of the wealthiest Senators in Washington. They might be out to get ya! Better put on that foil hat — hurry!!!
28 June 2006 | Trevor Said:
I enjoy how I get pointed out for “unhinged” behavior but you seem totally fine with prying1 and his “unhinged” behavior? So many standards, so little time. I admit, my initial response was foolish and normally I know better than lowering myself to take the “unhinged” bait form the truly “unhinged”. I usually don’t succumb to the trigger words by those with no authority like “unhinged” and “Godless” and all the rest of the propaganda. For that, I owe you an apology. Still…my eight-year old does know better.
The subject though is still avoided: where is the outrage towards those within the system who truly broke the law? If this was truly classified information and thats easy to tell that it was classified by the court orders and halt injunctions the administration leveled against the LAT and NYT to prevent this classified information from going public, then individuals within the administration’s system truly broke the law and are being given a free pass for the sole purpose of more childish banter against the so-called Liberal media. It’s not justice, it’s politics! Another election year and yet another polarizing stunt to divide and conquer the country. These polarizing stunts are becoming so predictable you can practically set your watch to them. This NYT nonsense has got Karl Rove written all over it. Thank God the majority in this country are finally getting smart enough to see through it.
So this administration pleaded with the left-leaning NYT and the LAT to not run the story but by its own admission, the right-leaning WSJ was never approached by any member of Congress, the Senate or this administration to not run this story. Even if the NYT and LAT had complied with the administration’s wishes, the story was still going to come out from the right-leaning WSJ. See a problem with that do ya? AND the WSJ did print the story and nobody on the right seems to have a problem with the so called Right-wing media revealing national security secrets. How many standards do you have again? Nobody on the Right cares that somebody leaked this information to the press. Hello? Those are the ones that broke the law. Another example of how this Administration cannot keeps its ranks in line and chooses not to prosecute the truly guilty ones for the sole purpose of polarizing the country on yet another election year.
Now I’m willing to admit that perhaps the NYT, LAT and the WSJ acted irresponsible in revealing the International Wire Transfer operation that President Bush told us about in a press conference at the White House on Sept 24, 2001. Maybe the WSJ, LAT and NYT acted irresponsible in revealing the same plan the the Secretary of Treasury, O’Neil told us about in detail in a press conference on Nov 7, 2001. Maybe the LAT, WSJ and the NYT acted irresponsible in revealing the details of the exact same plan that the UN revealed in a 30 page report in 2003. Maybe the NYT, LAT and the WSJ acted irresponsible in seeing the harmlessness of revealing the exact information that was revealed in a right-wing insider book released a few weeks ago in which I believe the title is “The One Percent Doctrine”. Maybe the WSJ, NYT and the LAT understood the harmlessness when Fox news did a segment a few weeks back describing in detail how the Al Qaeda are no longer using the International Wire Transfer system and haven’t used it since 2001 and are now resorting to using hard currency like cash, gold and diamonds and transporting this financing through carriers. Maybe the Al Qaeda decided to stop using the INternational Wire Transfer system after President Bush revealed details of this supposedly secret plan on September 24, 2001 or Sec of Treasury O’Neil gave even more details about this top secret plan on Nov 7, 2001. Maybe Bush and O’Neil should be facing charges of treason by now? If they were Democrats, you bet your ass they would be. For once, pretend Clinton was doing these things and that should give you a real good idea of how many standards you have. Its an election year, the country needs to be polarized and I need to reset my watch. There are Right-wing drones, there are Left-wing moonbats and both of them combined are a minority. Then there are those in the center who took control away from the Democrats in the 90s. It’s time for a change again. Just don’t come unhinged about it.
28 June 2006 | OkieBoy Said:
Trevor,
Thanks for a much more reasoned comment — I appreciate that. Now, we are having a dialog and not a Hannity & Colmes special moment.
I’m certainly not at all happy with those that leaked this “classified” information to the NYT, and I hope that a full Justice Department Investigation will find out whose those 20 some-odd pathetic, Bush-hating individuals happen to be, and I hope that they are prosecuted and put away for a long time. If any direct deaths by terrorism can be laid at their feet, the leakers can be shot for all I care.
What is plain to see is that if the I-don’t-give-a-crap-about-America New York Times editorial staff and the rest of the MSM would show some self-restraint and not print leaked classified info, the leakers would have no mass-distribution for their Bush/America damaging actions.
You don’t seem to understand that the Executive branch is chock full of lifers, just like the Post Office, and they don’t care if the name on the white house in-box says Bush, Clinton of Jackoff — they’ll be there long after whatever current WH resident retires or is voted out of office. Those types, with their own political agendas, are the ones that are leaking, not the Bush loyalists.
Nail ‘em to the wall, I say!
28 June 2006 | Trevor Said:
Thats a feasable theory. I still find it difficult to beleive that its not a polarizing stunt. Adolph Hitler once said “If you divide people against each other, you can conquer them all!” Now this is not some “Moonbat Liberal” analogy of the Right in comparing them to Nazis but the statement still stands as a fact and those on the Left are just as guilty of it. Honestly, did you ever expect to see in your lifetime the word “Liberal” spoken with the same venomous bigotry as the word “nigger”?
I just find this difficult to be taken seriously. The problem now is there is a consortium of 32 countries who are pursuing legal action against SWIFT because they don’t appreciate their international wire transfers going through the US White House without their knowledge or permission. This can be bad! Still…NYT crossed a line? Maybe! But so did other publications and it surely isn’t the first time. This can be the price to pay sometimes to live in a Constitutionally protected democracy that guarantees the people a free press system.