http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006 ... erous.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006 ... r-and.html
NYT wants Al Qaeda to kill Cheney and Rumsfeld
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4591
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
NYT wants Al Qaeda to kill Cheney and Rumsfeld
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
Bennett Cerf
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
I like the part where the right-wing bloggers publish the home address of the photographer in "retaliation."
What I always envision when I hear screeching of this sort is what sort of country these people would like us to live in.
The right is so drunk on war and violence that they don't know when to stop. They see enemies everywhere. They want to turn this country into a locked-down police state (with the ultimate aim of maintaining the present power structure) and repeal all civil liberties.
In short, they're just like Saddam.
Ryan
What I always envision when I hear screeching of this sort is what sort of country these people would like us to live in.
The right is so drunk on war and violence that they don't know when to stop. They see enemies everywhere. They want to turn this country into a locked-down police state (with the ultimate aim of maintaining the present power structure) and repeal all civil liberties.
In short, they're just like Saddam.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4591
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
It gets better:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005480.htm
"What news value and journalistic end was served by publishing the Cheney/Rumsfeld vacation home piece and the accompanying photo? "Because Rumsfeld gave permission" may cut it with the moonbats and fairweather privocrats. Not with me."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/BlogEntry.asp?ID=679
"The critics of my blog make several points. The location of presidential retreats is generally known from Kennebunkport to Crawford. Bill and Hillary’s home in New York has been frequently photographed and identified. The Cheney and Rumsfeld. homes have been identified in the press before. Both homes are protected by the Secret Service. Besides Rumsfeld gave permission to the photographer to take the picture. Finally, al-Qaeda found the World Trade Center; it can find Cheney and Rumsfeld.
My answer to these critics is as follows. These are not presidential retreats which are indeed frequently featured in the news. We are in the midst of two wars – a war with fanatical religious terrorists (I know it’s hard for lefties to relate to this) and a domestic political war more savage than in any comparable context since the American Civil War – worse by far than Vietnam because the paranoia and hate directed at this Administration comes from leaders of the Democratic Party and the “establishment” media not just crackpots. It is in the context of this hatred directed among others at Rumsfeld and Cheney that the Times action has to be assessed.
[...]
Finally, the fact that Rumsfeld responded to the Times request to take the pictures means what? What else could he say? He lives under conditions of danger that go with waging a war in behalf of this country, intensified by what magnitude one can only guess th the divisive and hate-filled propaganda of the left and antiwar liberals. Yes he is protected by the Secret Service so for him it’s just a marginally greater risk of the job. My point, however, wasn’t the magnitude of the increased risk, but the magnitude of the Times disregard for common decencies, and what should be common concerns. If Rumsfeld had said "no" to the Times' request, that would merely have confirmed their view of this administration as secretive and repressive (though by any objective standard the Clinton Administration, in peacetime was both far more secretive in regard to information and more aggressive in attacking its domestic enemies). Does this mean that when the Rumsfeld family goes to town now its risks are not heightened? Hardly."
Hmm. If the right cares so much about the security of Dick and Rummy, why exactly are they calling so much attention to this article? Is that just making the "situation" worse?
More here.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005480.htm
"What news value and journalistic end was served by publishing the Cheney/Rumsfeld vacation home piece and the accompanying photo? "Because Rumsfeld gave permission" may cut it with the moonbats and fairweather privocrats. Not with me."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/BlogEntry.asp?ID=679
"The critics of my blog make several points. The location of presidential retreats is generally known from Kennebunkport to Crawford. Bill and Hillary’s home in New York has been frequently photographed and identified. The Cheney and Rumsfeld. homes have been identified in the press before. Both homes are protected by the Secret Service. Besides Rumsfeld gave permission to the photographer to take the picture. Finally, al-Qaeda found the World Trade Center; it can find Cheney and Rumsfeld.
My answer to these critics is as follows. These are not presidential retreats which are indeed frequently featured in the news. We are in the midst of two wars – a war with fanatical religious terrorists (I know it’s hard for lefties to relate to this) and a domestic political war more savage than in any comparable context since the American Civil War – worse by far than Vietnam because the paranoia and hate directed at this Administration comes from leaders of the Democratic Party and the “establishment” media not just crackpots. It is in the context of this hatred directed among others at Rumsfeld and Cheney that the Times action has to be assessed.
[...]
Finally, the fact that Rumsfeld responded to the Times request to take the pictures means what? What else could he say? He lives under conditions of danger that go with waging a war in behalf of this country, intensified by what magnitude one can only guess th the divisive and hate-filled propaganda of the left and antiwar liberals. Yes he is protected by the Secret Service so for him it’s just a marginally greater risk of the job. My point, however, wasn’t the magnitude of the increased risk, but the magnitude of the Times disregard for common decencies, and what should be common concerns. If Rumsfeld had said "no" to the Times' request, that would merely have confirmed their view of this administration as secretive and repressive (though by any objective standard the Clinton Administration, in peacetime was both far more secretive in regard to information and more aggressive in attacking its domestic enemies). Does this mean that when the Rumsfeld family goes to town now its risks are not heightened? Hardly."
Hmm. If the right cares so much about the security of Dick and Rummy, why exactly are they calling so much attention to this article? Is that just making the "situation" worse?
More here.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4591
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
Here's the original treason.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
When I read stuff like that "frontpagemag" blog, I always picture the author typing on a laptop under his bed, perpetually pissing his footie pajamas* with fear that Osama and Hillary are coming to get him.
Sometimes he sucks his thumb.
Ryan
* It only encouraged this view when the right-wing uberblog "Pajamas Media" was announced.
Sometimes he sucks his thumb.
Ryan
* It only encouraged this view when the right-wing uberblog "Pajamas Media" was announced.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4591
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
krabapple wrote:This whole thing is blowing up in the rightwing bloggers' piggy faces. Ex-cellent.
NO! NO! You're an unhinged moonbat!
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
Bennett Cerf
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4591
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
A nice op-ed about what's a good leak and what isn't:
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/colu ... 32&ntpid=2
John Nichols: For Bush, some leaks better than others
By John Nichols, June 29, 2006
June 29, 2006
In a democracy, the first responsibility of a journalist is to get accurate information about what the government is doing to the people so that they can make appropriate decisions about what is done in their name.
That's why the founders put an unequivocal freedom of the press protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it's why Thomas Jefferson famously declared, "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
Of course, there have been some limits on what information journalists share with the citizenry. It is generally agreed, for instance, that reporters ought not report in too much detail on troop movements in wartime, as the publication of such information could endanger soldiers and undermine military objectives.
So when the Washington press corps began reporting this week on leaked information about planning by U.S. commanders in Iraq to withdraw two of the 14 combat brigades stationed in that country by September of this year, it would not have been surprising if the stories had raised eyebrows among the more sensitive players in the Bush administration.
While this is hardly a classic example of "reporting on troop movements," it is an instance where the media are getting into quite a bit of detail about where U.S. troops will be positioned in the none-too-distant future. As an example, television networks are showing maps of the regions of Iraq from which U.S. troops might exit in relatively short order.
So what has been the reaction of a White House that is known to be on edge about leaks regarding the deployment of U.S. troops in coming months?
President Bush and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow have both ruminated on the rumors in some detail. Each has suggested that no decision has yet been made, and they have even detailed the standards that are being used to come to decisions about withdrawal.
The conversations have been easy going, and White House reporters have felt no presidential fury. Contrast that reaction to the response by the president, his aides and allies to reports in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal that the president has authorized federal agencies to monitor the banking transactions of private citizens.
Ostensibly, the monitoring is intended to track transfers of money by supposed terrorists. But the program, like many of the administration's other moves to monitor the conversations and business dealings of private individuals, has been implemented in secret, without the subpoenas that are traditionally required for such reviews, and in a manner designed to avoid the sort of independent governmental oversight that is supposed to prevent abuse.
Now, it would be ridiculous to think that Osama bin Laden or anyone else associated with al-Qaida would be naive enough to think that they could transfer large amounts of money through regular banking channels without being found out. So the revelation of the monitoring could hardly be called a threat to the "war on terror" at least, not by anyone who knows anything about dealing with terrorist networks.
Yet, President Bush went ballistic about reporting on the monitoring, telling White House reporters, "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America. And for people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."
Vice President Cheney was even blunter, saying, "Some of the press, particularly the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security pro^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^grams."
Bush allies in Congress have even called for the prosecution of the New York Times for revealing to Americans the extent to which they are being spied upon.
So why is the Bush administration so freaked out about a leak regarding a spying program that could not possibly have come as news to any terrorists but that certainly might interest average Americans? And why isn't the president concerned about leaks regarding specific redeployments of troops in the near future?
There's no mystery.
The leak about spying on bank records will feed concerns about the extent that this administration has engaged in spying on citizens. That could be politically damaging.
On the other hand, the leak about planning for troop deployments coming at a time when the majority of Americans say they want to see a plan for getting the U.S. out of Iraq eases the political pressure on the president and his Republican allies.
What's the bottom line? The cynical Bush White House has always seen the "war on terror" as a political tool. The president and his allies heeding the advice of White House political czar Karl Rove regularly tailor their responses to new developments to benefit their domestic political fortunes while undermining the prospects of their political foes.
Leaks about plans for troop redeployment are fine with the president because they could help him and his congressional allies politically.
Leaks about the administration spying on citizens, on the other hand, are "disgraceful" because they could cause the president and his Republicans acolytes political harm.
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/colu ... 32&ntpid=2
John Nichols: For Bush, some leaks better than others
By John Nichols, June 29, 2006
June 29, 2006
In a democracy, the first responsibility of a journalist is to get accurate information about what the government is doing to the people so that they can make appropriate decisions about what is done in their name.
That's why the founders put an unequivocal freedom of the press protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and it's why Thomas Jefferson famously declared, "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."
Of course, there have been some limits on what information journalists share with the citizenry. It is generally agreed, for instance, that reporters ought not report in too much detail on troop movements in wartime, as the publication of such information could endanger soldiers and undermine military objectives.
So when the Washington press corps began reporting this week on leaked information about planning by U.S. commanders in Iraq to withdraw two of the 14 combat brigades stationed in that country by September of this year, it would not have been surprising if the stories had raised eyebrows among the more sensitive players in the Bush administration.
While this is hardly a classic example of "reporting on troop movements," it is an instance where the media are getting into quite a bit of detail about where U.S. troops will be positioned in the none-too-distant future. As an example, television networks are showing maps of the regions of Iraq from which U.S. troops might exit in relatively short order.
So what has been the reaction of a White House that is known to be on edge about leaks regarding the deployment of U.S. troops in coming months?
President Bush and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow have both ruminated on the rumors in some detail. Each has suggested that no decision has yet been made, and they have even detailed the standards that are being used to come to decisions about withdrawal.
The conversations have been easy going, and White House reporters have felt no presidential fury. Contrast that reaction to the response by the president, his aides and allies to reports in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal that the president has authorized federal agencies to monitor the banking transactions of private citizens.
Ostensibly, the monitoring is intended to track transfers of money by supposed terrorists. But the program, like many of the administration's other moves to monitor the conversations and business dealings of private individuals, has been implemented in secret, without the subpoenas that are traditionally required for such reviews, and in a manner designed to avoid the sort of independent governmental oversight that is supposed to prevent abuse.
Now, it would be ridiculous to think that Osama bin Laden or anyone else associated with al-Qaida would be naive enough to think that they could transfer large amounts of money through regular banking channels without being found out. So the revelation of the monitoring could hardly be called a threat to the "war on terror" at least, not by anyone who knows anything about dealing with terrorist networks.
Yet, President Bush went ballistic about reporting on the monitoring, telling White House reporters, "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America. And for people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."
Vice President Cheney was even blunter, saying, "Some of the press, particularly the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security pro^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^grams."
Bush allies in Congress have even called for the prosecution of the New York Times for revealing to Americans the extent to which they are being spied upon.
So why is the Bush administration so freaked out about a leak regarding a spying program that could not possibly have come as news to any terrorists but that certainly might interest average Americans? And why isn't the president concerned about leaks regarding specific redeployments of troops in the near future?
There's no mystery.
The leak about spying on bank records will feed concerns about the extent that this administration has engaged in spying on citizens. That could be politically damaging.
On the other hand, the leak about planning for troop deployments coming at a time when the majority of Americans say they want to see a plan for getting the U.S. out of Iraq eases the political pressure on the president and his Republican allies.
What's the bottom line? The cynical Bush White House has always seen the "war on terror" as a political tool. The president and his allies heeding the advice of White House political czar Karl Rove regularly tailor their responses to new developments to benefit their domestic political fortunes while undermining the prospects of their political foes.
Leaks about plans for troop redeployment are fine with the president because they could help him and his congressional allies politically.
Leaks about the administration spying on citizens, on the other hand, are "disgraceful" because they could cause the president and his Republicans acolytes political harm.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
Yet, President Bush went ballistic about reporting on the monitoring, telling White House reporters, "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America. And for people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America."
Vice President Cheney was even blunter, saying, "Some of the press, particularly the New York Times, have made the job of defending against further terrorist attacks more difficult by insisting on publishing detailed information about vital national security pro^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^grams."
I say we outlaw "CSI" because it shows people how to commit crime and not get caught.
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney