"The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

                --Archilochus

Glenn Reynolds:
"Heh."

Barack Obama:
"Impossible to transcend."

Albert A. Gore, Jr.:
"An incontinent brute."

Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
"God damn the Gentleman Farmer."

Friends of GF's Sons:
"Is that really your dad?"

Kickball Girl:
"Keeping 'em alive until 7:45."

Hired Hand:
"I think . . . we forgot the pheasant."




I'm an
Alcoholic Yeti
in the
TTLB Ecosystem



Wednesday, July 05, 2006

New Administration Scandal



Via PowerLine.

Comments on "New Administration Scandal"

 

Anonymous 'chesty' said ... (5:55 PM) : 

...and the white house's own webmasters were even in on it. is there no end to the treason?

"I [George W. Bush] also find that because of the pervasiveness and expansiveness of the financial foundation of foreign terrorists, financial sanctions may be appropriate for those foreign persons that support or otherwise associate with these foreign terrorists. I also find that a need exists for further consultation and cooperation with, and sharing of information by, United States and foreign financial institutions as an additional tool to enable the United States to combat the financing of terrorism."

and,

"A Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center (FTAT) is up and running. The FTAT is a multi-agency task force that will identify the network of terrorist funding and freeze assets before new acts of terrorism take place."

from the President's Executive Order on terrorist financing published online at whitehouse.gov, September 26, 2001. don't believe me: {http://web.archive.org/web/20010927165657/www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-1.html} and {http://web.archive.org/web/20010926223138/www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010924-2.html}.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (6:09 PM) : 

no way could the terrorists have figured out we were tracking their finances just because the president said we were. they were as shocked as the rest of us.

 

Anonymous Anonymous said ... (8:18 PM) : 

Was there a point somewhere in that welter of words?

Is someone suggesting that the NYT published as a front-page, above-the-fold story (which included the word "secret" 12 times) something that everyone already knew? Was the lede "As everyone knows . . . "?

Their own correspondent reported last November that there was no such program. So it was successfully concealed from him.

It's time to us Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

 

Anonymous 'chesty' said ... (9:40 PM) : 

yes, there was a point. the point was this: the terrorists, unless they are astoundingly stupid, had a very good idea that their bank accounts and financial transactions were under close scrutiny from the united states government. moreover, they had a very good idea that the united states government was not doing this in a vacuum, but rather in collaboration with foreign governments and financial institutions. the united states government itself has publicly trumpeted this fact. the shocker in the times story wasn't that we were monitoring terrorists' money. everyone already knew that. except, perhaps, for a small group of conservatives who conveniently forgot they knew that over the course of the past few weeks. the shocker of the times story was that the US gov't was monitoring the financial transactions of innocent americans, too.

of course the larger picture here is that whenever the government (any government) decides to extraordinarily expand its own powers at the expense of the rights and liberties of its citizens--and, naturally, not to mention to those same citizens that it has done so--there is not just a right, but a duty of the free press as a watchdog for civil society to inform those citizens of that fact. i apologize if my prior post was at all unclear.

 

Blogger Gentleman Farmer said ... (12:49 PM) : 

It's very comforting to know that G&S has readers who know all about what terrorists know, and therefore what would (and what wouldn't) be a good idea to print in the New York Times. Nonetheless, I think I'll opt to continue to rely upon the judgment of those Government officials whose job it is to make such decisions.

So I guess we'll have to disagree: You think the NYT had a moral and patriotic obligation to print the stories that it has. I think the editors should be tried for treason and executed.

 

Anonymous 'chesty' said ... (3:02 PM) : 

fair enough. i suppose there's no reason we can't agree to disagree.

 

post a comment