We are talking about the Bush administration aren’t we?

No surprize there either. For chrissakes, did anyone on the planet NOT know about this tracking? Jeeeezus.

From the original NYT piece:

“The idea for the Swift program, several officials recalled, grew out of a suggestion by a Wall Street executive, who told a senior Bush administration official about Swift’s database. Few government officials knew much about the consortium, which is led by a Brooklyn native, Leonard H. Schrank, but they quickly discovered it offered unparalleled access to international transactions. Swift, a former government official said, was “the mother lode, the Rosetta stone” for financial data.”

To posit that the terrorists already knew all about this is ludicrous given that high ranking government officials had little or no detailed knowledge about the program- it took someone in the know. There is no question that terrorists were put on notice that we would attack their funding, we made that very clear immediately after 9/11. I don’t think you can argue that all the terrorists would’ve been fully aware of all the risks they took making money transfers prior to the NYT leak.

The counterterrorismblog link is interesting, but obviously, Hambali and his group of operatives didn’t know about it, or even if they did, they didn’t realize how it could be used to trace back to them. Now that they know about it, and that it caught Hambali, they’ll reverse-engineer what happened to figure out how they got caught, and won’t make that mistake again. The fact that experts in the field were aware of some interest in SWIFT by the US, and that it was in a report on the UN website doesn’t prove your point at all. See above.

Consider also the Chicago Tribune, in 1943, had published information that inplied that we had broken the Japanese Codes. Did you know that? Fortunately, since there was no internet in WWII, the Japanese did not discover the leak. From Wiki:
“Public notice had actually been served that Japanese cryptography was dangerously inadequate by the Chicago Tribune, which published a series of stories just after Midway in 1942 directly claiming — correctly, of course — that the victory was due in large part to US breaks into Japanese crypto systems (in this case, the JN-25 cypher, though which system(s) had been broken was not mentioned in the newspaper stories). Fortunately, neither the Japanese nor anyone who might have told them seem to have noticed either the Tribune coverage, or the stories based on the Tribune account published in other US papers. Nor did they notice announcements made on the floor of the US Congress to the same effect. There were no changes in Japanese cryptography which could, then or now, be connected with those newspaper accounts or Congressional disclosures.”

Roosevelt nearly raided the Trib Tower because of this incident.
Japanese intelligence agents and spies whose careers were about gathering information didn’t pick this up. Lesson: Don’t assume they know something just because the info is out there somewhere.
What’s different today is that when the NYT puts a story like this on A-1, everyone else will be on it as well, and there’s no missing it. The Trib got lucky in 1943, the NYT doesn’t have that escape valve today.

Let’s also ask you this:
If it was so plainly old news, why column one, above the fold, A-1? I think that’s fair indication that the NYT didn’t think everyone knew about it already, don’t you?

As for “the public interest”, posting a link to a definition is nice I suppose, but perhaps you could work up an actual argument as to how this article was specifically in the public interest.

You’re having a nice go at it, but even Keller isn’t making the arguments you are. Maybe you should ask yourself “why not?”

Of course, it is entirely possible you are more intelligent than Keller. Neither he nor Baquet are very bright, apparently. Baquet didn’t even bother to consult with his Washington Bureau chief, Doyle McManus to get their stories straight. Info I know I posted this on another thread…

OK, so I will troll this for y’all
…
Falsehood: Times article tipped off terrorists to U.S. bank-tracking efforts

In the wake of the June 23 Times article, Bush administration officials and numerous conservative media figures claimed that the newspaper had informed terrorists that their international transactions were being monitored. Vice President Dick Cheney said that the story “will enable the terrorists to look for ways to defeat our efforts.” Treasury Secretary John W. Snow wrote that the article had “alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.” Meanwhile, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin claimed that the Times had “tipped off terrorists to America’s efforts to track their financial activities.” Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby alleged that the reports on the program “sabotaged” and “deliberately compromised a crucial counterterrorism tool.” And the editors of National Review warned, “The terrorists will now adapt. They will find new ways of transferring funds, and precious lines of intelligence will be lost.”

But long before June 23, Bush and other administration officials acknowledged that terrorists were increasingly using other methods of transferring money to evade detection.

So, it is as I had said, that the terrorists were already using other methods of transferring funds BEFORE July 21.

BUSH said so…

Again -

That terrorist organizations would be aware of international efforts to track their finances is not surprising, as Bush administration officials have publicly touted the government’s capability to do so for years. For instance, shortly after 9-11, Bush heralded the establishment of a “foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks.” On November 7, 2001, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill announced that the United States, along with an “international coalition,” had begun “to block assets, to seize books, records and evidence, and to follow audit trails to track terrorist cells poised to do violence to our common interests.” In a September 10, 2004, statement, the Treasury Department disclosed “some of the many weapons used against terrorist networks,” which included “following money trails to previously unknown terrorist cells.” An April 2006 Treasury Department report similarly noted that the department “follows the terrorists’ money trails aggressively, exploits them for intelligence, and severs links where we can.”

Next point -

Falsehood: Nobody has questioned the legality of the Treasury Dept. program

Conservative media figures such as Fox News host Bill O’Reilly and right-wing pundit Ann Coulter have claimed that “no one thinks” the bank-tracking program “violates any laws.” But as Media Matters noted, various legal experts and politicians have publicly questioned the legality of the newly disclosed program.

And again…

Falsehood: Times’ justification for bank-tracking story opens the door to disclosure of any classified information

in his concurrence in the 1971 case New York Times v. United States, Justice William Brennan cited this passage from Near to describe the “single, extremely narrow class of cases in which the First Amendment’s ban on prior judicial restraint may be overridden.” Justice Potter Stewart, in another concurrence, argued that publication should be prevented only if “disclosure of any of them [the documents at issue] will surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people” — a standard that the administration evidently thought the bank-tracking story did not meet, as there is no indication that the administration asked a court to enjoin publication.

From another article…

the United Nations Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group learned of the SWIFT program years ago — a fact the group incorporated into its December 2002 report to the U.N. Security Council:

Terrorists have increasingly relied on illegal activities, like smuggling or counterfeiting, to generate revenue that is difficult to track through the financial system. Terrorists have also begun to rely more on cash, leaving less of a paper trail. According to Napoleoni, much of the funding for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda organization in Iraq is brought into the country by couriers carrying cash. The July 2005 attacks in London were also funded entirely by cash, which Napoleoni says is untraceable.

OK, so have at it.

And thanks MediaMatters.

Oh, wait a minute, it’s an election year….

Well, Hambali was a leader and planner, and if he was caught, I guess the particulars weren’t quite so glaringly obvious.

“I am saying “Open your eyes. The terrorists (the ones that matter, the ones behind the machinery) would have worked out the possibilities and set their financing processes to minimise those risks”. Otherwise, why have there only been one terrorist caught through this process”

Even if it was “only one”, which you of course cannot possibly know, unless the NYT just leaked again, that one was a major planner responsible for at least 202 deaths. Perhaps that’s not enough for you to justify this program? I could say that makes you a “cheerleader for death”, but that would be crass. You don’t and can’t know how much damage has been done by this revelation, but it was certainly needless, and so why risk it at all? Besides, the NYT on their own editorial page, soon after 9/11, advocated such programs- why then publicize details? Well, some of us have ideas as to why…

Probligo is not willing to kill, but claims s/he is willing to die in order not to kill, which Probligo thinks is the only thing which makes his/her beliefs good - his/her own death while not defending either him/herself and not defending you or me, or anyone’s child. Probligo is a despicable death worshipper who wants us to die while s/he does not defend us concurrently so that his/her beliefs therefore become “good”. Somehow Probligo thinks this is noble, but it’s a death worship which rivals that of the Islamofascists.

[I dealt with Probligo’s self-serving sanctimony once before on this exact question. Probligo as a slow learner, or else is inherently evil.]

Link

Nobody’s going to put the true believers in a cage successfully.

The second clarification is that because I believe in the Constitution, I could not approve or favor the execution of any President, regardless of my personal wishes. This is the difference those who believe in the Constitution, and those who don’t believe in anything except hate of Bush and America.

What does Probligo believe? Is he willing to kill and die for his beliefs?

I would, but Bush is too compassionate a guy for me to favor executing. While I disagree with his policies and soft hearted actions that are contributing to America’s downfall, I cannot truly see him as an agent provocateur working in the employ of the enemy nor do I see him as a domestic enemy that threatens the US Constitution. The NYTimes seeks to supplant the legitimacy of the US Constitution, and I believe that execution is a favorable means to eliminate ALL Domestic AND Foreign enemies to the US Constitution. People who want to convince me otherwise, has to show me that there are benefits to life in prisonment that outweight the costs or detriments of execution. I’m a reasonable person, I know not everyone gets everything in all things. Horse trading is endemic because it is necessary.

Waddaryawaitinfor?

If New Zealand wants to assassinate the President or kidnap him for war crimes. Go ahead. We’ll be parking 6 to 7 Aircraft Battlegroups near your shores soon enough.

Try getting off your little island when our submarines are conducting Full Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and when our air cordone has orders to shoot down any and all aircraft, civilian or military, that tries to escape. You think you can grow enough food on that little island to feed everyone for 10 years? If you do, go ahead, kill the President or kidnap him for war crimes. I double dog dare ya. I’m waiting the 2 years until someone more ruthless than Bush gets into office, a chance for America to wage something close to total war. If you get rid of Bush, that’s fortunate, but you’ll be paying the price, not me. So Thanks, and go ahead. Do it.

he is NOT putting the lives of US servicemen at risk?

Maybe you didn’t understand this before, when I first said. I’m a believer in the US Constitution, and that means other people who believe in it will risk their lives and kill people to safeguard it. It isn’t about one man or woman, one sergeant or officer. This is bigger than that, than the personal prejudices of “individuals”. Everyone says America’s power comes from “individualism”, and while that is true, it ignores the potent force that accrues when individuals work together for the Greater Good. As powerful as individual Americans are, in terms of hardcore civic virtues ala Flight 93, Americans working in concert as free individuals is a force unseen in the history of the Earth. Neither Germany, the Romans, the Russians, or the Chinese has seen anything like it.

I’d at least bait them with a fake Islamo. It’d be interesting just to see if they’d turn him in.

If you are “Whomever”, President of the US and you plan to go to war under a pre announced set of circumstances, you are not announcing to the enemy anything more than what you are doing, not how you are going to do it.

Having the NYT determine what is considered “vital” national secrets is just asinine.

If it we’rent for your complete hatred of GWB, you’d understand that. (and probably agree if it were anyone but).

I favor execution, but then that’s just me.”

SO, line GWB up and have at it. He is the biggest mouth about what the US is going to do next and when, and how. Waddaryawaitinfor?

Oh, he is allowed to? If Bush announces at one of his press conferences that Iran’s last chance expires at midnight tonight, he is NOT putting the lives of US servicemen at risk? It is what he did before Iraq… “Five…four…getting close…three…I’m gettin impatient…two…I got bombers at Diego Garcia…one…I got missile warships in the Gulf already…half…I’m really powerful ya know…quarter…I’m putting troops into Kuwait…zero…ya ready yet?…this is going to cost me billions ya know that…ya sure?……comin ready or not…”

Maybe Proligo is the one that has some explining to do.

Like I said, get real about it.

Would not catching Osama Bin laden be real enough? Oh, we knew that they knew that we knew that they knew we were tracking them via their sat phones, so…. that means if we tell them, no harm done. Bull.

Stumbler, IF I were part of an intelligence organisation I would not be posting here, my own blog, or anywhere else.

Ignorant. Alpha Geek is part of the Special Forces and he has a blog, he just doesn’t talk about his, you know, real mission.

These dudes seem to have a rather high opinion of themselves, with no internal introspection routines, and a ridiculous amount of ignorant blindness going on. No wonder the world is a mess.

If, as you all have suggested, “loose lips sink ships” then what are you going to do about the worst in your nation?

I favor execution, but then that’s just me. Others favor less extreme methods.

Let’s just be clear — you’re now withdrawing that statement, then?

Duh. That’s the whole point, isn’t it? Difficult to be invisible when every aspect of what you’re trying to do is published in the NYT.

THAT is what we’re talking about. The leaks. Whether or not you believe the program is so well known that terrorists refuse to use wire transfers anymore is beside the point being made here. IF some still do, either through clumsiness, ignorance, or just plain stupidity, the fact remains that most will avoid the process entirely now, thus endangering civilians and military alike.

Loose lips still do sink ships.

If, as you all have suggested, “loose lips sink ships” then what are you going to do about the worst in your nation?

If the US is going to invade Iran, should that fact be published in all of the newspapers and other media including, as Y might note, FoxNews.

Who is saying the most in public about invading Iran?

Who is placing your troops at greatest risk as a result?

Nah. That is not what your talking about is it? That’s the boss talking. Not NYT….

Hupe!!

Now, having said that Sally, you can explain;

- how knowledge of the fact that there is international agreement on the restriction of international banking transactions in order to control terrorist funding might lead to failure to prosecute a war.

- how knowledge of the fact that the US (among many other governments) is using every facet of the international finance and banking systems to block and track terrorist funding might lead to “deaths on the battlefield”.

- why you think that the people behind the machinery of financing terrorism are so dumb that they could not, have not worked this out long before the NYT article.

Now, if the NYT were to publish an article saying that the US Army, with front line support from the Iraqi army, are going to attack Ramallah on Tuesday 4 July at 0530 hours then I would agree with the contention of this whole discussion 100%. I would agree with you 100%.

What we are talking about is an article that says -

1. There is an international agreement to allow access to banking records so that it is possible to track and block the funding of specific terrorist organisations.

2. The US is using that access for just that purpose.

To me, that is like saying -

1. The US attacked Iraq in 2003.

2. The US has an army that is in Iraq.

Like I said, get real about it.

To give you a parallel. One of the so-called “reality tv” programmes hereabouts in NZ is called “the news”. About a year ago, “the news” featured a brief article about Customs finding a large cargo of methamphetamine hidden in a container arriving in Auckland.

Are you telling me that the fact “the news” published that item would make all of the drug runners trying to bring meth into the country try and find a different way of running their trade?

Or do you think that the fact one team got caught might make them try and find another method?

Which is the more likely do you think? Hmmm?

If you, Probligo, are part of an intelligence organization, you understand…otherwise, you have absolutely nothing but opinion upon which to base your comments. Some who post here know more than we can say.

Stumbler, IF I were part of an intelligence organisation I would not be posting here, my own blog, or anywhere else. Part of, a large part of surviving in the intelligence field is not being visible. The few that I have met (2 identified to me by Warrant, and 3 by association plus a small number of other suspects) were the most nondesript people you could imagine. James Bond? He would last 5 nimutes if he were lucky. It is only the fiction that allows for a film of 90 minutes… Oh, how did I meet these gentlemen? Three were members of the DPS, and two were seeking information from public records I held.

I agree with you, except I don’t think that any of them are interested in being taken seriously.

And here’s prob’s answer: no.

Which means, I guess, that he thinks the release of the exact date, time, place, and other details of an immanent attack, even though it allowed the enemy to prepare for it fully and thereby inflict huge losses on the attackers (or, saying the same thing, the release of details of defenses, allowing the attackers to circumvent them) would somehow still not “interfere with the successful prosection of a war”.

And that’s why I say he’s forfeited any claim to be taken seriously, on this, or for that matter, any other topic. That is, until he displays a better understanding of the English language.

I say again: one that we know of. You have no idea how many transactions have been foiled, how many operations stopped from lack of funding, how many low- or high-level individuals have been caught in this particular net…because up until now, the details have been SECRET. That’s not too hard to understand, is it?

If you, Probligo, are part of an intelligence organization, you understand…otherwise, you have absolutely nothing but opinion upon which to base your comments. Some who post here know more than we can say.

Same Ys. Ymar, Sakar, and Ymir

True progressive understanding comes from chaps like Probligo, given that there’s a lot of redundant echoes on these blogs, that Probligo has refered to.

Otherwise, why have there only been one terrorist caught through this process - in 2003, three years before the NYT article, and none since.

The lack of understanding, produces this “criminal prosecution” game where you have to catch the criminals. With organized crime and war, it is quite a disaster to use Probligo’s methods.

He was a NZer. He was a cartoonist. His name was David Low.

Absolute moral authority, which never comes from the Ys, you know.

I give people a couple of exchanges. If they behave like a Troll, I treat them like one and move on.

Read….when my ‘think’ is exposed as logically unsupportable I go off in a hissy fit. Pathetic.

Is there anyone in your mindset that can have an argument on the facts alone? Resort to the cheap psychobabble and you lose the argument.

This ’story’ is what we call a beat up. Nothing in it but a means to ignore other real stories.

Transfer money, it comes under scrutiny. No news there.

No.

“…frankly, if you answer no, then you really forfeit any claim to be taken seriously on this matter.”

Why? Be serious, leave out the political claptrap, logic traps, and explain why a public discussion of a “legal” law and how it operates is going to “aid terrorism”.

Y’see, the whole of your position seems to be based upon the premise that terrorists would be too stupid to work out the possibilities for themselves and act accordingly.

I am saying “Open your eyes. The terrorists (the ones that matter, the ones behind the machinery) would have worked out the possibilities and set their financing processes to minimise those risks”. Otherwise, why have there only been one terrorist caught through this process - in 2003, three years before the NYT article, and none since.

Mrswhatsit, it will seem strange to incredulous to you and others here, but I would hope to not make enemies to begin with. That does not in any way imply capitulation - far from it. I would try to achieve that objective through fair dealing, consistency of attitude. The big problem (for me) would be staying as President whilst at the same time dealing with the problems in the Levant. That is not trying to avoid the question, it is trying to find another way of achieving similar objectives.

“People like prob are hoist by their own petard. Two of their fall back positions are “There is no terrorism problem; it is just a construct of the neocons and the the wingnuts” and “And, anyway, it doesn’t require war, just vigorous criminal prosecution”.

Yes, there is truth in that. Ever see the movie “The Mouse that Roared”? A hilarious and somewhat appropriate parody of the present WOT. Made in the 1970’s I recall… Highly recommended. Oh, BTW the US surrendered.

“They are stuck in that recursive loop, repeating the same tired, false memes over and over. “

Yes, as are the likes of yourselves. Take a look back down this blog, or neo-neocon, or Daily Kos, any of the political blogs big or small. They ALL are repetitive; the same stories, the same criticisms, the same ideas, the same false memes, the same Y…

Finally, Weary G, it is sad to see you retreat into the last holds of the frightened - that of throwing personal abuse. I might have expected better.

“Publish secrets vital to the war on terror in the name of freedom of the press?

Oh, we can’t do that! It would be insensitive! Plus, those Islamists might hurt us!”

Do you know who was No 2 on Hitler’s “line ‘em up against a wall”? The one to follow Churchill?

He was a NZer. He was a cartoonist. His name was David Low.

There y’go. One exclamation mark and that belonged to Weary…

Their advertisers are companies like Ford and Mercedes, IBM and Apple, the Sunday Magazine is full of high fasion ads.

I would hope that some of these companies would pull their advertising and make the Times suffer. Their arrogance knows no bounds.

Obviously some here have the same beliefs, but the behaviors differ quite significantly. Thus the psychological profile is not the same for one as it is for another.

Look, you can come up with all sorts of reasons why certain people refuse to get it. There are indeed many.

However, please don’t forget this possibility before you drive yourself insane trying to explain it to them; some don’t WANT to get it.

They are not interested in getting it.

They are here to taunt you with their boilerplate and half-baked theories because they get off on it. Bashing America and Americans is all the rage, and they love it. Its a hobby for them. Its also alot safer than pissing off the terrorists, something they are afraid to do.

Publish secrets vital to the war on terror in the name of freedom of the press?

Sure!

Publish cartoons of Mohammed?

Oh, we can’t do that! It would be insensitive! Plus, those Islamists might hurt us!

You are trying to discuss some serious issues which affect all of us, including them, but they do not care. They are either having fun on the cheap or working on some deep-seated catharsis.

They remind me of little kids who have no problem taunting the family dog who they know won’t bite them, but who freak out when they find a bug crawling on them.

It becomes pretty easy to spot the people who are interested in a real discussion, and those you are just looking for a fight. Figure out who is who and kick the latter to the curb; i.e., ignore them.

I give people a couple of exchanges. If they behave like a Troll, I treat them like one and move on.

Think of it like lines of defense. When one collapses, retreat to the next. They will do almost anything rather than admit that finally, when all is said and done, in their pantheon of beliefs, the US is evil and deserves anything it gets.

This is why they have every past “evil” deed the US has done at their fingertips; Vicennes,Mai Lai, ad infinitum. Even the altruistic acts, Marshall Plan, Tsunami Aid, are hedged and qualified. In their minds, the US is evil and since they are collectivists, they will assign collective responsibility.

Left/liberalism is a belief system just like any religion, with its ultimately metaphysical beliefs that are beyond logical debate and which depend upon faith. It is hopeless to try to argue with the committed.

The more intelligent, questioning and flexible minds, like Neo’s will eventually break free. And, as long as they don’t commit overtly illegal acts, the balance can be ignored while we work on the rest of the public, drugged by media and a soft life.

When the press and the rest of the media begin to don the priestly robes of their religion and cross over the line, depending on their clerical collars to protect them from the consequences of their actions, action will be taken.

Mind Puzzle: Talk to a spectrum of contemporary Christians about “original sin” and you will find a broad spectrum of interpretations from dismissal to the kind of rabid advocacy of fanaticism.

Same with Left/Liberalism. But, what is, for them, original sin?

If in “Adam’s fall, we sinned all.” could the corollary be, “In Marx’s fall they sinned all. And, the bastards are going to pay!”

In this light, their rage is understandable since the US has become the vessel of sin, the temple of the sin of Mammon, and must be pulled down.

Ann Counter is right.

Constitutionally speaking, wouldn’t this be the no-fuss, no mess solution?

It preserves the sanctity of the press’s freedom, it doesn’t open any doors to government encroachments, and, above all, it would shut up MSM copycat traitors.

As the Muslim cartoon episode so eloquently showed, when push comes to shove our heroic press is strongly motivated to keep their heads.

Probligo is thinking “it isn’t my fault, I didn’t do nothing, it was you neo-cons and Bush in office that had the power”.

This isn’t speculation, this is proven human nature. Those who lobbied for Vietnam to be left alone, said afterwards that the “slaughter wasn’t our fault, it would have happened anyways”. Self-rationalization is the fruit of human labors.

One thing I know for sure is that the recent leaks released by the press is not what I would consider erring on the side of caution. I surely don’t feel anymore secure by this info being made to the world.

Bear in mind that when the next attack comes, the NYT will be among the first to shriek blame at those who fail to prevent it. Imagine that it is shrieking at you, after having disclosed your plans and programs into futility. How would you prevent this?

“Do you think that the press should be able to leak classified information of a legal program; information that would aid terrorists in their activities?

Does ANY government have the right to keep secrets from their declared enemies or not? Did the Allies have the right to keep things out of the press during the Second World War, or should the fact that the Ultra machine existed been blazoned across the front page of the London Times?”

Probligo answered (his bold which I assumed indicates it is a definitive statement):

“The only limitation should be that the information disclosed must not prevent a successful prosecution of a crime.“

So, Probligo believes that the press can reveal any information it wants to the enemy, to terrorists, as long as it does not interfere with a court case.

He also believes the press should have revealed all secrets of the Allies to the Axis, as long as there was court case involved.

Thank you for letting us know where you stand.

Essentially any job that, by definition, if done perfectly will never be seen goes through fairly short cycles of Most Important to Irrelevant (capitals are intentional). When they work well everything just works - out of sight out of mind.

But, too often, to get to that point, intrusions into our life must be made. Work at a highly hacked place? Need one-time-pad password stored on a Flash keychain? That sucks (well, until everything is hacked, years worth of work is stolen and then deleted, and it takes the next 2 months to get back to the point you are now - then IT blows and needs fired even though thier policies are not enforced and would have prevented it). After that a few months of diligence then back to the grumbling and ignoring.

It’s life if you want to operate in that area. It always has been, always will be. The ones who think that it’s all a waste will do so regardless of what you say or what happens, and they are the same ones who cycle through it time after time. It’s an easy lifestyle - after all your never are the one responsable.

When these programs are curtailed and a major attack occurs none - absolutely none - will admit it. It will all be blamed on someone else. At least externally, internally there will be but a moment of pause then a vehement reaction we see today. It’s just easier for some to live that way, plus being an easier lifestyle it will be generally adopted. Many new neo-cons are seeing happen for the first time, long time conservatives are relatively used to it.

Im not sure where I got the link to this before, It might have even been from here.

Its to a piece by Greg Mitchell, editor of the influential trade magazine Editor & Publisher, arguing that the media elites should do everything possible to stop any military action against the “trumped up threat” of Iran:

Will Press Put Out Fire on Iran?
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002343990

Mitchell writes:
(April 13, 2006) — If you have watched any baseball at all, even the occasional World Series game, you are probably familiar with the concept of the bullpen ace getting a chance for “redemption.” That is, he can blow a game one night and come back the next in the ninth inning and save the day, or even the season. Announcers always say, “he got a chance to redeem himself.”

To those who would say that this inflates the power or even role of the press in America today, I would reply: You don’t expect the Democrats to keep us out of war, do you? Just as they would not stand up to the president on Iraq for fear of appearing “weak on terror,” they would likely be wary of appearing “weak on the Tehran Bomb.” Let’s face it: All the Democrats want to do right now is stagger through to November with an unpopular president in office, and hope that, maybe, they can re-take at least one house of Congress — without having to stick their necks out.”

No media bias there huh?

I don’t think it is because it’s late a night but all I can think of is the word “disconnected”.

…thing is neo much as you despise the MSM - this left wing cabal running the US media, it is subject to a level of scrutiny that your blog and the many others like it are not.

If you think US media is left wing what the hell do you think of the european media - which has a much wider range of published views.

What you probably want for the media is all the “trolls” to be stopped there as well. Your tendency is to demand an end to views opposing yours wherever you may find them.

You feel a god given right to publish your tawdry right wing views without criticism while the “MSM” ahs to face real public reaction.

…so who is more likely to reach the truth.

Right Wing Planet Blog?

or a free press in which debate and criticism exist?

…..I bet you think it is Planet Blog

so it goes

O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
And ev’n Devotion!

Robert Burns

America loves guns and self-defense.

Why is it serious?

It is the New York TImes, how can it be not?

Because the supreme promoter of all freedoms is talking itself into a corner that has not been occupied since the 1930’s.

Supreme promoter of all freedoms, eh? Does that mean New Zealand is now going to adopt American self-defense laws and gun armaments now? Or is America the supreme promoter of only the things that Probligo wishes us to promote, for him?

That is scarey sh!t indeed!!

Peeps without 2nd Ammendnet, yes must be scary.

Why is this serious? Because a goodly portion of the people of the supreme promotor of all freedoms are themselves suggesting that some of those precious freedoms are a risk rather than a boon, and should be removed.

Did you guys bring back the guns or did you remove them? Some people can’t even understand that other people have different points of views.

Why is it laughable? You should hear yourselves!

You can hear yourself, just record your voice.

Synova - why are you not campaigning to have radar detectors banned. BTW do you own one? I don’t.

Since we’re campaigning to restrict the NYTimes, and you aren’t, I guess you are such an enlightened non-paranoid person of obviously good mental health and progressive credentials