Bush Criticizes Reports About Bank Tracking

Yes, let us not EVER let truth and freedom get in the way of our democracy.

In this article Pres. Bush states "And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."

My question would be... Maybe just the fact that they know, that we know... makes it harder for THEM to move it in the first place. DUH

GO NY TIMES *** All The News That's Fit To Print

AntiBushConservative wrote:

Yes, let us not EVER let truth and freedom get in the way of our democracy.

The truth is that the NY Times helped the enemy to kill more people everywhere. The freedom of terrorists to murder always gets in the way of any democratic process. We don't have and never have had a democracy. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had formed, it is "A Republic, if you can keep it.". Other Founders pointed out that the lives of all democracies are short and their ends are violent. No conservative or any other lover of liberty ever refers to "our democracy".

Ellen wrote:

My question would be... Maybe just the fact that they know, that we know... makes it harder for THEM to move it in the first place.

That isn't even a question. But the underlying concept is way off base. Secretly monitoring their financial transactions allows terrorists and their hidden financers to be identified and stopped. Exposing the program allows them to escape and remain hidden. It wasn't that long ago the the NY Times, in an editorial, demanded that the government implement an even more intrusive program. The goal of the NY Times is to destroy the US and all that it stands for.

Ellen wrote:

DUH

That certainly captures your intellectual grasp of the problem.

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text>The truth is that the NY Times helped the enemy to kill more people everywhere. The freedom of terrorists to murder always gets in the way of any democratic process. We don't have and never have had a democracy. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out when asked what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had formed, it is "A Republic, if you can keep it.". Other Founders pointed out that the lives of all democracies are short and their ends are violent. No conservative or any other lover of liberty ever refers to "our democracy".

Isn't it ironic that you quote Benjamin Franklin here when you usually denounce him. He helped found OUR DEMOCRACY. The NYT article will in no way further the terrorist cause.Bush is trying to flame paranoia and it has worked on the Neo-Cons. That's part of the problem--because they are crazy and demented does NOT mean they are stupid. The old adage "follow the money" has been around longer than either of us and to think the terrorists are unaware of it is too innocent to suit you. Why don't we just nationalize our news media and rename it "TASS" or "PRAVDA."

I am surprised Donnie didn't call the NY Times a member of the liberal press, that's their standard operating procedure. How many people has the NY Times killed? None, what he doesn't like is that they are telling us what is being carried out in our name. It's strange that everything this administration does is "vital" to the war on terror, when the truth is this president has taken us toward the communistic tactics. Spy on Americans, attack your critics as unAmerican, and whatever the government does must be ok.
The Supreme court has ruled that flag burning is protected by the first amendment of the constitution, Donnie and others want to change the constitution to forbid free speech, so what speech will they go after next? People's right to critize our government, people's right to critize our political parties, and who exactly will be the Judge of what is free speech and how can it be used?

AntiBushConservative wrote:

<quoted text>Isn't it ironic that you quote Benjamin Franklin here when you usually denounce him.

Your claim that I have denounced Benjamin Franklin is a bald-faced lie. I have never denounced, or even criticized, Benjamin Franklin in any way on any occasion in any forum in my entire life. But making false statements about people seems to be your stock in trade.

AntiBushConservative wrote:

<quoted text>He helped found OUR DEMOCRACY.

It is a bit silly for you to highlight your abject ignorance of our form of government and the wisdom of the Founders. When structuring our Republic, the Founders were careful to prevent the establishment of a democracy in the federal or state governments. Read the Constitution some time, if you don't wish to read the more detailed words of the Founders.

AntiBushConservative wrote:

<quoted text>The NYT article will in no way further the terrorist cause.

It already has.

AntiBushConservative wrote:

<quoted text>The old adage "follow the money" has been around longer than either of us and to think the terrorists are unaware of it is too innocent to suit you.

AntiBushConservative wrote:

<quoted text>Why don't we just nationalize our news media and rename it "TASS" or "PRAVDA."

You are the first to suggest that. Although the NY Times does seem to be amenable to using the old subject matter of those publications.

Ezeddie wrote:

I am surprised Donnie didn't call the NY Times a member of the liberal press, that's their standard operating procedure.

That the NY Times is a member of the liberal press is beyond dispute, no need to state the obvious and acknowledged. But they have now gone beyond that and joined the enemy.

Ezeddie wrote:

How many people has the NY Times killed?

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, in many different ways. "The pen is mightier than the sword". Ponder for a moment what swords are used for.

Ezeddie wrote:

None, what he doesn't like is that they are telling us what is being carried out in our name.

What I don't like is the disclosure of specific details of secret methods being used to defeat those who are actively killing us.

Ezeddie wrote:

It's strange that everything this administration does is "vital" to the war on terror, when the truth is this president has taken us toward the communistic tactics.

Nobody has claimed that everything the administration does is vital to the war on terror. You are apparently ignorant of communistic tactics.

Ezeddie wrote:

Spy on Americans, attack your critics as unAmerican, and whatever the government does must be ok.

Spying on criminal Americans who are trying to kill people has always been an appropriate tactic for all levels of government. Responding to the false claims of critics is a requirement for anyone who has been attacked. When Americans support terrorist organizations, that is an unAmerican activity. Of course, I have never even implied that "whatever the government does must be ok". That is just another straw man argument; a dishonest way to carry on any discourse.

Ezeddie wrote:

The Supreme court has ruled that flag burning is protected by the first amendment of the constitution, Donnie and others want to change the constitution to forbid free speech,

A bald-faced lie, I have never in any way ever suggested that there is any need to change the Constitution to forbid flag burning. In fact, I have opposed such a change.

Ezeddie wrote:

People's right to critize our government, people's right to critize our political parties, and who exactly will be the Judge of what is free speech and how can it be used?

As always, the Supreme Court, lower courts and the various legislatures will remain the judges of what free speech is and how it can be used. However, the fact remains that some free speech will be harmful to some or many people. Some free speech is also harmful to our way of life and the very existance of our Republic. But the answer to such threats is, as always, more speech. It is so-called liberals who are going after free speech today, with speech codes and "hate crime" laws.

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text> Your claim that I have denounced Benjamin Franklin is a bald-faced lie.

That is a bald-faced lie.

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text>I have never denounced, or even criticized, Benjamin Franklin in any way on any occasion in any forum in my entire life.

And that is a bald-faced lie. You just lumped him together with others and didn't name him directly

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text>But making false statements about people seems to be your stock in trade.

The truth hurts, doesn't it, Donna?

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text>It is a bit silly for you to highlight your abject ignorance of our form of government and the wisdom of the Founders.

OUR DEMOCRACY was in all caps, not highlighted, you absent-minded fool.

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text>When structuring our Republic, the Founders were careful to prevent the establishment of a democracy in the federal or state governments. Read the Constitution some time, if you don't wish to read the more detailed words of the Founders.

No, thank, you, Miss Donna, my education is quite complete!! Next order, please.

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text>It already has. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
[QUOTE who="Donnie"]<quo ted text>You are the first to suggest that. Although the NY Times does seem to be amenable to using the old subject matter of those publications.

You, Donna, are the one who seems to support that type of control from the "news" to what I can say. Ain't gonna work, and no Neo-Con lunatic like yourself will change it. Now, Donna, go read a good book and quit wasting your time trying to turn OUR DEMOCRACY into a tyrannical dictatorship. And, if you EVER expect me to read anymore of your regurgitated drivel, quit parsing what I post. You think that's impressive, or something, F*ggot?

That the NY Times is a member of the liberal press is beyond dispute, no need to state the obvious and acknowledged. But they have now gone beyond that and joined the enemy.

That is not correct. Read the Washington Post, which is a liberal press media. The NY Times calls it on both sides, look back at how they hammered Clinton. I guess at that time you would not of said they were liberal. You don't know what liberal press really is do you? What about the Wall Street Journal, who reported this same story on the same day, did they join the enemy? Why did this administration ask everyone but the Journal not to report this story?
You show your bias, you're more than willing to attack the NY Times, but say nothing about the Journal, seems a bit hypocritical to me.

What I don't like is the disclosure of specific details of secret methods being used to defeat those who are actively killing us

But yet this administration has bragged about doing this. Do you really think the terrorist are that stupid? You were have to be stupid to think they haven't been paying attention to everything this government says, they have intelligence people watching tv. So shouldn't we ban all media, regardless of its political leanings? That would protect us from knowing what's going on or maybe the government should control it, that way we all think alike.

What makes you con's mad is that your tactics don't look so good with the light of day. You have no problem with what the government does, as long as you don't know about it.

Everytime a secret program or policy is brought out this administration says it's "vital" to national security. Now, I can understand your accepting everything they say as gospel, but they have lost their creditability with me. Too many times they have been proven wrong. Where is Congress in all this?

Ezeddie wrote:

You don't know what liberal press really is do you? What about the Wall Street Journal, who reported this same story on the same day, did they join the enemy? Why did this administration ask everyone but the Journal not to report this story?

How do you know that they didn't. They only reported on it after the story was put in the public domain by the NY Times. Not that I have any use for the Journal.

Ezeddie wrote:

You show your bias, you're more than willing to attack the NY Times, but say nothing about the Journal, seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I am not much interested in the Journal, unless they lead an attack on the US as the Times does routinely. The Journal is pretty much a useless waste of paper. Just another collection of liberal reporters with a few conservative editorials.

Ezeddie wrote:

But yet this administration has bragged about doing this.

Without disclosuring specific details of secret or top secret methods being used to defeat those who are actively killing us. That is a significant difference.

Ezeddie wrote:

What makes you con's mad is that your tactics don't look so good with the light of day. You have no problem with what the government does, as long as you don't know about it.

Nope, that doesn't make me mad at all. I fully support the activities that have been disclosed. There is nothing wrong with any of the secret programs that the press has revealed to our enemies.

Ezeddie wrote:

Everytime a secret program or policy is brought out this administration says it's "vital" to national security.

That is why it was secret or top secret.

AntiBushConservative wrote:

<quoted text>That is a bald-faced lie. <quoted text> No, it is just the unadorned truth. Perhaps you would like to present some evidence to the contrary. I know it is easier just to sit around and present unsubstantied lies about people. But a little proof would go a long way. I may at one time have noted that Mr. Franklin was not perfect in every way, but I probably have never even done that.

[QUOTE who="AntiBushConservative "]<quoted text>And that is a bald-faced lie. You just lumped him together with others and didn't name him directly

Interesting smokescreen. Perhaps you would like to present some evidence to support this silly claim.

AntiBushConservative wrote:

<quoted text>The truth hurts, doesn't it?

No, I am always just fine with the truth.

AntiBushConservative wrote:

<quoted text> No, thank, you, Miss Donna, my education is quite complete!

Based on your expressed ignorance, you probably considered it complete in the second grade.

AntiBushConservative wrote:

<quoted text> You, Donna, are the one who seems to support that type of control from the "news" to what I can say.

It only seems that way to you because of your weak powers of discernment. I have never had any interest in controlling the news. I just would like it to be accurate, which it seldom is. I also do not think that we should have a fifth-column press that actively seeks to disclose secret and top secret information to aid an active enemy.

AntiBushConservative wrote:

<quoted text>You think that's impressive, or something, F*ggot?

More impressive than your simplistic ad hominem attacks.

I am not much interested in the Journal, unless they lead an attack on the US as the Times does routinely.

Donnie, prove it or shut up. What attack has the Times lead against us?

Without disclosuring specific details of secret or top secret methods being used to defeat those who are actively killing us. That is a significant difference.

You must think the terrorist are stupid. Don't you think they know, by bragging about it, that the tracking was going on? You must be naive to believe they are so stupid.

That is why it was secret or top secret

Do we, the American people have a right to know what are government is doing in our name or not?
Do you think we would of stopped torturing people if the America people hadn't found out about it? Oh, I am sorry, I know you con's like torturing people, you justify it when it is indefensible. As I have said, you think everything this government does is ok.
You dismiss the Journals' responsiblity and put it all on the Times, again displacing responsiblity on one paper, then all the papers that printed the story. Stop being a hypocrit and start treating the newspapers as the same. Calling them liberal does get it done. Right now, the liberal papers are the only ones protecting the American way of life. Because if you con's have your way, propandga is the only news we would get.

Ezeddie wrote:

What attack has the Times lead against us?

Although it is obvious, I will fill you when you provide evidence for the false charges you have made against me. Either that, or I receive an apology for your multiple lies.

If The New York Times knew about this.....don't you think the terrorists knew about it?
If the press is not allowed to report things then the U.S. will be no better than countries they say are undemocratic.
Wake up Americans. The PEOPLE of the U.S. are liked and respected all over the world, yor government is not! A great leader comprimises and talks to their adversaries. Bush is not capable of either comprimise or dialogue.

Annie wrote:

If The New York Times knew about this.....don't you think the terrorists knew about it?

No, that is the whole problem. The people who told the Times had access to secret or top secret information which may have been compartmentalized as well. As long as that information was protected as required by law and patriotism, neither the terrorists nor the Times knew about it. The Times learned about it because people with access to the information betrayed their country and broke the law in giving it to the Times. The Times betrayed thier country and broke the law by publishing the information, while protecting the initial law breakers. After the Times published it, the terrorists learned, from the Times, about it.

It appears that you have never held a security clearance and don't understand the concept of keeping secrets from deadly enemies.

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text>Although it is obvious, I will fill you when you provide evidence for the false charges you have made against me. Either that, or I receive an apology for your multiple lies.

Answer the question Donnie: What attacks has the Times story resulted in?

You are reluctant to state facts, instead you generalize.

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text>No, that is the whole problem. The people who told the Times had access to secret or top secret information which may have been compartmentalized as well. As long as that information was protected as required by law and patriotism, neither the terrorists nor the Times knew about it. The Times learned about it because people with access to the information betrayed their country and broke the law in giving it to the Times. The Times betrayed thier country and broke the law by publishing the information, while protecting the initial law breakers. After the Times published it, the terrorists learned, from the Times, about it.
It appears that you have never held a security clearance and don't understand the concept of keeping secrets from deadly enemies.

The WSJ had this story and ran it the same day as the times, but that doesn't matter to you. Ask yourself, where did the Journal get this story? Did they buy it from the Times or did they research it themselves?
What about Libby? The VP lead the attack on Wilson and disclosed classified information that put a woman's life in harm's way, but you con's say or said nothing about that. I guess if the VP leaks classified information it's ok with you, right?

Ezeddie wrote:

<quoted text>
Answer the question Donnie: What attacks has the Times story resulted in?

I clearly stated my conditions. Comply and I will respond.

Ezeddie wrote:

<quoted text>
You are reluctant to state facts, instead you generalize.

I have no problem with facts, just as you have no problem with your own lies.

Ezeddie wrote:

<quoted text>
The WSJ had this story and ran it the same day as the times, but that doesn't matter to you.

Gee, what a surprise, another lie. Any newspaper that published the story is run by traitors. All of those traitors should be prosecuted. I am sorry that I have insufficient interest in the WSJ to suit you. But I find little value in the paper and actually wonder why it even exists.

Ezeddie wrote:

<quoted text>Ask yourself, where did the Journal get this story?

That is a good question for investigators to ask once the WSJ editors, owners and reporters are arrested.

Ezeddie wrote:

<quoted text>Did they buy it from the Times or did they research it themselves?

Look at the byline. It doesn't matter, they should still be prosecuted.

Ezeddie wrote:

<quoted text>What about Libby?

I thought he had been indicted. Who has been indicted for the more serious leaks published in the Times?

Ezeddie wrote:

<quoted text>The VP lead the attack on Wilson and disclosed classified information that put a woman's life in harm's way, but you con's say or said nothing about that.

There was no attack on Wilson. Wilson attacked with false information and true information was provided to counter Wilson's lies. That is a matter of public record published as part of a report on a wider investigation. Women's lives are always in harm's way due to the ACLU's fixation on keeping violent criminals on the streets. What woman or women have been harmed because of the most recent disclosure that Plame was a CIA agent not covered by the law that protects covert CIA agents?

Ezeddie wrote:

<quoted text>I guess if the VP leaks classified information it's ok with you, right?

No, you may be interested to know that the leak alleged to be associated with the VP has been the subject of a substantial investigation. On the other hand, leaks that involve much more serious matters are the subject of no such investigations. I would be pleased to see investigations of those more serioius leaks pursued with the same vigor as the leak you claim to be concerned about.