Okay, here's what I don't get.
The wingers' collective panties are in a twist, 'cause the NYT published something that supposedly "helps the terrorists," or at least "hurts our efforts to go after terrorists," right? However, as Glenn Greenwald so deftly points out, none of these kooks -- nor the administration itself -- can articulate a single specific thing that our intelligence folks can no longer do, and/or what the terrorists are doing differently because of this startling betrayal by the NYT. More shocking still is the fact that the same 10,000-ft. view of this financial tracking operation, given in the NYT, is no more specific in its details than information that the Bush administration, and even Bush himself, have already told the American public.
Let that sink in a moment.
Now, let's imagine what reaction these frothy fascists would have had if the NYT had told the world how we infiltrate suspected domestic terrorist cells with human intelligence assets pretending to be al Qaeda operatives.
Hmmmm.
.
7 comments :
I guess Al Qaeda now knows that we are doing a good job infiltrating obscure Haitian cults.
Karin -- And, they know a hell of a lot more details about HOW we do it than anything ever published by the NYT in regards to tracking phone calls or financial transactions...!
Abu Gonzales hates America, and is a traitor!
.
I absolutely love the "argument" that nobody knew about SWIFT. Even I know about SWIFT, and I'm a nobody from nowhere.
You know what I think part of the problem is? No offense intended to present company, but I think part of it is that Americans just don't interact with the rest of the world in general. Most of you don't have passports. You probably don't speak a second language, and the idea of sending a wire transfer overseas (or getting one) is kind of alien, I would imagine.
Or maybe I'm just really out of the mainstream even for here, since I have a passport, speak the rudiments of five languages, and get wire transfers semi-regularly, and I've sent one or two, as well.
By the Freepers' lights, I'm probably a turrist.
The part I don't get is why The New York Times is being singled out for a story that also ran in the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Jim Bach -- Good points. However, why do you keep visiting here? You have to know, by now, that I have nothing of substance to discuss with you as long as you keep your blog shuttered to me, and as long as you refuse to discuss how and why that occurred, on your blog.
Don't go away mad.
.
As to your first point, I have told you at this point countless times how you can gain access to my LJ. You have refused to do anything about it. It's free, painless, and easy, yet you continue to make the dishonest assertion that I am refusing you access.
As to your second point, I discussed, at great length, how and why that occurred. Perhaps you are still unsatisfied with my feelings, but you cannot deny I haven't discussed them at length with you, IN THE PLACE OF YOUR CHOOSING, I might add. I still feel my actions were warranted by your persistent rudeness, but I am willing to forgive your actions, in spite of my better judgement, given our decades of friendship.
Jim Bach -- Oh? I need only sign up again for LJ, and let you know, right?
Sorry. Not interested.
In fact, I'm not interested in holding this discussion anywhere but on your blog, as you had it then, before you threw your hissy fit.
And, you'd need to promote it, at this point.
But, it's all moot -- my net access is going away, as has our chance at repairing this damage, done oh so many months (almost years, now!), ago. So, really... cease troubling yourself. We're done. Don't try to fix it, now. It's too late.
.
Post a Comment