Clusterheadaches.com Message Board
        (http://www.clusterheadaches.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        New Message Board Archives >> 2006 General Board Posts >> What about the New York Times
        
(Message started by: JeffB on Jun 28th, 2006, 5:00pm)
Title: What about the New York Times
Post by JeffB on Jun 28th, 2006, 5:00pm
Traitors or Patriots......you make the call.

As for my opinion I believe they will do anything to embarass this administration anyway they can. If a Dem was in office and did this, we would have heard nothing.
They are opening our playbook for all the bad guys to see, and who cares if they are following bad guys money!
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Gena on Jun 28th, 2006, 5:09pm
Ditto
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Jonny on Jun 28th, 2006, 5:12pm
When the President ask you not to report a story and you do....Your a piece of shit traitor!!
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Gena on Jun 28th, 2006, 5:12pm
Just wanted to add

There are very few times & things I think the govt. should have control over.

War and keeping America safe is one.

Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by floridian on Jun 28th, 2006, 6:45pm
I guess the dozens of speeches that Bush gave where he pledged to cut off the money supply to the terorists and use money flow to help hunt the terrorists provided no clues or help to the terrorists.  But five years after 9/11, a story about that same process is printed, and you think it will somehow help Al Qaeda, who long ago switched to diamonds and hawalla for moving money? No.  Enjoy your righteous indignation, but I won't pretend that you are making sense.      

The real sin of the New York Times is to inform the American public of the extent of big brother's growth:


Quote:
Some of those officials expressed reservations about the program, saying that what they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization.


Why have a rational discussion about putting checks and balances in place when you can pretend that nothing is happening?
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Jonny on Jun 28th, 2006, 6:50pm

on 06/28/06 at 18:45:48, floridian wrote:
I guess the dozens of speeches that Bush gave where he pledged to cut off the money supply to the terorists and use money flow to help hunt the terrorists provided no clues or help to the terrorists.  But five years after 9/11, a story about that same process is printed, and you think it will somehow help Al Qaeda


Good point, but, they were asked not to and they did. not only that they named a country, a bank and other details that Bush never mentioned.

Fucking Traitor Scumbags!!!!!

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/pledge.jpg
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by JeffB on Jun 28th, 2006, 7:01pm
[quote author=floridian link=board=general;num=1151528431;start=0#4 date=06/28/06 at 18:45:48]I guess the dozens of speeches that Bush gave where he pledged to cut off the money supply to the terorists and use money flow to help hunt the terrorists provided no clues or help to the terrorists.  But five years after 9/11, a story about that same process is printed, and you think it will somehow help Al Qaeda, who long ago switched to diamonds and hawalla for moving money? No.  Enjoy your righteous indignation, but I won't pretend that you are making sense.  

When you and your left wing elitest party have a real solution instead of cut and run then I'll give your opinion and jaded response a second of thought.
The times are so far left they have actually fell off the globe. I just suggest you guys get a viable candidate and one on one training lessons on how to operate a friggin voting machine. And despite what that dem candidate in San Diego says, A person does need to have a valid I.D. and be a cirtizen to vote!!    
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Mattrf on Jun 28th, 2006, 7:02pm
I agree with Jonny.
The first amendment and freedom of the press is not supposed to mean that you disconnect your brain and print everything no matter what. Do these people have no morals or patriotism, oh wait they only care about ratings and money.
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by JeffB on Jun 28th, 2006, 7:22pm
What was the point of printing that crap if it wasn't meant to be a kick in the balls to the white house?
It was done with malice and discontent and my new friend in Florida proved that hands down. Angry at what you think was stolen from you really makes me glad to be an independent voter, that way when I see Pelosi or Cheney or any of those worthless orbs in government I can honestly say "what a bunch of not a very nice persons" and I can feel sorry for the flocks of lamb that will defend those people with such vigore.
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Jonny on Jun 28th, 2006, 7:44pm

on 06/28/06 at 19:22:39, JeffB wrote:
"what a bunch of ass-holes"  


I fixed it.....;;D
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by JeffB on Jun 28th, 2006, 7:49pm
Thanks Jonny,
Now don't forget your penile pump and lube for tomorrows show because someone may be getting a plasma!

He/She said "it" smells like cheese some times.
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by alchemy on Jun 28th, 2006, 7:50pm
This whole thing reminds me of Jonny's thread on the death of common sense. Printing something just because you have the right to doesn't make it smart or ethical to do so.
jim
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Jonny on Jun 28th, 2006, 7:56pm

on 06/28/06 at 19:50:48, alchemy wrote:
Printing something just because you have the right to doesn't make it smart or ethical to do so.


BINGO!!!!!

Well fucking said, Bro!!!
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 28th, 2006, 7:59pm

on 06/28/06 at 17:00:30, JeffB wrote:
Traitors or Patriots......you make the call.

As for my opinion I believe they will do anything to embarass this administration anyway they can. If a Dem was in office and did this, we would have heard nothing. They are opening our playbook for all the bad guys to see, and who cares if they are following bad guys money!


I disagree.  Back when the last Dem was in office, the Times pounded him on his fault too.  The editorials and the news stories both raked him over the coals for lying about that hummer.


But I got a question about that Hush Bimbo talking point: the Whitehouse told the NEWSPAPER about it and then said please dont print it.  Why would anyone tell a newspaper about a story and then ask that it not be printed?  

There are only 2 ways this story could have been leaked:
1, there is a rat in office and they leaked it
2, the administration wanted it to get out for political gain.

Which one is it?
B$
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by floridian on Jun 28th, 2006, 8:01pm

on 06/28/06 at 19:22:39, JeffB wrote:
What was the point of printing that crap if it wasn't meant to be a kick in the balls to the white house?
It was done with malice and discontent and my new friend in Florida proved that hands down.  


Malice and discontent?  No, merely discontent.  Some emergency measures were taken in response to 9/11. That's fine.  But here we are five years later, and people are starting to think that maybe we should have a discussion about them - when, how much, in response to what, in what framework.  The real malice in this thread and on talk radio is directed against the media for 'helping' the terrorists, even when it can be shown that the story didn't help the terrorists at all.

The revelations themselves were not incredible or stunning - most people assumed that something like that was going on. Bush indicated he would do it.  The idea that people and their representatives should debate and legislate on this matter is not a kick to the balls of the White House. It's called representative democracy.  
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 28th, 2006, 8:08pm

on 06/28/06 at 19:01:50, JeffB wrote:
When you and your left wing elitest party have a real solution instead of cut and run then I'll give your opinion and jaded response a second of thought.
   


More talking points.............get beyond those bro.

Howcome when Feingold says we should reduce troops in the next 12 months, that is called "cut & run"?
But when General Casey says we will be able to reduce troops in the next few months, that is considered "staying the course"?

Its because those are talking points and buzzwords used to trick the general public.  Only the people with their heads deepest in the sand still believe that shit.
B$
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Jonny on Jun 28th, 2006, 8:10pm

on 06/28/06 at 20:01:03, floridian wrote:
 The real malice in this thread and on talk radio is directed against the media for 'helping' the terrorists, even when it can be shown that the story didn't help the terrorists at all.


So I guess that the Times naming the country and the bank was ok?...even though no one else did (But them)

Why dont they just call up the terrorists and tell them whats happening?

Traitor Scumbags!!

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/rocco.jpg
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by floridian on Jun 28th, 2006, 8:51pm

on 06/28/06 at 20:10:17, Jonny wrote:
So I guess that the Times naming the country and the bank was ok?...even though no one else did (But them)

Why dont they just call up the terrorists and tell them whats happening?


You just don't get it.  First, it wasn't just a bank. It was an exchange based in Belgium that that handles the transactions of thousands of banks and networks of banks.  But it doesn't matter if the names of western banks or international bank networks are named. Al Qaeda isn't using them, or if they are, it is being laundered:    


Quote:
By some estimates, hawala handles more international transactions in the Middle East Asia and the Pacific then the established banking system. Certainly, they service a larger client base.

Most hawala operations are unregulated. Few records are kept and transfers are handled informally and, in most cases, with no real oversight. This offers al Qaeda, and those supplying it with money, an ideal channel for handling its money transfer requirements. Many hawalars are also well connected with banks in Asia and the Middle East. Their transfer accounts raise few questions and are employed for settlement between hawalars, hiding completely the transactions originator and ultimate receiver.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2005/Jan/comrasJan05.asp


I knew a guy that did the Chinese equivalent of Hawala, and you could walk into his place of business, hand him $10,000, and that amount (minus a handling fee) would appear almost where on the planet you want within 24 hours - in dollars, gold, or the local currency.  
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Jonny on Jun 28th, 2006, 9:00pm

on 06/28/06 at 20:51:08, floridian wrote:
You just don't get it.  First, it wasn't just a bank. It was an exchange based in Belgium that that handles the transactions of thousands of banks and networks of banks.  But it doesn't matter if the names of western banks or international bank networks are named. Al Qaeda isn't using them.  


No, I guess you dont get it!

If printing the names didnt matter why did they when the President asked them not to?

All the news thats worth printing...its more like "All the news we can print to kill our own guys"
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by floridian on Jun 28th, 2006, 9:10pm

on 06/28/06 at 21:00:02, Jonny wrote:
If printing the names didnt matter why did they when the President asked them not to?


Well, the official reason: "President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and numerous Republicans in Congress have vigorously defended the financial tracking program as legal and valuable and condemned its public disclosure. They have suggested that the articles might tip off terrorists that their money transfers could be detected"

Which is bogus if you read the document I referenced on a US military website, which states that Al Qaeda lives on a small budget that is easily broken up into even smaller chunks which can then be transferred anonymously.  Never mind the dozens of other sources that have stated that Al Qaeda also converted much of their cash to diamonds and gold to be transferred by courier.  


Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Jonny on Jun 28th, 2006, 9:24pm
Roberts Wants Damage Assessment Caused by New York Times Report
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a former newspaperman himself, argued Tuesday that The New York Times served no public interest when it exposed an effective and classified program that tracked terrorist money transfers.

Sen. Pat Roberts also asked Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte to make an official assessment of the damage done by publication of stories by the Times and other newspapers about the SWIFT account tracking program.

"We cannot continue to operate in a system where the government takes steps to counter terrorism while the media actively works to disclose those operations without any regard for protection of lives, sources and legal methods," said Roberts, R-Kan., who as intelligence chairman has been briefed extensively on the efforts.

A group of Republican senators flatly accused the Times of damaging the war against Al Qaeda and argued vigorously that the paper, which took the lead in exposing the program, was irresponsible.

"This isn't about freedom of the press; it's about what is prudent in a time of war. The New York Times has the right to print whatever it sees fit to print. I want to make that very clear. But just because you can doesn't mean that you should," Roberts said.
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Jonny on Jun 28th, 2006, 9:35pm
Flo,

Can you show me an article that says the NY times did a good thing?

Fucking Traitors!!!!

"The conservative lawmaker called the paper "pompous, arrogant and more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people."

Dont buy the NY Times!!!!
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by floridian on Jun 28th, 2006, 10:14pm
Good in the sense of Mother Teresa? No. Good in the sense of providing information that the people in a free society should have? Maybe.  Traitorous in the sense that it will help Al Qaeda? No.  

Rove wants to use the remaining years to cut taxes again and privatize social security. But things look bad for the upcoming elections. So its time to wave the flag, and call any one who is not 100% behind the administration a traitor or coward.  No evidence that it that story will help terrorists, but plenty of evidence of grandstanding by conservative politicians.
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Jonny on Jun 28th, 2006, 10:30pm
Once again......

"This isn't about freedom of the press; it's about what is prudent in a time of war. The New York Times has the right to print whatever it sees fit to print. I want to make that very clear. But just because you can doesn't mean that you should," Roberts said."

Night Flo...love you ;;D
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jun 28th, 2006, 10:48pm
Gays, guns, and god.

When people start to figure out that your policy is bad policy, rally around gays, guns and god.
And if that doesnt work, just raise the terrorist mood ring to Orange.
;;D
Title: Re: What about the New York Times
Post by Charlie on Jun 29th, 2006, 12:13am
The Pentagon Papers.

Incredible shit from the White House back then too. Here we go again.

The basis of our country is that in a free society, it's healthy that the press has an adversary relationship with government. That goes back to the very beginning. When it doesn't, time to get out.

One of the reasons the Times prints stuff like this is that the President and his fellow conspirators treat the press, almost all of it, like dirt. It's what despots try to do. So far we have been pretty good at not letting them succeed. Be glad that it isn't easy to go after the press. Nixon and company lost that battle the hard way.

You know, even the Times might give Bush a breather and perhaps bend a little his way but he's the one that creates this atmosphere. It's not just left or right. Maureen Dowd, probably as liberal as any Times columnist, tore Clinton a new one almost every day.

When the President declared war, it was on Americans. Everyone but him sees this as pretty fucken' dangerous and GOP flag waying is pretty damned obnoxious too. Democrats did just fine when they were in charge during WWI, II, Korea, and Vietnam.

Charlie


Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.