Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArlJim78
Even so, the program was bearing fruit. If you had the time to follow every public statement and document you could maybe have drawn inferences that such activity was going on. I certainly assumed that we were doing creative things like this. It was still basically a secret program, you can't say it was common public knowledge like it is now. The Times put it on the front page and described what was going on and how it worked and that it was aimed at tracking terrorists. The funny part is that they'll still continue doing it and will probably still catch people.
My problem with the Times is that were begged by the government to keep quiet and despite there being no real problems with the program, they thought the best thing to do would be to expose it. It would almost appear that they want us to lose. These are some of the only ways we can get information about what these people are doing.
Why did they publish this story? What was the public good for the US? And a blatantly political question, if the Times had come to know about the same program during a Clinton administration (Bill or Hillary) and President Clinton pleaded with them to not run the story, does anyone believe the story would have run. Not a chance in hell! So what that means is that they didn't do it for any noble right of the public to know all that goes on. It's out national security at stake, lives are at stake, yet they play politics.
|
Art, you conservatives seem to hold a view of the Times that is at least ten years out of date. Believe me, I wish they pandered to liberals the way the Washington Sun, FoxNews, MSNBC, the NYPost, etc., etc., pander to the neo-cons. The Times was happy to jump on the Iraq bandwagon, when even I, an idiot average Joe, could see that Bush's rationals for going to war were spotty at best. They were happy to pick up and run with that ridiculous Swift Boats crap, giving the story far more legs than it should have had. During the 2000 campaign, they were happy to do articles on Gore's "exagerrations," ignoring Bush's blatant lies (like taking credit for passing the Patient Bill of Rights that he actually vetoed). Did you see the recent front-page article on the Clinton marriage? Have you seen comparable recent articles on the affair and divorce of John McCain, the affair, divorce, affair divorce of Gingrich and the divorce, affair and messy divorce of Giuliani? Have you read one of David Brooks' columns? Please.
Clearly this bank spying thing wasn't a secret, and actually kind of makes the Bush Administration look marginally competent. So maybe that's why they got so mad? Their secret plan on terror is to look like complete bumbling idiots and this plan being news makes them look less incompetent?
I think a lot of the Plame thing is whether people lied under oath. Which, I believe, is what Clinton was charged with, as getting a hummer in the Oval Office isn't illegal. And if you were protesting his impeachment as a waste of time and taxpayer money back then, please do let me know.
Let see-- what do I think is more deserving of our news attention span? The torture issue comes to mind-- 1) Bush signing a torture ban and adding a codecil (spelling?) that he plans to ignore it if he wants. At least 100 prisoners having died in US custody while held under suspicion of being terrorists. Died. In our care. We're the USA; we're supposed to be better than the people we're fighting. 2) The gov't holding up the release of a vaccine for the kind of genital warts that cause cervical cancer, because there is concern that it will encourage teenage girls to have sex. Because, of course, it's morally appropriate to let them get CANCER instead. 3) New Orleans. New Orleans, New Orleans. 4) Safety issues in the mines. Guess what's gone down in the years of the Bush administration? Mine safety inspections and violations issued. Maybe you're a blue-blood and don't care, but my family included miners on my mom's side and the cuts in mine safety are disgusting. 5) Oh, and this little mess we're in called Iraq. Congress gets a vote on flag-burning to go off when we have no exit strategy? God help us. 6) Continual efforts on the part of the Republicans to get rid of the estate tax, which affects only one percent of Americans and only kicks in after someone leaves an estate in excess of, I believe, $7 million. Because of course, who can possibly live on only $7 million dollars? How dare they take 35 percent of everything over that, meaning one leaves a piddling $65 million instead of $100 million. Who can possibly survive on $65 million?
And in general, the establishment of a government that seems to view the Constitution as an obstacle to get around, not the basis of our nation.
Okay, back to my corner to breathe deeply and then back to the Paddock for happier things to read about. Please know ArtJim, I don't take any of this personally and I really do enjoy hearing your views. Likewise any of the other cons on the board who present their views clearly and well. I'm always amenable to having my position changed if it was wrong.
