Bush Confused About Leaks
Bullshit alert! After watching George Bush and Dick Cheney weep and wail over the "damage" done by the New York Times for reporting that financial data is being dumped into the CIA as part of an effort to find terrorist networks, I kept waiting for Darryl Hannah to pop up and say, "Live, from New York, it's Saturday Night". Does George have Alzheimer's Disease? Has he forgotten that he used to love the New York Times? The only thing funnier is that most of the main stream media is reporting the antics of these clowns as straight up news.
I guess Bush and Cheney decided that leaks to the New York Times were no longer kosher when their go to girl, Judith Miller, got canned. Of course, Judy wasn't the only member of the now "traitorous" New York Times to benefit from White House largesse. Doug Jehl published a piece on August 2, 2004 that exposed an Al Qaeda informant:
The unannounced capture of a figure from Al Qaeda in Pakistan several weeks ago led the Central Intelligence Agency to the rich lode of information that prompted the terror alert on Sunday, according to senior American officials.
The figure, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was described by a Pakistani intelligence official as a 25-year-old computer engineer, arrested July 13, who had used and helped to operate a secret Qaeda communications system where information was transferred via coded messages.
A senior United States official would not confirm or deny that Mr. Khan had been the Qaeda figure whose capture led to the information. But the official said ''documentary evidence'' found after the capture had demonstrated in extraordinary detail that Qaeda members had for years conducted sophisticated and extensive reconnaissance of the financial institutions cited in the warnings on Sunday.
The White House also used the New York Times to spread lies about the state of Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Remember the September 8, 2002 piece by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller? They reported that:
More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.
In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped.
The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for
Iraq's nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship the material had taken place in recent months.
And who can forget that Vice President Cheney instructed his Chief of Staff, the intrepid Scooter Libby, to leak misleading portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate to the New York Times' Judith Miller. NPR's David Greene reported that:
Former vice presidential aide Lewis Libby, indicted for leaking a CIA agent's identity, has testified that any classified information he may have leaked to a reporter was authorized by President Bush through the vice president. The claim is included in court documents released Thursday.
Libby told a grand jury that classified information he may have leaked to a New York Times reporter was authorized for use by President Bush, acting through Vice President Dick Cheney. Lewis is awaiting trial on charges that he lied to the grand jury, which was investigating the leak of the agent's identity to the media.
We should also remember that the New York Times was not the only friendly outlet for planting "news". White House officials turned to Time Magazine and the Chicago Sun Times in shopping information about Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA officer. For this White House, leaking classified information that damages national security is okay as long as it can be used to save the President's political reputation.
President Bush crying about "leaks" to the New York Times is like listening to former Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss complain about sexual promiscuity. Sorry George, we ain't buying your song and dance.
Priceless. Just plain priceless.
June 27, 2006 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The truly pathetic and digusting thing is that our troops and the Iraqi civilians being killed in Iraq are being exploited for partisan political gain. And unfortunately a good deal of the MSM is along for the ride...
June 27, 2006 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've gotten to the point where obvious hypocrisy doesn't even register with anyone. The crew that had a hissy fit over Clinton's lying doesn't even blink when Bush is caught in lies. Conservatives who spent their lives working to keep government small and out of our lives are now trying to justify enormous defecits, growth in government, and a super duper big brother state. Iraq is Vietnam 2000.
The mask is off. We know the score. Only the media plods along pretending that things are the way that they have always been.
June 27, 2006 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see.
Bush, Cheney, Rove and company reveal a whole CIA front company, all it's employees, (some of who apparently worked on WMDs of all things) compromised anyone who ever worked for them or ever cooperated with them in other countries, all for political revenge and they demand an investigation into the NYT?
Uh huh.
Rightwingers and their so-called morals and values are just amazing. Nauseating too.
Situational ethics rule.
June 28, 2006 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! Their nation-damaging leaks notwithstanding, they have GOOD morales and values! They are real patriots! They tried real hard to pass a Constitutional amendment that makes flag-burning a crime!
June 28, 2006 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention that the NYTimes may have won him the election by sitting on the no-warrant evesdropping on Americans story until after it was over.
June 28, 2006 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing the Times can really do is just stop writing anything about the Rs: I would love to look at the front page of the Times and not see any stories on Bush, Cheney, Frist, Hastert, Inhofe, Santorum, McCain, Lott,.....
The two main prongs of the R machine involve increasing control over the only two things they don't completely control: the media and the vote counters. The rest of the efforts by the Rs is just entertainment, and in a way does control the media (flag burning: irresistable, though rare, photos of burning stars and stripes; gay marriage: nice photos of same-sex kisses; etc.).
Controlling the media and controlling the vote count. That's all they are about. Power ad infinitum.
June 28, 2006 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot about an auxilliary prong: controlling the courts.
"The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out part but kept most of a Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights."
June 28, 2006 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Boston Globe story "Terror Funds Tracking No Secret" gives a rundown of just how public the information has been with respect to the financial surveillance of foreign financial exchanges and for how long.
Bush is not confused; he thinks everyone "out there" is. Just another "reality" brought to you by the Cheney-Bush-Rove axis.
June 28, 2006 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
A nonesensical idea but it appeals to me:
The NYTimes announces that henceforth it will not write stories about the Administration.
Instead they will publish the daily news billboard, surrounded by white space. They will publish a daily list of topics they would have written about, people they would have covered and sources they would have used and so on. They would identify other media sources covering the topics and people on that particular day.
Will it matter that the Administration loses a megaphone when they want to initiate or frame a national discussion??
June 28, 2006 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
But...the Times could write about many things other than the ideology of and accustaions made by
the Republican Party members. Jeesh! There's a world 'o stories! How about this one, for starters: a week-long series looking at everything known about, including all know photographs of, the new American Embassy in Baghdad, and then more about what is NOT known?
June 28, 2006 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Loose lips cost lives" we are told.
Actually, it's true.
Here's an example of how loose lips can kill thousands of people:
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4518337-110878,00.html
June 28, 2006 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do understand that I am joking...
Agree. I would love to see some articles on American construction in Iraq [that is construction not reconstruction which is now done!!]. Between bases and the embassy alot of money for a place that we will leave during the next President's term.
You give me an idea to improve my above proposal. The Times would list the topics and the questions they have about each topic as a means of conveying information without ever writing the "treasonous" story.
June 28, 2006 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
2500 + Americans killed in Iraq, but a much bigger story is the many thousands of terribly wounded who still live. A couple of days ago I watched part of a PBS program showing the VA hospital treating brain damaged veterans from Iraq. I only watched part of it because I get tired of crying in front of the TV. When you consider that these thousands of veterans will never experience anything close to normal lives, all because Bush's cohorts wanted a war, it is hard to think of a punishment that would be too severe for them.
Hoppy in Sacramento
June 28, 2006 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Damn Larry this is a famly site. I never....hold on
June 28, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Clasified information?? They even have a magazine. Does Osama subscribe?
I'm calling BULLSHIT
June 28, 2006 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, Larry, did you find it necessary to add "about leaks" to the thread title?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 28, 2006 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello davis,
Welcome.
You hit that nail on the head.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
June 29, 2006 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
It should read, "Bush Confused"
July 1, 2006 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds more like the New York Times is getting free publicity.
July 2, 2006 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink