The New York Times, L.A. Times Defend Themselves

In a joint editorial written by New York Times Editor Bill Keller and L.A. Times Editor Dean Baquet, the two defend their decision to make public details about the Treasury Department’s efforts to track terrorist financing.
The whole thing is worth a read, but here’s the conclusion:

We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.

I’d note that the decision about what details of covert intelligence-gathering efforts does not rest with the editors of America’s largest newspapers. Those men (and women, along with the anonymous government informants who break the law to pass this sort of information to them) have not been entrusted with that power by American citizens. They, in their overbearing manner, may think that responsibility lays with them, but it doesn’t. Rather, it lays with the leaders this country’s citizens have elected through the democratic process.
We do not elect journalists to make national security decisions, we elect Presidents and Congressman.
It is the height of arrogance for these editors and journalists to believe that, by right of their profession, they have the “responsibility” to ignore the pleadings of our elected leaders and make decisions that impact the very safety of our society. A majority of Americans placed President Bush and the various members of Congress into power so that they, and they alone, could establish the policies and procedures that keep this country safe from terrorism. When these two news editors made their decision to ignore our leaders and print details about a covert anti-terror program they thumbed their noses at both our elected leaders and the will of the people.
As a participant in the democratic process that put those leaders in power I am deeply offended at the sheer arrogance on display in the above op/ed. They hold up the first amendment as their shield against criticism, but to me this is not about free speech. This is about respecting the will of the people, and clearly the folks at these newspapers don’t.

Tags:


«
»
  • http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

    I wouldn’t be a dictator… just like our founding fathers sitting in that hot and humid hall in Philadelphia 230 years ago today weren’t dictators.

  • carrick

    Great hijack, RBB. I had gotten completely bored with attempts at defending the indefensible wrt the NYT.

    Of course, I don’t much like Ann Coulter, so my opinion is pretty clouded with emotion on her. However, you’re going to make me choke on my soup if you are insinuating somehow that the press corp doesn’t routinely plagiarize each other and themselves.

    I don’t doubt for a second that “they are out to get her”, including a professor from that bastion of über-liberallism UBC, if not because they simply disagree with her (a common habit of the left) then because she provokes so much anger among them.

  • carrick

    Campbell’s Select® Italian Wedding Soup. Good stuff.

  • robert108

    Dave Miller: You would be dictator? Thanks for revealing your true agenda. Mao and Castro would be proud of you. Your feelings and my feelings have nothing to do with doing the right thing. The difference between an individual blogger and a giant “news” corporation is exactly the point. It was an individual blogger who brought down Dan Rather and CBS, but only with the help of an informed electorate who voted with their dollars. If the majority hadn’t cared about the faked memo, nothing would have come of it.
    I do more than disagree with the Times. All information is not equal. What they did was wrong, and those who want them disciplined for what they did are right. There will always be people who go against the govt for emotional reasons, and they are dangerous, like Hinckley or whoever it was that really killed JFK.

  • robert108

    diane: Interesting comment from someone who rarely speaks for herself, instead preferring long cuts and pastes from mouthpieces.

  • Bat One

    Both of these august gentlemen should be jailed… if only for their self-serving arrogance.

    When the material involved is classified TOP SECRET or TOP SECRET/Codeword, as verified by the administration, during wartime, no less, there is no difficult decision. You don’t publish. To do so is a clear violation of Title 18 as, hopefully, Mr. Keller is about to find out.

    If Keller thinks his decision to publish this material, and the NSA surveillance story before this, let him convince a jury of that fact. He has already acknowledged that the responsiblity was his. Let’s see just how well he is actually able to shoulder that responsibility.

  • http://blogs.wizbangblog.com/author/index.php?author=Rodney%20Graves sayanything-42

    likwidshoe,

    You wrote:

    the incredible answer that Congress can’t make any kind of law when it comes to speech. Death threats, libel, slander, and state wartime secrets be damned.

    Does rather fly in the face of 200 years of laws and court precedents, don’t it? I’m also sure that Senators McCain and Feingold will be astonished to hear this as well…

    But frankly, we’d all do better to just ignore the troll.

    Out Here
    Rodney Graves
    rodney.g.graves@gmail.com

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ Goon

    Funny play with words but Bush was elected with a pretty good number the second time around. The election wasn’t stolen, Gore tried to cherry pick heavily democratic areas and wasn’t able to steal the election. Even after all the media counts in 9/10 counts Bush still won the election.

  • Bat One

    RBB,

    Before you try to foist off the very tired Wilson/Plame story yet again, please consider carefully: If you are going to allege that the release of her anme/status/whatever was a violation of the law because here employment at CIA was “classified,” then you had better be prepared to be equally outraged when other classified information, much, much, more sensitive and highly classified information is published by the NYT.

    For if you are not so prepared then your St. Valerie mem is little more than a warmed over serving of “left” overs.

    The release of Wilson/Plame’s name and information was not a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, a fact which as thoroughly documented years ago.

    The leaking and publishing of the NSA Surveillance Program data and now the SWIFT/Treasury program have both done serious harm to the wartime interests of the United States.

    However, if you disagree with my assessment, and have something more than warmed over partsanship to substantiate that view… bring it on. That is, after all, the point of having a grand jury investigation and a trial, now isn’t it?

  • Outmigrated NoDaker

    “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

    *Thomas Jefferson in a Letter to Colonel Edward Carrington (January 16, 1787)

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    It specifically empowers the people to change or abolish ANY government that no longer serves the needs of the people, and serves as a reminder to the government who is really in charge- the people of the United States.

    Yeah, it’s the people of the United States who have spoken in the ballot box. Since that’s settled why don’t you guys quit obstructing progress in every way that you can.

  • realitybasedbob

    …But in September 2003 the same Secretary Snow invited a group of reporters from our papers, The Wall Street Journal and others to travel with him and his aides on a military aircraft for a six-day tour to show off the department’s efforts to track terrorist financing. The secretary’s team discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration’s relentlessness against the terrorist threat.

    The Decider talked openly many, many times about his efforts in tracking terrorist financing…it’s all on video tape and if you really wanted to see it, just do a few simple searches…

  • carrick

    Dave Miller:

    It’s far from treasonous to point out programs implemented by the government that may be constitutionally questionable. That’s the most patriotic thing an American can do. Forget for a moment that the terrorists were well aware that their financial footprints were being watched and this wasn’t new news.

    It certainly isn’t treasonous to publish state secrets in any case.

    Spare me the sanctimonious prattle about the NYT’s patriotism on this one though.

    There was nothing patriotic about publishing the SWIFT story. This is so much wretched excuse making for sorry greed-driven editorial decision making, and little more. Really, I’m having trouble why anybody would try to paint this as anything else, since it just makes your side bad when you try to defend this indefensible act.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    . Forget for a moment that the terrorists were well aware that their financial footprints were being watched and this wasn’t new news. Dave Miller on July 3, 2006 at 1:38 PM

    For about the tenth time I have to point out that the financial monitoring program was working, we were catching terrorists with that. The people that run that program claim that it will not be nearly as effective if even possible.

    Every time you try to make the claim that the program was known, it makes you look stupid.

    Dave Miller since this is the first time that you’ve posted that nonsense your maybe just ignorant.

  • http://blogs.wizbangblog.com/author/index.php?author=Rodney%20Graves sayanything-42

    Folks,

    The fact that the United States established a “foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Treasury Department” does not reveal means and methods. The means and methods by which such intelligence is gathered, analyzed, and acted upon are the true secrets of the program, not the mere existance of the program.

    The damage caused by the TTT (Two Treasonous Times’) was in some of the specifics of how the program worked to collect the intelligence.

    The original article, the subsequent defenses, and the letter from Secretary Snow will all be admissable in court, and will go a long way towards conviction under the Espionage Act (as ammended) in and of themsleves.

    Out Here
    Rodney Graves
    rodney.g.graves@gmail.com

  • robert108

    I guess “Jefferson and the other founders(according to you) were wrong. The press today is highly agendized and is only serving one side of the political equation, and that is the side that would see America go down in defeat and become a socialist dictatorship. I doubt the founders would have approved the situation today. Since Marxism didn’t exist at the time of the writing of the founding documents, its tactics and strategies were not forseen. We knew who the British were, by the color of their uniforms, and whe knew what the bad system was: monarchy. Nothing in the founding documents deals with the lies and distortions of Marxism.

  • diane

    This is about respecting the will of the people, and clearly the folks at these newspapers don’t.

    Look who doesn’t respect what the people want or think:

    “People didn’t agree with my decision on Iraq. I understand that… I don’t govern by polls.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/…/chi-060621bush-eu,1,2463005. story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

    He obviously doesn’t respect the will of the people.

    Why expect a higher standard of conduct from newspapers than from the President?

  • diane

    Feb. 2006:
    An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

  • Outmigrated NoDaker

    It’s a quote from a founding father. Take it for what it is. It needs no explaination.

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    I’m not in the enlightening mood. Pick up a copy of the Constitution and spend the next couple of days figuring it out on your own. You just might enlighten yourself.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote extensivley about personal enlightenment… he favored learning from his own study than from what someone else could tell him.
    Dave Miller on July 3, 2006 at 1:18 PM

    You don’t understand it, do you?

  • http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

    You see Rob, you have this all backward. The founders wanted to make the government to be as minimal as possible. They were tired of having their lives run by a tyrant king and not having much say about it.

    What the founders understood was that power is dangerous. No matter what limitations they put into the structure of the government, there was always a risk that the government could be hijacked, to use a modern term.

    So they continued to layer on the checks and balances. The first amendment allowing for a free press was all part of the most important check and balance. It is the people that give the power to the government and not the other way around. You and others, constantly assume that what the government does is right and just. But the press and the people have the responsibility to keep tabs on what the government does. This is what the NY and LA Times were doing.

    Forget for a moment that the Swift program is not new and has been in place for over 3 years. If anything, the two Times are late to the game, but nonetheless doing their job!

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    RBB: we just spent millions of dollars for Fitgerald to discover that no crime was committed in releasing Valerie’s Plame name.

    So are you only upset when the law isn’t broken and national security isn’t greatly harmed?

  • robert108

    “But it is my right, my duty actually, to take down the government if I feel it is not living up to the Constitution framework that they must govern by.”

    In one form or another, that is what every dictator down through the ages has said to justify his actions. It sounds just like Julius Caesar appointing himself as Emperor.

  • robert108

    The “majority” is of troops sampled, if that statement is even true. Which troops did they sample? Were they combat troops?

  • realitybasedbob

    Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community…

    Valerie Wilson’s cover was blown in July 2003…

    That’s the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer’s identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.
    And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.

  • http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

    That’s rather petty just to try and make your point. If you want to take the theme of my comments literally then yes, I guess I would be a dictator. I’m going to stop there, my brain hurts.

  • Outmigrated NoDaker

    Jefferson, and the other founders concidered “the Press” to be the 4th Branch of Government. When the other 3 failed, the Press was supposed to keep things in check.

    Rob stated “It is the height of arrogance for these editors and journalists to believe that, by right of their profession, they have the “responsibility” to ignore the pleadings of our elected leaders and make decisions that impact the very safety of our society.

  • Bat One

    The reporters that wrote the stories are also cuplable.

    Doc Dave,

    I did not mean to slight anyone. Those reporters should be the very first ones to receive subpoenas
    to testify before a federal grand jury.

    Furthermore, as the alleged crimes are against the government of the United States and are purported to have been committed by outsiders (at least so far – we’ll get to the leakers in due course) let’s have none of this Special Prosecutor nonsense. We have US Attorneys for exactly this reason. Turn ‘em loose.

  • realitybasedbob

    Valerie Wilson

  • realitybasedbob

    or whoever it was that really killed JFK.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Looks like I didn’t hit the post button quick enough.

    diane just gave us the incredible answer that Congress can’t make any kind of law when it comes to speech. Death threats, libel, slander, and state wartime secrets be damned.

  • robert108

    Dave Miller: Nice misstatement. I said we have a right to be governed by the officials we elect, not by unelected newspaper moguls. We also have a right to take down an unelected cabal with a monolithic political agenda whom the people have not elected, and who lie to us on a dialy basis.

  • robert108

    rbb: If you are so incensed about VP’s “outing”, by extension of your own “logic”, then, you should be really pissed off about this NYT stuff. Are you? If you will remember, the VP matter was subjected to investigation, and one indictment even came out of it. How could we do less with the NYT thing? You make our points for us. Thanks.

  • diane

    Folks,

    We all know that terrorists are so stupid that they need complete disclosure by newspapers to have any clue at all how their money may be tracked by the government. That’s why they’re so very dangerous that we are spending billions of dollars and our young people’s lifeblood to kill them all. They are just too stupid to allow them to wander around the world unchecked.

    If it hadn’t been for the Times, they would never have even thought of the possibility.

    They’re just dumb.

    The papers are to blame. The terrorists sit and ait for each addition to know what not to do.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Then where is the indictment . . . ?

  • realitybasedbob

    The first time I looked, the majority of Americans rejected George Bush as President.

  • realitybasedbob

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffrance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

  • Dave

    Bat One writes:

    Both of these august gentlemen should be jailed

    A bunch of hippies suggested:

    Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

  • http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

    but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community

    I hear tell that most of the people in her neighborhood community knew about it. Now are you claiming that we are putting intelligence operatives in ghettos?

  • diane

    Oh, okay, Robert108. I’ll explain it to you. Dave was being sarcastic when he called them a ‘bunch of hippies’, because that term is used here to berate from time to time. The point was that these ‘hippies’, our founders, supported free of speech (unlike some here) AND even stated:

    Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

    Get it now?

  • diane

    he favored learning from his own study than from what someone else could tell him.

    Boy, would he get a dressing down from Carrick and a few others! :)

  • robert108

    diane: Oh, is this a coffee klatsch? I thought it was an open forum. Didn’t you just throw a temper tantrum over that point? Why do you criticize me for wanting the same thing you want? Hypocrisy?

  • http://www.standingonthesoapbox.org/ Andrew

    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

    Nice misdirection. That quote was specifically about the British Colonial govt, not the duly constituted and elected govt of, by, and for the people of the United States.

    Robert- You weaken your point with your own words. The quote you cited states ANY form of government! It’s true that the British Colonial Government was what the authors were responding to, but they also were able to envision abuses down the line in the Government that they were creating. Hence the checks and balances, and the above statement. It specifically empowers the people to change or abolish ANY government that no longer serves the needs of the people, and serves as a reminder to the government who is really in charge- the people of the United States. Not the president, not the congress, not the judicial system, and not the press- the people. The function of the government is to ensure that the rights of the people are not infringed, and if it cannot or will not do that, it must be restructured or replaced.

  • robert108

    Dave Miller: You are right about the Founders wanting limited govt, just like present-day Conservatives. The real problem is with the emergence, after the Constitution, of Marxism. This produced a governing system that claimed to be “for the people” while really being a govt by either a dictator or an elite. The press has gone from being individual operators(like in Ben Franklin’s day) to massive organizations with a political agenda. The Constitution gives freedom of the press, but not power as a political entity, which it is today. The people have a right to be governed by their elected officials. If the MSM interferes with that by endlessly propagandizing one political agenda, it should be stopped.

  • robert108

    diane: Yes, explain it to me. Do I need to ask more than once? What is your problem? Here is the perfect chance to shoot off your mouth and be self-righteous and superior. Dave Miller can’t do the job, so maybe you can.

  • robert108

    Dave: “A bunch of hippies suggested:

    Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

    The Founding Fathers were the opposite of a bunch of hippies. They were erudite, educated, and believed in God. None of them were vegans, either. Congress isn’t making any law, btw. If these guys are indicted and convicted, it will be for their treasonus actions. Freedom brings responsibility, and they are not immune from the consequences of their actions.

  • realitybasedbob

    R, why do you hate our founding fathers…why do you hate America?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    diane said, Will someone please explain it to Robert (so he can stop being confused?)

    Fine, I will.

    robert108 – the First Amendment of the Constitution means absolute free speech. Apparently this includes state wartime secrets that could endanger the country should they ever get into enemy hands. I guess death threats, libel and slander are okay as well. After all, instead of actually addressing the subject at hand, Dave sarcastically quoted it as if it was absolute. The pile-on from Dave Miller and diane also enforces the notion that they believe that the First Amendment is absolute.

    I don’t think you were “confused” as diane unhelpfully added. I’m betting that you were roping them into seeing the above.

  • http://www.standingonthesoapbox.org/ Andrew

    And it is the lefties who scream the loudest about any responsibilites for the harm caused by intemperate speech.

    And yet, us ‘lefties’ don’t believe the newspapers have committed treason…

  • diane

    I didn’t mention guns diane.

    Excuse me, doesn’t ‘bearing arms’ include guns? What kind of guns? How many? With a license or without? Automatic weapons? Assault weapons?

    I just realize that next to nothing is absolute in life. Congress shall not infringe on the right to bear arms. Does that mean I can have a tank in my front yard pointed at my neighbors? There’s that “iffy” thing that you won’t answer.

    My answer is to not tamper with or take liberties with our founding documents. What’s yours?

    I don’t like hearing ‘this is a new kind of enemy, this is a new kind of war’ used to get dicey with the Constitution and international law and the Geneva Conventions and personal freedoms.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    diane helpfully informs, No lik, I didn’t write that; I pasted it.

    No shit diane.

  • robert108

    Dave Miller: You can’t answer the question. Not surprising. That furnishes an accurate context for your comment.

    diane: So, why did you say that?

  • robert108

    rbb: “R, why do you hate our founding fathers…why do you hate America?”

    The Founding Fathers created America by argument and wrangling, finally arriving at an uneasy consensus which was really an open-ended argument. This is what I do. Why, with your one-sided monologue against one Party, do you hate America? You keep trying to stop the process by which America was founded.

  • diane

    “You’re all liars”.
    …Robert108

    Not really, he didn’t really say that.

  • http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

    I’m not in the enlightening mood. Pick up a copy of the Constitution and spend the next couple of days figuring it out on your own. You just might enlighten yourself.

    Thomas Jefferson wrote extensivley about personal enlightenment… he favored learning from his own study than from what someone else could tell him.

  • diane

    Aren’t you ALWAYS totally on point, Robert108? Why even mention it. We just assume you are always totally on point.

    (More sarcasm from an ‘angry’ poster). :)

  • http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

    The press has the duty to make sure the constitution is protected and is not being abused by the individuals who are in the government. By giving the press the freedoms that they have, the goverment is held in check.

    It’s far from treasonous to point out programs implemented by the government that may be constitutionally questionable. That’s the most patriotic thing an American can do. Forget for a moment that the terrorists were well aware that their financial footprints were being watched and this wasn’t new news.

    And Robert you can bite me. I’m on the air and I will answer your fucking question when I’m good and able.

    And yes, Thomas Jefferson was infavor of self education first. He of course wanted a state run education system, but he felt that there was nothing more important than constant learning.

  • realitybasedbob

    what kind of soup?

  • http://www.standingonthesoapbox.org/ Andrew

    Whistler, with all due respect, you misconstrue my words- I at no point claimed that the current government was not duly elected by the people. I was pointing out the flaw in Robert’s statement, specifically that the Founding Fathers were only referring to the British Colonial government in the ‘alter or abolish’ statement; and by extension, the implication that this government is not subject to the will of the people. Elections are, by definition, the will of the people, and I am proud to participate in them.

  • http://www.standingonthesoapbox.org/ Andrew

    Robert, I fail to see how you are able to make that distinction. The language is clear: ‘Any government’ means ANY government. By definition, ‘when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism’ then it has ceased to BE a government of the people, and is subject to alteration or abolishment.

  • realitybasedbob

    Thank you Andrew.

  • robert108

    “Lik, it is the conservatives here who scream the loudest about any sort of gun control.”

    And it is the lefties who scream the loudest about any responsibilites for the harm caused by intemperate speech. What does that tell you?

  • Paulie B

    I’m for gun control. Aim center mass… One shot, one kill!

  • diane

    Yeah, it’s the people of the United States who have spoken in the ballot box. Since that’s settled why don’t you guys quit obstructing progress in every way that you can.

    Did you support Clinton when he was President? Did you want him prosecuted and impeached? Will you support President Hillary and ask your fellow conservative not to obstructive her agenda if she is our next commander in chief?

  • robert108

    Dave Miller: I’ll accept your excuse with a note from your producer. I don’t excuse your arrogant, rude and abusive reply, though. You commented and I asked you a legitimate question based on your comment. You have the right to speak freely, but must take the consequences of your speech. There are no absolute rights, except those enjoyed by Kings, Emperors and dictators. We don’t have any of that here. Free speech is also conditional on whether or not the speech interferes with the rights of others. Free speech does not include immunity from the consequences of harmful actions.

  • robert108

    “t seems the conservatives aren’t happy with the Constitution and look for ways to bypass what it says.”

    That must be why Conservatives are always trying to legislate through the courts, and want to bring foreign laws in to re-interpret the Constitution. When we want an originalist Supreme Court, we don’t really mean it. Yeah, right.

  • robert108

    Andrew: I am well aware of that. However, that particular statement was not directed at any govt of the people in the United States, which is what the current lefties would like you to believe. It is misleading to claim that their animus against the President is in any way sanctioned by the founding documents of this country. They simply wish to implement minority control in this country, by subversion and hijacking our national institutions.

  • realitybasedbob

    Sorry, it was an outing of a CIA NOC agent.

  • diane

    Which troll, Rodney? You, or were you talking about rbb or Dave Miller and these quotes from our founders?

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient suffrance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

    and

    Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

    (not your loose and easy translation of it)

    It seems that the ‘lefty liars’ are the ones who agree with the founding fathers’ definition of freedom, the foundation for this country, and that the other side feels things should be changed. It seems it is we ‘lefty liars’ who are fighting to maintain the freedoms this country was based on, and that supposedly, but not really, the war on Iraq is being fought for.
    It seems the conservatives aren’t happy with the Constitution and look for ways to bypass what it says.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    Yes, funny how RBB cannot muster any outrage over a real breach of national security.

  • realitybasedbob

    Speaking of intemperate speech…. (Can you feel a hijacking coming on?)

    The internets are all a buzz about the righties’ darling hatchet gall …opps, gal, Ann Coulter.

    I think some people are not please with her story telling style anymore.

    What will we tell the children?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Lik, it is the conservatives here who scream the loudest about any sort of gun control.

    I didn’t mention guns diane.

    Wow, you make our freedoms such ‘iffy’ things. Tampering too much with the very plain language of what was written when this country was founded is a dangerous thing.

    Not true at all. I just realize that next to nothing is absolute in life. Congress shall not infringe on the right to bear arms. Does that mean I can have a tank in my front yard pointed at my neighbors? There’s that “iffy” thing that you won’t answer.

  • http://www.standingonthesoapbox.org/ Andrew

    ‘Any Government’ means any government- Communist, Marxist, Theocratic, whatever, whether it was currently in existence or not. It is a logical argument, working from the general to the specific. The opening of the passage states that the people have a basic right to a government that ensures their safety and happiness. It goes on that if a government consistently cannot or will not meet those needs, then the people have a right to change it. Given this, the passage then states that the British government is not meeting those needs, and therefore must be changed.

    I do not deny that the British government is specifically mentioned; however, the laguage used does not limit the ideas expressed to the British Government. Why do you oppose the idea that our government must be subject to the will of the people?

  • robert108

    diane: Thanks for the explanation, which shows me that I was totally on point. I took Dave’s smearing of the Founding Fathers as “hippies”, and replied directly to it. Sarcasm is repressed anger, after all. As a leftie, I know Dave really hates them, and his use of their words(purposely distorting their meaning) is hateful, and I busted him for it.
    I also pointed out that Congress isn’t making any law abridging the freedom of speech here. It is the consent of the governed that is working here to punish the NYT for its crimes against national security. Check the polls on this one, everyone.

  • robert108

    Andrew: At the time it was written, the US govt did not yet exist. The “any govt” referred specifically to any monarchial govt, which was all that existed in that time. Since Marxism did not yet exist, are Marxist govts included in that statement? Not if you go by your logic.

  • diane

    Spun cotton candy, anyone?

    Lik, it is the conservatives here who scream the loudest about any sort of gun control.

    Wow, you make our freedoms such ‘iffy’ things. Tampering too much with the very plain language of what was written when this country was founded is a dangerous thing.

  • realitybasedbob

    But r, you are an originalist, are you not?

    Why are you trying to re-interpret our Constitution?

    It says ANY. It must mean ANY…right?

  • diane

    Boy did Robert miss the point!!!

    Will someone please explain it to Robert (so he can stop being confused?)

  • robert108

    Dave: Do you support the right to keep and bear arms as enthusiastically as you support the right to free speech? How about the right to the free exercise of religion? Just wondering.

  • http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

    A right to be governed? No. We the people have the right to be free. We the people have the right to implement a system of laws or governance that we feel will allow for our inherent freedoms to go untouched. We the people also have the right to take down a government that we feel is not living up to the terms that We set out.

  • realitybasedbob

    Bush talked openly about the monitoring/tracking of terrorist money…all the NYT/traitor talk is hot air. Get over yourselves.

    September 24, 2001

    THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. At 12:01 a.m. this morning, a major thrust of our war on terrorism began with the stroke of a pen. Today, we have launched a strike on the financial foundation of the global terror network.

  • robert108

    diane: I supported Clinton to do what the office of President requires, but not in his personal criminal activities. I wanted him impeached for accepting campaign money from foreign sources and for selling our technology to terrorists. I wanted him to go to war against the terrorists, but he appeased them instead. If Hillary is ever legally elected, I would support her as the President, but not if she wanted to continue her Marxist ways.

  • robert108

    “And yet, us ‘lefties’ don’t believe the newspapers have committed treason…”

    My point exactly. It’s not about belief, it’s about selling out the secrets of this country for circulation dollars. The NYT is a bunch of mercenaries.

  • http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

    I’m not elected. But it is my right, my duty actually, to take down the government if I feel it is not living up to the Constitution framework that they must govern by. The press, whether they are an individual blogger or a giant corporation with an agenda are part of the check on the government.

    At the end of the day, you have just as much of an agenda as does the Times. You disagree with how they see things, therefore you feel what they did was wrong, and that is the problem with this issue. That is the problem with protesting the government in the first place. There will always be people that side with everything the government does and that is dangerous.

  • diane

    diane: I supported Clinton to do what the office of President requires, but not in his personal criminal activities. I wanted him impeached for accepting campaign money from foreign sources and for selling our technology to terrorists. I wanted him to go to war against the terrorists, but he appeased them instead. If Hillary is ever legally elected, I would support her as the President, but not if she wanted to continue her Marxist ways.

    Well, he was elected our President, and as Whistler said:

    Since that’s settled why don’t you guys quit obstructing progress in every way that you can.

  • http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

    That is truly beautiful. Perfect reading for this American birthday. Tx RBB.

  • robert108

    Last time I looked, the majority of Americans elected George Bush as President, and have the right to his leadership, not the constant undermining from the losers. You people are interfering with our right to the leadership we voted for.

  • Dave

    Robert108 amazingly lies four times in one sentence. He wrote:

    As a leftie,

    I’m not. Lie #1.

    I know Dave really hates them,

    Lie #2. I don’t “hate” the Founding Fathers. I despise them!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

    and his use of their words(purposely distorting their meaning) is hateful,

    Lie #3. It is not hateful. I interpret the words, “Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” to mean, strangely enough, that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The reason I interpret it that way is because that’s what it says!

    and I busted him on it.

    Well, this lie is rather self-evident. Robert108 hasn’t “busted” anyone.

    Consensually, that is.

  • diane

    Actually, I’m so looking forward to seeing everyone here completely supporting the decisions that our next Democratic President will be making. Whether it’s in 2008 or whenever. I want to learn from you in an example of citizenship and patriotism what it really means and looks like to get behind someone simply because they are The President, regardless of what it may be that falls in the range of policy and not bedroom behavior, etc.

  • http://www.themillerreport.com/ Dave Miller

    Boy did Robert miss the point!!!

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    robert108 asks, Do you support the right to keep and bear arms…

    The way Dave, Dave Miller, and diane understand the First Amendment, they’d probably think that the Second includes the right to arm yourself with a nuclear tipped rocket launcher.

    How would you put it Dave?

    A bunch of hippies suggested:
    …the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Nuclear tipped rocket launchers!

    Here is where you “LOL” and miss the point with regards the First Amendment.

    diane just does not get it, It seems that the ‘lefty liars’ are the ones who agree with the founding fathers’ definition of freedom, the foundation for this country, and that the other side feels things should be changed.

    Question: are death threats, libel and slander out of the purview of Congressional laws diane? You seem to be saying that they are.

    It seems the conservatives aren’t happy with the Constitution and look for ways to bypass what it says.

    It seems that you are avoiding my points.

    Wonder why that is?

  • Puzzlefeet

    Yeah, R108, remember that line when a democrat is elected president. From the poll, “Of those surveyed, 75 percent had served multiple tours in Iraq, 63 percent were under 30 years of age, and 25 percent were women.”

  • diane

    No lik, I didn’t write that; I pasted it. The people who wrote it have been dead awhile.

  • Dave

    likwid shoe (I think) wrote:

    The way Dave, Dave Miller, and diane understand the First Amendment, they’d probably think that the Second includes the right to arm yourself with a nuclear tipped rocket launcher.

    It most certainly does, and I challenge you to explain to me how it doesn’t.

    These Amendments mean exactly what they say, and these “exceptions” Congress “finds” every year (“the right to bear all arms…except for assault weapons!”) make our country weaker as a result. If you don’t like free speech or the right to bear arms, pass a new Constitutional Amendment–don’t just magically rewrite the Bill of Rights as you see fit.

  • realitybasedbob

    Rarely is the question asked.

  • robert108

    I don’t understand. Are you supporting newspapers to be the highest authority on everything in our country? I guess I don’t agree that newspapers represent “the opinion of the people”. I think they represent their own agenda, and not that of the majority of the people.

  • robert108

    Dave Miller: What point was that? Please enlighten me.

  • Dave

    Boy did Robert miss the point!!!

    LOL.

  • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ Goon

    Actually It has been said that Wilson wasn’t even a secret agent at the time of her so called outing but that is probably another discussion. Of course no matter what the President does its not going to be good enough for the Left wing press (drive by media) or the liberals that hate and despise him. I remember when Liberals used to bitch and moan about how the Right Wing Media was to rough on Clinton. The comparison isn’t even close. The Left Wing Media has tried to do anything it can to destroy the Bush presidency.

    Most liberals are on the wrong side of most of all the issues. They think enemy combatants that were fighting a war against the USA should be given jury trials, just bring them to the USA and give them the full rights of all Americans even though they are not Americans. Also wrongly, Liberals think that if we just go back to the USA and practice isolationism the terrorist will leave us alone.

    So I could see them being upset with the USA tracking Transactions of Terrorist but also tracking Terrorist’s phone calls. God forbid we use this information to Kill bad people and track them down and stop bad acts against the USA.

  • robert108

    rbb: You continue to dodge the question of why you are so hot about the VP matter and yet want to downplay the NYT treachery. Give us your reasoned argument, please.
    BTW, if the Treasury program was well-known and a matter of public record, as you assert, then why was it front page news in the NYT. Those two things just don’t track.

  • realitybasedbob

    Bush announced the establishment of a foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Treasury Department. It will identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks.

    “It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions,” Bush said.

  • http://www.kenmccracken.blogspot.com/ Ken McCracken

    No one knew that SWIFT was involved RBB, until the NYTimes blew the cover on it. Tracking finances in order to find terrorists is a no-brainer, but releasing details of the classified relationship between that particular organization and the CIA would be an incredibly important detail for a sophisticated money launderer to know.

    That classified relationship was critical to actually catching terrorists in case you didn’t know, and now they know better than to do any transaction that has anything to do with SWIFT.

    Strike that. Now that the Times blew the lid on it, SWIFT is now probably the safest way to go.

  • robert108

    Why did you use it, then? Are you a history teacher trying to fulfill some requirement for posting on a blog? I asked you to explain yourself, not to explain TJ. You must have had some point you were trying to get across; just be honest about it.

  • robert108

    diane: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”

    Nice misdirection. That quote was specifically about the British Colonial govt, not the duly constituted and elected govt of, by, and for the people of the United States.

    Once again, you purposely mislead.

  • robert108

    rbb: You conveniently leave out the fact that they were talking about a colonial govt, in which they had no voice at all. Our present govt was selected by a majority of the citizens, and bears no relation to the British colonial govt of the 18th century. It is the Dems who would treat us like their colony, with high taxes and excessive govt controls on the economy. When you quote history, quote the whole thing, not just the few parts that reinforce your “Get the President” agenda. It is you who would make us into a one-party system with your relentless one-sided attacks on the Republican Party.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Actually, no it wasn’t.

    But I love how you’ve tried to change the subject now. The Plame thing has been gone over to death. How about we talk about the subject at hand?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    That wasn’t a leak, realityboob.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    What the President chooses to disclose to the public is his decision, realityboob. He is our elected leader, whether you like it or not. Those are his decisions to make.

    It is most definetly not the responsibility of newspaper editors.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development