Comments on: (See-Dubya) Arguing in the Alternative–Clarke says Times Was Just Blowing Smoke

By: Patterico’s Pontifications » Keller on Face the Nation

Patterico’s Pontifications » Keller on Face the Nation — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 18:20:57 +0000

[...] Keller, you’re a smart guy, and I know you know better than this. There is a difference between publishing a story saying “Government Monitors International Banking Transactions,” which, without detail, would be greeted by a big yawn — and publishing the story that you did publish, which exposed the classified details of how the government does this. As See Dubya has already observed, you can’t have it both ways. Either ths story revealed nothing secret and sensitive, in which case it didn’t deserve front-page coverage and the agonizing that you and Dean Baquet and Doyle McManus say you went through — or it did, in which case you can’t credibly argue that the terrorists were told nothing useful. [...]

By: Beto Ochoa

Beto Ochoa — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 14:13:24 +0000

What was paramount to the success of the SWIFT monitoring was the cooperation of the Euro banking entities. That people in high places knew the tranfers were monitored was passe but the citizenry was not as informed. Also, the level of scrutiny and US Intel involvement was not so widely known even amongst the better informed. The Times effectively shouted in bold “These people are against Islam!” in a community where the Islamists have a powerful and intimidating foothold, the community those bankers have to live in, so it is those bankers who are personally at risk. Now there are public moves to stop that cooperation with the US specifically in order to kow tow to the broader Islam community. I am only surprised that the Times did not print the names and address of the bankers involved with pictures of their houses.

By: sharon

sharon — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 13:07:22 +0000

This sort of addresses the question I asked Actus repeatedly, which is what *good* does running this story do? I think the fact that there is no *good* reason to run it shows that the NYT was mainly interested in trying to make the Bush administration appear to be out of control and dictatorial. It has been amusing watching lefties try to explain that everyone knew about this program when it is clear they ran it in the expectation that everyone did NOT know and would be outraged by it. I guess they goofed.

By: davod

davod — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 11:01:50 +0000

The NYT is touting two books instaed of one. The first, espouses a secret program needing to be exposed. The second emphasizing the hyping of supposedly secret programs (the same as as in the first book) by government for political benefit.

By: Patterico

Patterico — Sun, 02 Jul 2006 00:56:47 +0000

Nice job, See-Dubya.