Patterico's Pontifications

6/23/2006

L.A. Times: You Mean the Anti-Terror Program We Exposed Was Successful? Why, That’s News to Us!

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Scum,Terrorism — Patterico @ 6:02 am



I’d like to point out a very interesting contrast between the L.A. Times and New York Times stories revealing classified details of an anti-terror operation.

The New York Times article lists several examples of successes by the program:

Among the [program’s] successes was the capture of a Qaeda operative, Riduan Isamuddin, better known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of a Bali resort, several officials said. . . .

In the United States, the program has provided financial data in investigations into possible domestic terrorist cells as well as inquiries of Islamic charities with suspected of having links to extremists, the officials said.

The data also helped identify a Brooklyn man who was convicted on terrorism-related charges last year, the officials said.

Note that, in the New York Times article, these many successes were touted by “several officials.”

By contrast, the authors of the L.A. Times article apparently couldn’t seem to find a single official willing to give evidence of the program’s successes:

Current and former U.S. officials familiar with the SWIFT program described it as one of the most valuable weapons in the financial war on terrorism, but declined to provide even anecdotal evidence of its successes.

Indeed, they found someone to suggest that there have been no such successes:

Lee Hamilton, a former congressman and co-chairman of the commission who said he has been briefed on the SWIFT program, said U.S. intelligence agencies have made significant progress in recent years, but are still falling short. “I still cannot point to specific successes of our efforts here on terrorist financing,” he said.

How is it that the New York Times was able to find “several officials” who gave numerous examples of the program’s successes — but the L.A. Times couldn’t find even one?

Are the New York Times reporters just that much better? Or are the L.A. Times reporters just not trying?

12 Responses to “L.A. Times: You Mean the Anti-Terror Program We Exposed Was Successful? Why, That’s News to Us!”

  1. Or are the L.A. Times reporters just not trying?

    Oh they’re trying. It takes real effort to be that obtuse.

    Veeshir (dfa2bf)

  2. “What did you just call me?”
    “Obtuse. Is it deliberate?”

    –The Shawshank Redemption

    One teensy bit of rationalization they can point to for everybody who’s screaming at them right now–“But, see? It’s not even successful! We didn’t do anything harmful, really!” all the while crowing about how they continue to be able to put a plastic zip tie around the wrists of the people trying to shut down terrorists.

    Anwyn (01a5cc)

  3. Are the New York Times reporters just that much better? Or are the L.A. Times reporters just not trying?

    Maybe the officials were told to clam up.

    actus (ebc508)

  4. Liberals are such a great help in the war on terror.

    Carlos (98df3a)

  5. More like the officials who talked to the NY Times are covering their asses now.

    When are they going to perp-march Bill Keller out of the NY Times building on espionage charges?

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  6. Or are the NYT folks lying?

    Perhaps?

    Everyman (590ed2)

  7. Maybe the officials were told to clam up.

    “Your instructions are to speak freely to the NYT but clam up to the LAT.”

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  8. Eight or nine major terrorists attacks on american interest/property (including one on U.S. soil), hundreds killed during the do nothing 90’s.

    Records show 9-11 planning started immeiately after the partial success in the first bombing of the WTC. After the success of 9-11 the U.S. finally went on the hunt. Successful attacks have stopped. Hundreds of attack plans have been discovered and people arrested.

    Is the anti-terror programs of the U.S. working? Anyone that can’t answer ‘yes’ go to your room and lock the door. Remember this when you go in the voting booth and when you hear/read the anti-american news outlets.

    Cancel your subscription to the NY/LA Terrorist supporting papers. They are out to get you killed so they’ll have some more front page news, not inform you.

    Scrapiron (71415b)

  9. “Your instructions are to speak freely to the NYT but clam up to the LAT.”

    I’m assuming hte Times broke the story. So they were told to clam up after that. I don’t know much about how these things work, but I doubt the NYT and LAT have the same sources.

    actus (6234ee)

  10. If the LA Times did not know of the program’s success, I’m sure they are now aghast that they acted too late to stop them from happenning…

    Ed C:\> (425c0b)

  11. I’m assuming hte Times broke the story. So they were told to clam up after that. I don’t know much about how these things work, but I doubt the NYT and LAT have the same sources.

    LAT and NYT both broke the story today (actually, last night). LAT was probably following up based on rumors of the NYT investigation, but they were conducting their own investigation.

    It makes no sense that officials would disclose successes to the NYT and later refuse to disclose them to the LAT.

    They don’t have the same sources? Very possible. But this doesn’t undercut my observation: NYT’s sources discussed the program’s successes. Somehow, LAT couldn’t find anyone who would. How very strange that is.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  12. Veeshir, FWIT, that old friend of yours, (insert French Canadian spelling) BlackJackShellcock visited here last week.

    Black Jack (d8da01)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0862 secs.