« Meanwhile, Back In Pristine Europe | Main | What I Woke To This Morning »

August 13, 2006

From the New York Times ~ Today's Editorial

No kudos for the operation that busted this plot, no acknowledgment that listening in on trans-continental phone calls yields invaluable intelligence or that international financial transactions might lead to someone with a bomb in his Kos-KoolAid bottle. Nope, none of it. That august institution of the free American press has the Kos-KoolAid bottle firmly pressed to it's puckered lips and is drinking in long, self satisfying swigs.

...It comes like a punch to the gut, at times like these, when our leaders blatantly use the nation’s trauma for political gain. We never get used to this. It never feels like business as usual.

On Wednesday, when the administration already knew that British agents were rounding up suspects in what they believed was a plot to blow up planes en route to the United States, Vice President Dick Cheney had a telephone interview with reporters to discuss the defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut in a Democratic primary. Mr. Cheney went off on a rather rambling disquisition, but its main point was clear: In rejecting Mr. Lieberman, who supported the war in Iraq, the Democrats were encouraging “the Al Qaeda types.” Within the Democratic ranks, the vice president added, “there’s a significant body of opinion that wants to go back — I guess the way I would describe it is sort of the pre-9/11 mind-set, in terms of how we deal with the world we live in.”

...But that did not seem to deter Mr. Lieberman from scoring a cheap sound bite yesterday. Leaving Iraq, as Mr. Lamont advocates, “will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” he said. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”


Osama bin Laden said the very same thing, but in the first person on tape: that al-Qaeda has taken strength from our continual cut and runs. All they have to do is wait us out. In the Times' eyes, I guess bin Laden is the subject matter expert and a distinguished Senator speaking the verifiable, quantitative truth using Osama bin Laden's own words is a "cheap" trickster for political gain.

Bin Laden's right, you know. He has us nailed like a cheap roof shingle. I'll bet this editorial gets framed on the cave wall when he gets it.

UPDATE and BUMP: Captain Ed has an interesting background on a controversy in the comments.

"...The controversy was about the lack of congressional and judicial oversight of the program, followed by worries that the story itself somehow compromised the program (as though terrorists would not have known of the high likelihood of their financial transactions being monitored had they not read it in the NYT and some other papers.) In other words, get yer facts straight, Swilling."

Byron Calame's (Public Editor at the NYT) column today looks at just how critical this information was for public consumption. So critical, the story was DELAYED FOR OVER A YEAR, while lying about the timing when it was finally released.
In my January column, in which I refused to rely on anonymous sources, I noted that I was left “puzzled” by the election question. But I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election. This revelation confirms what anonymous sources had told other publications such as The Los Angeles Times and The New York Observer in December.

And, as Captain's Quarters takes it apart, it was all calculated not to have Kerry look any more wishy-washy and ineffectual than he was doing on his own.
...Left-wing pundits and bloggers have insisted that Keller spiked the story to keep George Bush in office. Keller, however, has a different take on his decision. He insists that the news would have likely helped Bush rather than hurt him, and the public support for this program after its delayed revelation last December supports that analysis. John Kerry and the Democrats had castigated Bush for the lack of visible effort to find and track terrorists, and the program's exposure would have forced Kerry to recant and suddenly argue that Bush had been too enthusiastic about fighting terrorism, a tough pirouette to execute in a grueling presidential campaign.

In the end, the final version of the story got prepared just days before the election, and Keller argues that a release at that point would have been "unfair" to all parties. It took several weeks for all of the political dust to settle once the article did come out. He may have a point, but then two related events took place: he delayed the release for over a year, and then Keller lied about the timing when he published it.


Posted by tree hugging sister at August 13, 2006 09:22 AM

Comments

Can we question their patriotism yet?

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at August 11, 2006 09:35 AM

Anymore, that's almost besides the point.

Posted by: tree hugging sister at August 11, 2006 10:16 AM

One can hardly expect that the paper responsible for exposing these legal anti-terrorism measures to have any sort of admission that they were effective.

Posted by: Nightfly at August 11, 2006 10:20 AM

How about an apologie to Bush? If he had not taken the heat for phone tapping a lot of people would have died. He could have pulled the plug on the tapping when it was disclosed and kept the support of right

Posted by: reed at August 11, 2006 06:27 PM

How about an apology to Bush? If he had not taken the heat for phone tapping a lot of people would have died. He could have pulled the plug on the tapping when it was disclosed and kept the support of right

Posted by: reed at August 11, 2006 06:28 PM

Welcome reed! (And why not shoot for the moon, huh?) You're absolutely right, but we'll never see the day.

Posted by: tree hugging sister at August 11, 2006 06:46 PM

Why an apology to Bush?

As far as I can tell from the reporting, the USA had no information regarding these attacks. Despite all the snooping and spying and lying, if the Brits hadn't made this bust, 10 planes would have exploded in the US yesterday. And gee, Bush is on vacation again.

Posted by: Rollo Grande at August 11, 2006 06:58 PM

Welcome Rollo ~ and I'm afraid you're wrong on at least one count. The U.S. alerted the British to the phone conversations between the suspects.

Britain's MI-5 intelligence service and Scotland Yard had been tracking the plot for several months, but only in the past two weeks had the plotters' planning begun to crystallize, senior U.S. officials tell TIME. In the two or three days before the arrests, the cell was going operational, and authorities were pressed into action. MI5 and Scotland Yard agents tracked the plotters from the ground, while a knowledgeable American official says U.S. intelligence provided London authorities with intercepts of the group's communications. Most of the suspects are second or third generation British citizens of Pakistani descent whose families hailed from war-torn Kashmir. U.S. officials believe the 29 members were divided into multiple cells and planned to break into small groups to board the nine planes.

So 'snooping and spying and lying' DID pay off. In a BIG way.

And gee, Bush is on vacation again.

As is Tony Blair, who I think has a more immediate need to be on station. And he was still in the Caribbean last I heard.

Posted by: tree hugging sister at August 11, 2006 07:23 PM

From what I've read on it the US did collect some intel that was useful and pass it on to the Brits. Yes, they collected and analyzed the lion's share of the data and deserve the fullest praise, but I would think they should since it was mostly a domestic plot in the UK, no?
And gee, where was Tony Blair when the arrests were made? Most of us who work are never really on 'vacation' as we can now be reached most anywhere and anytime; do you really honestly think that the President of the United States says "old my calls for two weeks, Ginny; I'm going fishin'"

Come on.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 11, 2006 07:24 PM

Oh, major dad reminds me ~ Congress is, too.

Posted by: tree hugging sister at August 11, 2006 07:24 PM

JINX_JINX!!!!!!

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 11, 2006 07:24 PM

(DAMN YOUR EYES!!!)

Posted by: tree hugging sister at August 11, 2006 07:26 PM

Why should the NYT need to acknowledge that "listening in on trans-continental phone calls yields invaluable intelligence or that international financial transactions might lead to someone with a bomb in his Kos-KoolAid bottle." The NYT _never_ editorialized against listening in on phone calls, it only editorialized against doing so without a warrant. Does it seem likely to you that had any of this been going on the U.S. that there would have been any problem getting a warrant from a U.S. judge (which can be secured in less than 24 hours if need be)? Nor did the NYT _ever_ editorialize against monitoring international financial transactions of terror suspects. The controversy was about the lack of congressional and judicial oversight of the program, followed by worries that the story itself somehow compromised the program (as though terrorists would not have known of the high likelihood of their financial transactions being monitored had they not read it in the NYT and some other papers.) In other words, get yer facts straight, Swilling

Posted by: Lucretia.Bourgeois at August 11, 2006 10:30 PM

Can we question their patriotism yet?

Catch up please. Their patriotism is no longer in doubt.

Posted by: Fen at August 14, 2006 04:51 AM

10 planes would have exploded in the US yesterday

Actually, the plan was to explode them over the Atlantic Ocean. But then, when has a Moonbat ever passed on hyperbole and exageration?

Posted by: Fen at August 14, 2006 04:57 AM

Hi Fen! Welcome!

Well, if they had managed to explode them over the Atlantic we know who Pierre Salinger would blame...

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 14, 2006 07:05 AM