HOW DARE the Cowardly DLC 'Democrats' PRETEND NOT TO NOTICE the orchestrated Bush-Cheney charges of TREASON! against the NY Times-for a year old story

HOW DARE the Cowardly DLC 'Democrats' PRETEND NOT TO NOTICE the orchestrated Bush-Cheney charges of TREASON! against the NY Times... for a year-old story other papers reported on?!!!!

=====================================

Below is an excellent compilation of Right-Wing shouted charges of "TREASON!" and "AIDING THE ENEMY!" directed against the New York Times newspaper, as part of an orchestrated smear campaign against the New York Times orchestrated by Karl Rove and led by none less than Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

The facts are:
#1. The story is a year old- all th particulars have long ago been divulged.
#2. Other papers besides the NY Times published the story, namely the LA Times and Wall St. Journal
#3. The idea that Al Qaida operatives or other terrorists don't suspect that the US goverment might be wanting to spy on their conversations, phone calls, records, and above all financial transactions IS ABSURD.

For example, no less a ranking official than Dick Cheney himself repeatedly has told America, "an Al Qaida terror leader met with high-ranking intel officials of Saddam's Iraq in Prague to discuss WMDs or terror attacks."
Actually, this particular story is and was ENITERLY BOGUS: the Vice President LIED TO AMERICA every time he told this story. Al Qaida are a Sunni FUNDAMENTALIST Islamic organization, and Saddam and his secular regime (Baathists) despised the Sunni, al Qaida fundamentalists EVERY BIT AS MUCH AS THEY DESPISED THE SHIITE Fundamentalists.

Yet, Dick Cheney was happy to tell the world "OUR INTEL SPIED ON A MEETING BETWEEN Iraq intel and al Qaida in Prague."

No, for DICK CHENEY and GEORGE W. BUSH to come out and LEAD THE ATTACKS on the New York Times is SHEER PROPAGANDA - their way of, #1. firing up their base (many of whom despise ALL of New York as a din of multiculturals sleaze and human scum - people who secretly cheer the attacks on a "liberal" city in the same way that Civil War Yankees cheered when Vicksburg fell to the Union siege); #2. COWING THE MEDIA yet again; #3. DOMINATING THE NEWS CYCLE; and #4. COWING the cowardly, cowering Democrats. (When describing the DLC Democrat's appetite for COWERING to the Bush-Cheney-Rove GOP, it is quite impossible to be redundant or too repetitive.)

Which, of course, is why C-dems.blgspt.com is necessary.

As many commentators have noted, this BUSH and CHENEY led attack on the New York Times is NOTHING BUT THEATER - sheer propaganda as we have noted above.


What is even MORE DESPICABLE, is that the DLC "Dems' AUTOMATICALLY take this as their cue to RETREAT, COWER, TOE the Right-Wing stalking points line.

HOW DARE the DLC Democrats, leading up to the weekend celebrating OUR 230th anniversary of DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE from the BULLYING, THUGGERY, SECRET COURTS, SUMMARY JUSTICE, and unrestrained POLICE POWERS OF King George III in 1776, PRETEND NOT TO NOTICE the thuggish INTIMIDATOIN, THREATS of prosecution, and implication of TREASON by the president and vice president against those who do not approve of their policies, and THIRST for some REAL LEADERSHIP??

----- self-quiz: COUNT the right-wing commentators who shout or imply "TREASON!" in this article, LIST their names and web-site URLs, and summarize their basic accusations.

THAT is where America stands today under the tender mercies of our corrupted DLC Democratic Party "opposition leadership."

======================================


Dear "Journalists" - They Want You Dead
by Dave Johnson
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/author.html
June 27, 2006
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2006/06/dear_journalist.htm


Are any big-media "journalists" reading this? In case you didn't understand the context of the current discussion, treason carries the death penalty. They're talking about killing you.

Are your really sure you want to be helping this crowd?

Update - Think I'm going overboard? See the following:

Didn't We Execute The Rosenbergs For Less?

Wouldn't executing Risen, Lichtblau, and Keller for treason (along with the person or persons responsible for leaking the government secrets) bring with it the ancillary benefit of encouraging other journalists and editors to find more socially beneficial ways to win a Pulitzer Prize and government leakers other ways of carrying out their leftwing Democratic party-supporting political agenda?
And, to make another point, it's about the money. NY Times Continues Terrorist Support,
It has become increasingly clear that multiple members, if not most, of the leftist mainstream media no longer care about either the fate of the American people at the hands of terrorists or the survival of the United States. ... In fact, the Times seems to have viewed it as a “duty” to inform said terrorists of the program’s danger to their organizations. ... Is this just another example of anything for a buck ... In this case, prosecutions are not only highly warranted, they are necessary for our continued survival. The Constitutional protections afforded to a “free press” do not include treason.
The Treasonous Times Must Be Prosecuted!
AG Gonzalez must bring charges against the Times and other media outlets, whether he can successfully prosecute them or not. After all, even a failed prosecution will yield a successful result: the MSM will definitely think twice before publishing classified information in the future.
For those not yet clear that the Right is using code-words for the Jew York Times, Captains Quarters writes,
... all they care about is their own grasp of money rather than that of the terrorists.

Updates - Beyond calling for prosecuting and executing jopurnalists, PowerLine encourages readers to attack the Times themselves:
The Times and its likeminded media colleagues will undoubtedly continue to undermine and betray the national security of the United States until they are taught that they are subject to the same laws that govern the conduct of ordinary citizens, or until an enraged citizenry decides, like Bill Keller, to take the law into its own hands and express its disagreement some other way.
Posted by Dave Johnson at June 27, 2006 08:23 AM

MORE on Dem. James Webb (for Sen., VA) FIGHTING BACK vs. George Allen SWIFT-BOAT SMEARING..!!

BRAVO! For James Webb and his campaign staff. IN ONE OVERNIGHT NEWS CYCLE, they have proven HOW STUPID and COWED the pathetic DLC 'Democrats' are!

The reason is simple: "THE MEDIA," while often being craven, corrupt, bought-off, whorish, jingoistic, ignorant, and at time outright lying... well, that media just LOVES A GOOD DUST-UP!

It is genetic, in all of us humans. Just as even elementary school students FLOCK to a fight on the schoolgrounds or streets between two students, without any prompting from adults, society, or anyone but themselves. Our FLOCKING or HERD tendency to gawk at a fight is what students across the world, and of course even adults do. Hell, this primordial urge is why even businessmen and well-heeled women pay top dollar to get as close to ringside for a top prize fight as they can - so close that the fighters' sweat and blood might spatter those "polite society" in the audience - it is what we humans do!

In this case, 'the media' LOVE a good story of a real FIGHT between two candidates, instead of an oh-so-intellectual exposition of John Kerry sitting there like a BOX OF ROCKS as George W. Bush sneers "My opponent is a FLIP-FLOPPER!" in the 3rd presidential debate of 2004.


Well, ALL IT TAKES has been demonsrated for us by James Webb's senior campaign advisor Steve Jarding, who pointed out that the campaign of George Allen (R-VA) had ALOT OF NERVE to impugn Mr. Webb's dedication to patriotism, seeing as Webb had fought in the Vietnam war on behalf of his country, while George Allen had 'had better things to do' (as our mighty vice president, dick cheney, has said about his FIVE student deferments from the Vietnam era draft, much less participation in the actual war).

Of course, there is the "slippery slope" argument here, that somewhere down the line combat veterans might assert that they are more patriotic ACROSS THE BOARD than citizens and voters who have not seen combat duty in their nation's service.

WHICH IS EXACTLY THE ARGUMENT that REPUGLICANS ARE MAKING this very week against anyone who doesn't support George W. Bush's INCOMPETENT leadership of the Iraq war and INCOMPETENT leadership of the "war on terra."

(Yet again, we REMIND of the 'D's' and 'F' FAILING GRADES for the Bush admin. efforts re the need to IMPROVE the nation's defenses against any NEW terror attacks, grades as presented in the Final Report of the 9-11 Commission, here at -
http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_report.pdf )

WHY is it up to websites such as your humble C-dems.blgspt.com TO POINT OUT THE 'D' and 'F" *FAILING GRADES* of the 9-11 Commission Final Report????

WHERE THE HELL are our 'professional' Democratic 'leaders' TO REMIND AMERICA that neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney nor Newt Gingrich nor Tom DeLay nor Michael Chertoff nor Grover Norquist nor ANY of the other apostles of the High Horse of Republican demagoguery seems to notice, or care, about those SECURITY FAILING GRADES.

WHERE THE HELL are the OTHER Dem. "SENIOR CAMPAIGN STAFFERS" - those besides Mr. Steve Jarding - pointing out THE NERVE and HYPOCRISY of Republicans to impugn the patriotism of Democratic candidates??????

This is BEYOND STUPIDITY, BEYOND INCOMPETENCE, BEYOND IGNORANCE on the part of "DLC Dems" such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and John Kerry to NOT be publicizing the 9-11 Commission's report on FAILING GRADES for counter-terror security in America today - this is abject, CRAVEN, AWOL dereliction of duty!

We, the American public, are being asked to spend BILLIONS in the 'War on Terra' - and the Republican administration gets "D" and "F" grades, and the Democrats DON'T TRY TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF IT?????

And, WORSE than that! (IF it is even POSSIBLE than be WORSE than creating the FAILED SECURITY CONDITIONS that led to the success of the 9-11 terror attacks in the first place), the Democrats sit their like a box or rocks; like a cow led up the slaughter chute; like a baby seal clubbed over the head... as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney whip up the "to expose government spying on American citizens is TO AID THE ENEMY!" smear-mob against the NEW YORK TIMES?????


Sigh. Well, for now, we have ONE Senate Dem. candidate TRYING to FIGHT BACK against Republican INNUENDOES, LIES, SMEARS, ATTACKS, and karl-rove orchestrated "SWIFT BOATING" of Dem. candidates.

IF the craven, Cowardly DLC Democrats would JUST DO THEIR JOBS, there would be NO NEED FOR C-dems.blgspt.com to point out such craven incompetence - and Democrats would control WELL OVER 1/2 of BOTH the House and Senate.

As George C. Scott reprised in the monologue for his role in the movie "Patton," AMERICANS LOVE A WINNER, and WILL NOT TOLERATE A LOSER."

Especially "leaders" who have been COWED by CHICKENHAWK propaganda.

But craven DLC Democrats have got their AWOL, CRAVEN RETREAT from Karl Rove smear-campaigns down to an art - they have each and every mouse-hole to their Georgetown cocktail parties and vacation getaways memorized - which is THE ONLY reason that Repubs dominate in Congress, and dominate in the news cycle.

We cheer the campaign and staff of Virginia Democratic Senate Candidate James Webb, and hope he NEVER succumbs to the stupidity and craven incompetence, as exhibited DAILY by the DLC Dems., when Mr. Webb, his campaign, and other FIGHT-BACK Democrats are fighting against karl rove's Swift-Boating, smear-mongering Republican candidates and demagogue tactics.....




Va. Senate race heats up over flag burning
By BOB LEWIS, Associated Press Writer
Jun 28, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_el_se/virginia_flag_burning;_ylt=AmeqMnpCgwDhCsVN9PfE.MGyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--


RICHMOND, Va. - Republican Sen. George Allen (news, bio, voting record) attacked his Democratic challenger's opposition to a flag-burning amendment, and James Webb retaliated by calling Allen a coward who sat out the Vietnam War "playing cowboy at a dude ranch in Nevada."

The statement by a senior adviser to Webb, a decorated veteran and former secretary of the Navy, went to extraordinary lengths to question Allen's fortitude, even repeatedly using the middle name the senator detests and never uses, Felix.

"While Jim Webb and others of George Felix Allen Jr.'s generation were fighting for our freedoms and for our symbols of freedom in Vietnam, George Felix Allen Jr. was playing cowboy at a dude ranch in Nevada," said Webb strategist Steve Jarding in the statement Tuesday.

Allen adviser Dick Wadhams called Jarding's comments pathetic and said they raise questions about Webb's fitness for office.

"They're saying we questioned (Webb's) patriotism, and that's a lie," Wadhams said. "We just raised a legitimate question about whether he supports a flag amendment or not. How is that questioning his patriotism?"

The rhetorical crossfire began after an Allen news release noted Webb's opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to ban desecration of the U.S. flag.

Allen voted in favor of the amendment Tuesday evening when the measure failed by one vote to get the two-thirds majority required.

The news release by Allen's campaign said Webb's opposition to the amendment shows he is beholden to liberal Sens. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer, who all voted against the amendment.

Within hours, Webb lashed back, calling Allen's news release "weak-kneed attacks by cowards."

"People who live in glass dude ranches should not question the patriotism of real soldiers who fought and bled for this country on a real battlefield," Jarding said.

Webb left the Republican party over Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. He has written novels informed by his Vietnam experience and a recent non-fiction book "Born Fighting."

Allen is a first-term senator mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. While he was a student at the University of Virgi

Bravo! ANOTHER Fighting Dem?? Sen. Wyden even hints at... gasp! FILIBUSTER?!

BRAVO!
ABOUT TIME!
Sweet Lord above!
A Dem. in the Senate actually offering to STAND UP AND FIGHT.. against the Telecom giants?

BRAVO!

This is also the first time that C-dems.blgspt.com has ever linked to a dailyKos article.
But we certainly welcome the good news that Senator RON WYDEN is set to OPPOSE Big Telecom legislation trying to RIG the internet as a TIERED system, with one set or rates for big-biz customers (i.e. TAX CUTS, er, Big-Biz REBATES to friends and cronies), while setting higher rates (ENRON EXTORTION RATES) for everyone else.

We here at C-dems.blgspt.com do not believe that "free enterprise" is the Alpha and Omega for the telecom industry. They have set their priority as PROFITS, which means that lots of companies scramble around trying to CONTROL market share, often with competing and overlapping services. By contrast, in Europe the GOVERNMENT decides on which is the best, most efficient system available, and COORDINATES the construction of that system. You know, the way the US GOVERNMENT created the INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM, handing out plenty of "private enterprise contracts" to allow local contractors to become rich, but using the government's powers of taxation, planning, supervision, and oversight to develop an efficient, standardized system.

Or, to make it brief, we believe that EVERYONE in America should be ENTITLED to ACCESS to the information highway - AT FULL SPEED. This should be a CIVIL RIGHT for everyone in America in the 21st century, even if we have to knock a few telecom dodos over to attain that GOAL. (And Repugs say Democrats "HAVE NO BIG GOALS"!) (It is ironic that net telecom execs can become DODOS merely 10 years after 56k dialup was the "hot thing"! But Lyndon Johnson had to fight the same status-quo when he took on POWER EXECUTIVES in rural Texas and throughout America. Running power transmission lines is an expensive process in labor and materials, and private energy companies DID NOT want to run costly power lines long distances to small numbers of rural end users. But Johnson, a product of hardscrabble West Texas, INSISTED that the monopoly of private power execs be broken, doing much to take rural Texas out of the 19th century into the 20th.

Senator Wyden stands SQUARELY in that Democratic/Progressive/LEADERSHIP tradition, and for once it would be nice to see Democrats band together and GET THE UPPER HAND of POPULAR APPROVAL vs the telecom giant bullies.




Wyden Blocks Telecom Legislation over Net Neutrality
by mcjoan
Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 05:03:37 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/28/20337/0262


Ron Wyden announced this afternoon that he has placed a "hold" on the telecommunciations legislation just passed by the Commerce Committee until clear language is included in the legislation that prevents discrimination in Internet access.

From his floor statement (in an e-mail to me):


Mr. President, the major telecommunications legislation reported today by the Senate Commerce Committee is badly flawed. The bill makes a number of major changes in the country's telecommunications law but there is one provision that is nothing more than a license to discriminate. Without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be forever changed for the worse.
This one provision threatens to divide the Internet into technology "haves" and "have nots." This one provision concentrates even more power in the hands of the special interests that own the pipelines to the Internet. This one provision codifies discrimination on the Internet by a handful of large telecommunications and cable providers. This one provision will allow large, special interests to saddle consumers and small businesses alike with new and discriminatory fees over and above what they already pay for Internet access. This one small provision is akin to hurling a giant wrecking ball at the Internet.

The inclusion of this provision compels me to state that I would object to a unanimous consent request to the Senate proceeding with this legislation until a provision that provides true Internet neutrality is included. . . .

The large interests have made it clear that if this bill moves forward, they will begin to discriminate. A Verizon Communications executive has called for an "end to Google's `free lunch.'" A Bell South executive has said that he wants the Internet to be turned into a "pay-for-performance marketplace." What they and other cable and phone company executives are proposing is that instead of providing equal access for everyone to the same content at the same price, they will set up sweetheart arrangements to play favorites. Without net neutrality protections, this bill is bad news for consumers and anyone who today enjoys unlimited access to all of the Net's applications, service and content.

This hold is basically a signal of intent to filibuster. Holds generally are requests that any Senator can make that a bill or measure not be considered by the full Senate until certain issues in it are cleared up. It's not officially in the Senate rules, and the majority leader can refuse it. If Stevens's statement that he doesn't have 60 votes is to be believed, then Wyden's hold could keep this bill from the floor. We'll just have to wait to see what negotiations that might be in the offing mean for the future of the telecommunications bill and net neutrality.

Here I need to provide full disclosure: my first job out of college was with Ron when he was still in the House. Though there's been plenty I've disagreed with him about, I'm still a fan. His leadership on this issue, however, has been unquestionably admirable. He introduced the first stand-alone legislation on net neutrality, S. 2360, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act, in March, and is a co-sponsor of Snowe/Dorgan. He was among the first to recognize it as a critical issue for consumers, for the technology industry, for business small and large, and for the non-profit sector.

His willingness to stand up on this issue should be applauded and supported. It should be supported by all Senate Democrats, including the leadership. Don't let up on your pressure on your Senators on this issue. Make them stand with Wyden to protect the Internet.

::

Bravo! A Dem candidate FIGHTS BACK vs GOP Swift-Boating?!! (Oh yeah.. he's a former Repub...)

AS Mr. Jon Ponder sums up this article.....'NOTE TO DEMS: MORE OF THIS!"

(yeesh! WHEREVER did the Democrats get the STUPID IDEA that REPRESENTING 48 MILLION Democratic voters in a presidential election meant STANDING THERE LIKE A BOX OF ROCKS as your opponent sneers that you are a "FLIP-FLOPPER!" live to millions of viewers on national TV..????)

<< George Felix Allen Jr. and his bush-league lapdog, Dick Wadhams, have not earned the right to challenge Jim Webb’s position on free speech and flag burning. Jim Webb served and fought for our flag and what it stands for, while George Felix Allen Jr. chose to cut and run. When he and his disrespectful campaign puppets attack Jim Webb they are attacking every man and woman who served. Their comments are nothing more than weak-kneed attacks by COWARDS. George Felix Allen Jr. needs to apologize to Jim Webb and to all men and women who have served our nation. >>


(If MORE Democrat leaders SPOKE OUT like this, C-dems.blgspt.com could shut down permanently!)


VA Sen: Dem Challenger FIGHTS BACK after Allen Attempts Swiftboat Tactics
Posted by Jon Ponder
Jun. 28, 2006,
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/06/28/va-sen-webb-campaign-fights-back-after-allen-attempts-swiftboat-tactics/

The campaign staff of Sen. George Allen of Virginia attempted to swiftboat the senator’s Democratic opponent Jim Webb this week over the issue of flag burning. In stark contrast with the reaction by Sen. John Kerry to a similarly sleazy attack in the 2004 presidential campaign, Webb’s staff has attacked back:

The frission started when Allen mgr Dick Wadhams, in a statement on Webb’s oppositon to a flag burning amendment, said this: “Now that we know that James H. Webb, Jr. is following Kerry, Kennedy and Schumer in opposing the Flag Protection Amendment, maybe he will finally take a position on other ‘real issues’ such as immediate withdrawal from Iraq and immigration,” Wadhams said. “His positions change daily.”

Webb, a former Republican, is a much decorated former Marine and was the Sec. of the Navy during the Reagan Administration. His adviser Steve Jarding responded:

George Felix Allen Jr. and his bush-league lapdog, Dick Wadhams, have not earned the right to challenge Jim Webb’s position on free speech and flag burning. Jim Webb served and fought for our flag and what it stands for, while George Felix Allen Jr. chose to cut and run. When he and his disrespectful campaign puppets attack Jim Webb they are attacking every man and woman who served. Their comments are nothing more than weak-kneed attacks by cowards. George Felix Allen Jr. needs to apologize to Jim Webb and to all men and women who have served our nation.

Note to Dems: More of this!

HILLARY Clinton LEADS the COWARDLY DEMOCRATS on the "Flag Burning Amendment" FARCE....

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton were "part of the establishment" when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Of course they became even more "part of the establishment" when Bill Clinton became President following his successful 1992 campaign for that office. And it is true that a large part of the Clinton's problems stemmed from their naiveté when they swept into Washington DC in early 1993, thinking that at the very least the Democratic power structure would embrace them with open arms after 12 years of Republican rule in Washington. (Ever since Ronald Reagan won two terms by first defeating President Jimmy Carter in 1980.)

Actually, just the mention of the words "President Carter" demonstrates that it was political foolishness, not just "naiveté," to underestimate DC establishment and Dem. Party resistance to even a Democrat "outsider" president; Carter was seen as so aloof, imperial, and out of touch that he couldn't get much done in Washington with a Democratic House and Senate majorities to work with!

So the Clintons sweeping into Washington with a new administration and the powers of the presidency, unprepared and unawares of the pitfalls and minefields that loomed in official DC just waiting to trim them down a notch or two, was somewhere between "naive" and outright foolish.

The Clintons selected friend and fellow Arkansan lawyer Vince Foster to be their White House Counsel (president's lawyer), and the pressures and ferocity of the DC fishbowl (populated with piranhas, sharks, oscars and sacrificial goldfish) soon led Foster to shoot himself in a fit of depression or despair.

On retrospect, HOW STUPID CAN ONE BE? If you are defending your company in a case about corporate issues you don't hire a divorce lawyer. If you are defending yourself from a criminal indictment you don't hire a corporate tax lawyer. And if you are a new president in Washington DC, you want to hire THE MOST EXPERIENCED, smoothest, most battle-tested but connected insider that you can find. (For example, in the 2000 Florida voting presidential recount debacle, insider, former Secretary of State, and financially connected lawyer James Baker for the Bush team made MINCEMEAT out of soft-spoken former Secretary of State Warren Christopher working for the Gore team. Baker's smooth talents put the Bush-Republican Party back in control of BILLONS and BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars of federal spending - with a little help from the craven Scalia "ain't nobody got the right to vote unless I says so!" Supreme Court.)

Clearly, in selecting Vince Foster as their presidential counsel the Clintons ERRED in their judgement, a shortcoming that would be devastating to the Clinton and Foster families. The suicide of Vince Foster would provide the second major fissure for the Clinton's right-wing opponents to POUND AWAY at the Clintons for an entire decade to come. (The first fissure was the one that led to Foster's suicide, his feeling of impotence re official Washington's hounding the Clintons on "issues" from womanizing and draft-dodging to "Travel-officegate," "file-gate," and other made-up scandals.)

What is important to understand is that the Right-Wing DID NOT HATE Bill Clinton because he was a womanizer or because he was 'a rube' from Arkansas - the Right-Wing hated the Clintons for embracing the CIVIL RIGHTS and VOTING RIGHTS of the 1960s and progressive era.

To begin with, as everyone knows, in "Bubba," redneck, rural, or "NASCAR" culture, complete fidelity to one's spouse may be admirable, but certainly far from universal. Or, to put it more bluntly, right-wing icon Strom Thurmond was widely KNOWN to grope women - on Capitol Hill, in front of witnesses! - yet it only ADDED to his appeal. And while Karl Rove and the Bush campaign smeared Sen. John McCain in a 2000 "push poll" in the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary by asking voters, "Did you know John McCain fathered a black child?"; it was Strom Thurmond who REALLY DID father a black child, out of wedlock, with his family's maid, who at the time was under the age of consent! (i.e. statutory rape.) Yet none of these inconvenient facts did anything to dispell the affection the Right-Wing had for Senator Thurmond, who in 1948 led the "Dixiecrat" split from the Democratic Party of President Harry Truman, Thurmond and the Dixiecrats campaigning on ONE issue and one issue alone, the CONTINUED SEGREGATION of Black voters from voting rights and civil rights in the Deep South, in ABJECT DEFIANCE of the 15th Amendment, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

ABRIDGING the right to vote of citizens of race and color is EXACTLY what Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrat Party were all about! And the "Dixiecrat" Party of 1948 is, today, the solidly-white REPUBLICAN Party. Former Chief Justice William Rhenquist (now deceased) got his start in politics INTIMIDATING and DISENFRANCHISING minority voters in Arizona as a "poll watcher," and US Supreme Court "Justice" Antonin Scalia, appointed by a Republican President, is on the record as stating that the US Constitution DOES NOT GUARANTEE ANYONE the right to vote for president, 15th and 20th Amendments be damned!

So, long before Bill Clinton arrived on the scene, "Dixiecrat" Right-Wing citizens and voters DESPISED the modern Democratic Party, and Democratic presidents, for siding with African-Americans on issues of race and equal rights. From Truman to Kennedy to Johnson to Carter, a huge backlash was building in the Deep South against Democratic Presidents. Truman left the White House with appallingly low approval numbers, brought about by the Korean war and resentment against his INTEGRATION of the US military following Thurmond's "Dixiecrat" defection from the Democratic Party. Kennedy was assassinated in the Deep South, and only Lyndon Johnson's war against Communism in Vietnam, and Johnson's immense experience, political talents, and energy re his long career there in the Deep South Texas politics, allowed him to get the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (of 1965 and 1964, respectively) passed, Johnson effectively using the powerful image of a president gunned down in office (Kennedy) to steamroll the monstrously powerful Southern filibuster to do so.

Johnson may have been hounded out of office by the Vietnam War, a war he did not want but realized he had to fight to prevent Democrats from being labelled "Soft on Communism!"; but he predicted that his support and leadership of the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts would make it impossible for the Democratic Party to win in the south for decades. Jimmy Carter was able to break that spell, but only for a single term, because he was, #1. a highly trained Naval nuclear-submarine officer trained at the US Naval Academy; #2. a successful Georgia businessman and former governor; #3. and an Evangelical Baptist. The US Naval Academy is possibly one of the most right-wing institutions in America; military officers of course one of the most 'conservative' elements in American society to begin with (the heart and soul of the US Revolution and Civil War Confederacy, for example), and it is widely remarked that the "old school legacy/pedigree' of Navy families is even more upper crust than the legacy or pedigree of Army generals, (generals who became presidents excluded), if only because an admiral at sea is absolute lord and master over all he surveys or some other crusty naval white-glove traditions. (And for generations, the Royal Navy, upon which the US Navy had been modelled, had survived only by "impressing" seaman - a practice not even 1/2 step removed from outright slavery. The US Navy may not have impressed its sailors, but the tradition never lay far from its heritage.)

All this to point out that while White Southern resentment of Democratic Presidents was building from the time of President Roosevelt on through to President Carter, various disasters (Kennedy assassination, Korea and Vietnam Wars, Iran hostage crisis and the 'loss' of Iran) had conspired to rob White Southerners of the target they desired to vent their fury at the changes wrought in their otherwise closed society by the Civil RIghts era, by Moderates and moderate Republicans in general, and TURNCOAT Democrats in particular.

And then along came Bill Clinton. With an ENTIRE caravan of baggage looming over his record. Not only did Clinton side with those who advocated leaving Vietnam... not only was Clinton non-military, but had sought to avoid the draft, and actively opposed that war. Not only was Clinton a womanizer, but he was a successful YOUNG womanizer (a formula guaranteed to inspire envy or resentment through the ages); not only was Clinton an "n___ lover," but he was the successful young GOVERNOR of a Deep South state who EMBRACED n___-loving politics!

It was into this minefield that the Clintons stumbled in 1993, having miraculously won the election of 1992 despite Clinton's extensive baggage and President George W. Bush's phenomenal approval ratings after the successful conclusion of the Iraq war (Gulf War 1 against Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait). As mentioned above, the DC "establishment" had practically run the aloof Jimmy Carter out of town despite his "establishment" credentials as an Evangelical, Naval Academy graduate, military officer in the nuclear service; Deep South Governor, and former DNC Chair.
(Read Carter's impressive bio here at http://www.cartercenter.org/aboutus/bio2.htm)

But mere naiveté of the Clintons for the wicked, shark-like ways of official DC was not their major shortcoming: it was their abject failure to appreciate THE DEPTHS of right-wing hatred for "n___-loving" Civil Rights era politics.

There was neither genius nor a perfect 'master plan' driving the "Get Clinton at all costs!" right-wing lynch mob. It was, as most predatory hunts are, an opportunistic pursuit, driven by gobs of right-wing money and a bottomless loathing of "n___-loving" politics. First President Bush (Sr.) unleashed the attack dogs on Clinton's "character", then all three Repub. presidential candidates - George W. Bush, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush - made "character" the centerpiece of their campaigns, despite each Repub. candidate's own far-from-perfect "character" records.

Next it was time for Washington insiders to chime in, especially the WASHINGTON POST, whose editors and writers were by then closely tied to (as "sources," friends, and business partners) Republicans who had controlled all branches of executive Washington for the previous 12 years. Then it was the turn of the right-wing muckraking press to join the tag-team, for example Scaife's "American Spectator" magazine which went "trolling" through Arkansas looking for "trailer trash" who would amplify the Gennifer Flowers story (of an affair with Bill Clinton). This led to Paula Jone's lawsuit against Bill Clinton, based on Jones' claim of "sex discrimination in the workplace," a lawsuit entirely financed by Republican "elves", lawyers working the Paula Jones case as a means of "getting" Bill Clinton. (This is where lawyer Ann Coulter, shudder, first 'graced' America's 'news' and media with her black-widowesque "compassion.")

The NEW YORK TIMES chimed in (looking for a belated "Watergate scandal" to call their own) with ATROCIOUS reporting that led to the "Whitewater" non-scandal getting more news coverage than the TRILLION DOLLAR Savings & Loan scandals of the Reagan and Bush administration, which was terrific, free PR for the Republican Party. The Times and Post's ATROCIOUS reporting allowed right-wing Republican Senators Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth (both of NC) and r-w Republican judge David Sentelle to demand the OUSTER of independent prosecutor Robert Fiske from the newly created "Whitewater" investigation. Fiske was a moderate Republican, but he had had the temerity to close the Vince Foster suicide investigation without any accusations against the Clinton White House, so Helms, Faircloth, and Sentelle arranged for right-wing ally Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rhenquist (the same Rhenquist who got his start in politics intimidating minority voters) to demand Fiske's recall, and it was hack judge Sentelle who got the honors to appoint Ken Starr as "independent" (NOT!) counsel.

Taking his lead from the New York Times, American Spectator, and other atrocious reporting, Starr came up with *zero* against the Clintons despite spending $50 million+ in taxpayer funds for his Whitewater financial investigation - despite entire teams of FBI investigators, prosecutors, field agents, and accountants trying to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING! to hang the Clintons on. But Starr did prosecute the Clinton's investment partner, Jim McDougal, for fraud re McDougal's Madison Guarantee Savings and Loan, which lost some $22 million in various investment failures, including the Whitewater real estate development flop. Starr also won a felony conviction against another Clinton friend, Webster Hubbel, another law partner from the same Rose Law firm that Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton had worked at. Amazingly, looking back from an era (today) where Don Rumsfeld pleads "Ignorance!" of torture and missing BILLIONS from Iraq war contracts; from an era where Dick Cheney demands absolute SECRECY re his Energy Task force of 2001 and his role in awarding multi-billion dollar Halliburton contracts today (and maintains a pall of secrecy re his own investment stake in Halliburton); and in an era where President George W. Bush has been able to DOWPLAY his own LINKS with convicted Enron fraudsters Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and convicted Congressional lobbyist Jack Abramoff - - - - well, Webster Hubbell was convicted of felony fraud for... "OVERBILLING" his clients and law partners??!!!!!!!

In private law practice, "overbilling" one's own clients" is about the same level of offense as as tipping a maitre'd for a good table selection and service - if the clients (or partners) aren't happy, THEY will complain about it! THERE IS NO CRIME in "overbilling" one's own customers, unless a Republican lynch-mob is in town. By comparison, we can't even keep track of HOW MANY BILLIONS are "missing" from Iraq and Katrina reconstruction contracts - much less the $320 billion spent to date in combat and equipment contracts!

But in LYNCH-MOB AMERICA, Republicans are able to hound an "outsider" lawyer to suicide, create great scandals out of thin air, and hound the popular vote-winner from the 2000 election from Washington, tarred and feathered by the false "White House Trashing" 'scandal." (That would be the clueless Al Gore, even more naive and disliked by the local establishment than either of the Clintons ever were.)

(recap: "travel-office-gate, "file-gate," "Whitewater," "Lincoln bedroom," and "White House trashing!", "Democratic fraud in Florida voting!" when it was Republicans who broke dozens of election laws; and most recently, the Republican JIHAD against the press-media for daring to REPORT that the government is SPYING - on EVERY phone-call, financial transaction, and electronic-communication in America - these are a small portion of the "scandals" and ATTACKS that Republicans use to DEFINE the political atmosphere and DISTRACT from the issues that are truly important to the hoi poli, the millions of American voters out there in America-land.)

--------------------------

THIS ABOVE LONG, LENTHY RECITATION of the Right-Wing JIHAD against liberal and progressive Democrats is the history that Hillary Clinton has either FORGOTTEN, or she is willing to SIGN ON TO, in her vote calling FOR the CRIMINALIZATION of FLAG BURNING!

The contrast could not be more stark: Hillary PRETENDS TO IGNORE the Republican JIHAD against the New York Times (one of the senator's own constituents in New York), WHILE SIGNING ON TO, and LEADING!, another Republican psuedo-morality JIHAD against... FLAG BURNING?????

Like Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Joe Lieberman in both elections, Hillary Clinton is demonstrating that she is ENTIRELY UNQUALIFIED to become president - AT BEST she is CLUELESS as to the roots and consequences of right-wing skulldullgery and lynch-mob tactics (though she has undoubtably been a victim), at worst she is aware of these tactics but PERFECTLY WILLING TO SIGN ON TO THEM it it will get her a few moments of media attention and polling points, as she helps the Right-Wing continue to sell American rights and freedoms DOWN THE RIVER on a tide of psuedo-morality "Moral Values" issues.



(Note: Most of the above history of the "Get Clinton!" white-collar lynch-mob can be found in Joe Conason and Gene Lyon's book, "The Hunting of the President." For a brief explanation of the nexis of how the Right-Wing installed Ken Starr as their personal inquisition for a Democrat president, google "David Sentelle, Robert Fiske, Ken Starr, Jesse Helms, Lauch Faircloth, Willam Rhenquist" or some combination of those persons. For an understanding of how Right-Wing morality can forgive Strom Thurmond, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and other right-wing personalities of their moral shortcomings, while venting so much fury at Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, and other Democrats for similar or even lesser character flaws, see "Made In Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics" by Michael Lind - the most imporant book in America for this decade.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/03/20_lind.html)




Senate Rejects Flag Desecration Amendment
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 28, 2006; A01

The Senate rejected by a single vote yesterday an effort to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to ban desecration of the American flag, after a two-day debate freighted with political calculations and sharp disputes over the limits of free speech.

The 66 to 34 vote fell just short of the two-thirds majority required to approve a constitutional amendment and submit it to the states for ratification. It marked the latest setback for congressional attempts to supersede Supreme Court decisions in 1989 and 1990. Justices narrowly ruled that burning and other desecrations of the flag are protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

As expected, three Republicans -- Robert F. Bennett (Utah), Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.) -- voted against the amendment. Fourteen Democrats voted for it. The House approved the measure 286 to 130 last year.

GOP congressional leaders have offered up several measures in recent weeks that are important to their conservative political base -- including an amendment banning same-sex marriage and further cuts in the estate tax -- culminating with yesterday's vote on flag burning.

Polls show that most Americans want flag desecration outlawed, and the amendment's proponents said they were trying to stop justices from thwarting the public's will. They said that burning a U.S. flag in public -- while rare these days -- is a reprehensible insult to the nation's founders and a dishonor to the Americans who died fighting tyranny.

The amendment's opponents agreed that flag burning is repugnant, but argued that U.S. troops died to preserve freedoms that include controversial political statements.

Flag burning "is obscene, painful and unpatriotic," Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), who lost an arm in World War II, said in a floor speech yesterday. "But I believe Americans gave their lives in the many wars to make certain that all Americans have a right to express themselves -- even those who harbor hateful thoughts."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) summarized the proponents' views. The flag's special symbolic status, she said, makes its desecration different from holding a sign denouncing the president. Burning an American flag in anger, she said, is "conduct, not speech" because the flag is "the symbol of our democracy, our shared values, our commitment to justice, our remembrance to those who have sacrificed to defend these principles."

Behind the constitutional rhetoric were cold political considerations. Republicans are eager to energize conservative voters this fall, and the flag initiative -- even if doomed to fail -- is seen as a sure-fire way to inspire them, especially a week before Independence Day.

The vote is the closest that advocates have come to banning flag desecration in many years of trying. In 2000, the Senate fell four votes short, and supporters had hoped the GOP's 55 to 44 majority -- there is one independent, James M. Jeffords (Vt.) -- would put them over the top this year.

The GOP-controlled House has repeatedly approved the amendment by wide margins, and advocates say they could have handily obtained ratification by three-quarters of the states if the Senate had followed suit.

The debate divided senators along unusual lines. Opposing the amendment was McConnell, the Senate's second-ranking GOP leader, and Bennett, a quiet, mainstream Republican. Democratic supporters included Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), a presidential hopeful. Maryland's Democratic senators voted against the amendment and Virginia's Republican senators voted for it.

The amendment's chief sponsor, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), disputed assertions that the measure was politically motivated and was an unwise use of the Senate's time in the face of war in Iraq, high gasoline prices and a growing federal deficit.

"Fifty state legislatures have called on us to pass this amendment," Hatch told colleagues.

He and his allies had tried for days to pick up one more vote. But virtually all senators had stated their positions publicly, making efforts at negotiation or persuasion fruitless.

The Constitution was last amended -- for the 27th time -- in 1992, when the states belatedly ratified a 1789 bid by Congress to regulate lawmakers' pay increases.

Overturning a Texas law in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that burning an American flag in protest is a form of political speech protected under the First Amendment. Congress later passed a federal anti-flag-desecration law, and the high court invalidated it on the same grounds.

Ever since, lawmakers have debated whether flag burning is an unsavory cost of political freedom or something more akin to intolerable hate speech or monument defacement.

"All rights enshrined in the Constitution have certain limits," said Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.). "There is no such thing as unlimited rights. Although we treasure and value our right of free speech . . . we protect our national monuments," including the flag.

But Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) said Congress must "defend the right of all Americans to express their views about their government, however hateful or spiteful or disrespectful those views may be."

The proposed amendment said simply: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Before the final tally, the Senate voted 64 to 36 to reject an alternative measure designed to provide political cover for those who opposed Hatch's legislation. The measure -- a proposed statute, rather than constitutional amendment -- was offered by Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and was strongly endorsed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), a possible presidential candidate who has sought a middle ground in the flag-burning debate.

The proposal would have outlawed flag desecration if the perpetrators were also damaging federal property, trying to incite violence or trying to intimidate someone. Opponents called Durbin's measure a political fig leaf that the Supreme Court would rule unconstitutional.

Hours before the votes were taken, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) thrust the issue into his reelection campaign. Noting that Democratic challenger James Webb had said he opposed the amendment, Allen's campaign issued a press release linking Webb to Sens. John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who voted against the amendment. The release said Webb is "totally beholden to the liberal Washington senators" who backed him in this month's primary.

COWARDLY Democrats SCURRY for their rat-holes from Right-Wing JIHAD vs NY Times....

Note: KUDOS to Senator Levin, from his appearance on Fox 'news' (link below), for not bowing under to Fox 'news' anchor Brian Kilmeade frothing and bullying. Obviously, Mr. Kilmeade DOES NOT HAVE A SCRAP OF RESPECT for a Democratic Senator. Democrats are themselves in no small way responsible for this state of affairs, as the list of issues on which they have BOWED UNDER to Bush admin. dictates (partial list following) documents, but in this particular instance Senator Levin holds his ground against a sneering Fox 'anchor' personality, and HOLDS UP HIS RIGHT to be treated with the same respect as some of the military Generals "on the ground," that Mr. Kilmeade pretends to respect.

BUT, Senator Levin and THE REST OF THE DEM. SENATE CAUCUS *MUST* unite together, to DEMAND better respect, and a more bipartisan discussion of the issues, from Fox and other network, on the ultimate issue of them all; DO AMERICANS HAVE A RIGHT TO DISCUSS THEIR GOVERNMENT's ABUSES, or DO WE LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP?

http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/levinfox.320.240.mov
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/27/levin-fox/
==================================

There can be NO doubt that the New York Times has been, up until now, an agent and force FOR THE RIGHT-WING JUNTA that is the Bush administration and Republican MONOPOLY RULE of US Government.

In the case of LIES to justify the Iraq War, the New York Times editors and publisher have been COMPLETELY on the side of the Administration's presentation FOR WAR. The Times has published only TOKEN stories in opposition to the war plans, and in no way constantly urging, via front-page articles and headline editorials, a more thorough review of the war rhetoric or a severe BRAKE on the rush-to-war propaganda. Indeed, throughout ALL the American media, there was NO reporter more beholden to high administration officials for her reporting of Iraq's alleged WMD programs than was Judith Miller, the Time's own, who breathlessly reported every administration fantasy about Iraqi weapons ("mobile bio-labs," "radio-control airplanes attacking America," aluminum tubes and uranium enrichment, etc.) as fact in 2003 leading up to the US invasion and "shock and awe" bombardment of Iraq.

Again in 2004, during the Kerry campaign, New York Times reporter JUDITH MILLER well knew - AND HAD TOLD HER EDITORS - that White House senior advisor KARL ROVE had PERSONALLY DISCUSSED the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame with Ms. Miller, WHITE HOUSE PROTESTATIONS TO THE CONTRARY.

Yet the New York Times SAT ON THIS VITAL ARTICLE. that Karl Rove was at the very center of the "outing a CIA agent" story despite his public denials, a public lie and hypocritical double-standard that WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY HAVE SWUNG TENS OF THOUSANDS of votes AWAY from reelection candidate Bush in 2004, and made Bush's accusations that candidate Kerry was a 'flip-flopper' ring hollow. Just try and put a dollar value on the NEW YORK TIMES **SITTING** on this story.... just try to IMAGINE how much it would cost to buy front-page news coverage (no major American paper will even admit to selling its front page coverage) to counter an honest and factual story, "Karl Rove lying about his alleged ignorance of the CIA outing... he has been in fact at the very center of the administration vendetta from day one." That front page story would be worth millions of dollars to have purged or buried... which is exactly what Mr. Keller and editors of the Times did with the story all through 2004 and well past the election.

Now, we are in the middle of a RIGHT-WING TERRORISTIC PURGE focused at the New York Times. Rep. Peter King, one of the most thuggish and goonish of the Republican sycophants orbiting the Bush White House, has called for a criminal investigation of the Times' latest story that the goverment is creating a massive drag-net to data-mine EVERY financial transaction in America or anywhere in the world. And this from an administration that abjectly REFUSES to go after off-shore tax shelters of their wealthy cronies and donors; that ENCOURAGED the selling of US port operations to Dubai/UAE sheiks (who answer to no one - not shareholders, not labor laws, not local communities); and that still REWARDS the OUTSOURCING of US jobs to China and India with tax-rebates for companies that close up factories in America!

The neo-Con right-wing UNDERSTANDS that they are BATTLING FOR THEIR LIVES - if even an anemic Democratic Party gets the power of SUBPOENA (by winning the US House) in 2006, it will UNCOVER extrordinary CORRUPTION and even crimes from whithin the Bush White House, and such stories will lead to a national REVULSION of the Republican Party in the 2008 elections.

THIS THE REPUBLICANS and neo-cons CAN NOT TOLERATE AT ANY COST.

If trumpetting "WAR ON TERROR!" is what it takes to engage in OUTRIGHT GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP over the last vestiges of a "free press" in America, THAT IS A RISK the neo-cons and Republicans are CERTAINLY WILLING TO TAKE.

Worse, the risk IS NOT AS HIGH to Republicans and neo-cons as it should be, for Democrats have shown, since 2000 if not earlier, that they are COMPLETELY UNWILLING to STAND UP to the Bush White House and Republican Party ON ANYTHING that demands the Democrats coming together in public.

ON NOT ONE THING have the Democrats defeated the Republicans, unless joined by Republican moderates - under Joe Lieberman's 'leadership,' the Dems even FOLDED when the Repubs threatened to dispense with the TWO CENTURY OLD tradition and rule of Senate FILIBUSTER power.

Furthermore, IF the Republican CENSORSHIP Jihad against the New York Times can be carried through, Repug. and neo-con leaders well know it will CREATE EVEN MORE CONTEMPT for the COWARDLY Democratic "leadership," and make Dems (even local ones) even more the objects of scorn and derision among "heartland" voters in upcoming elections.

The Democrats have not CONFRONTED the Republicans on lies-to-war; on TORTURE, on the INCOMPETENCE of Rumsfeld's occupation of Iraq; on the CORRUPTION of Halliburton, Blackwater, and other contractors in Iraq. The DLC Dems have given the president and Republican Party a "FREE PASS!" on the second-hand treatment of returning US veterans from Iraq combat; on the abject INCOMPETENCE of Katrina FEMA reconstruction contracts; on the looting of the US treasury - tax cuts for wealthy in time of war; and Democrats HAVE UTTERLY FAILED to HOLD PRESIDENT BUSH TO HIS OWN WORDS, a promise to "fire anyone associated with outing an undercover CIA agent."

That President Bush could lie so abjectly on an issue so plain and simple - "Did or didn't his Chief Campaign advisor participate in the outing of an undercover CIA operative?" - an issue that any competent PR aide could obtain "before" and "after" video of the White House's specific lying to the public, indicates yet again that the Republicans feel that it is a SAFE BET to CENSOR, PURGE, INTIMIDATE, and wage Jihad against the New York Times and ALL PRESS/media REPORTERS who DARE to uncover government wrongdoing, illegalities, or abuses of power, because they can DEPEND on the Democrats to COWER and AVOID confrontation.

WILL our Democrats STAND UP TOGETHER AND CONFRONT President Bush??

Those Georgetown Cocktail circuit invitations must be burning up their pockets...


======================================

Here in this article the neo-con magazine National Review Online (NRO) urges PURGES and INVESTIGATIONS of New York Times for publishing a story EVERY TERRORIST IN THE WORLD ALREADY KNOWS: that the US Government may be spying on their financial transactions.

These editorial calls for a PURGE, PROSECUTIONS, and INTIMIDATION of the press/media demonstrates how SCORNFUL and CONTEMPTOUS the NRO and other Republican/neo-con organizations are for American citizens, because they imply that we have NO RIGHT TO KNOW that our government is DATA-MINING and SPYING on ANY and ALL TRANSACTION we may ever make.

Notice the extremely AGGRESSIVE TONE of this editorial: ANY effort to KNOW WHAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS DOING in regards to OUR records and OUR privacy, is "ENABLING and AIDING THE ENEMY."

This is propaganda STRAIGHT OUT OF SLAVE-ERA CONFEDERACY, when teaching slaves to read was a FELONY CRIME of "SEDITION" against the wall-white state.

"Aiding the enemy" is another term for "TREASON" or "SEDITION", as defined by those, now in control of the government, who have NO use for the "limited government" or private freedoms they once talked so highly of before the Bush administration gained control of the White House and US government.

------------------------------

STOP THE LEAKS

By The Editors
National Review Online
June 26, 2006, 1:34 p.m.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDVhYWQzMmQ3YWRlNzFkYjRmZmY4ZTQzZmUwZjJhZjI


Every passing week, it becomes more apparent that disgruntled leftists in the intelligence community and antiwar crusaders in the mainstream media, annealed in their disdain for the Bush administration, are undermining our ability to win the War on Terror. Their latest body blow to the war effort is the exposure, principally by the New York Times, of the Treasury Department’s top-secret program to monitor terror funding.

Other headlines:
Not for Burning 06/27
Stop the Leaks 06/26
One of History’s Great Failures 06/21
Shoot It Down 06/21


President Bush, who said on Monday morning that the exposure “does great harm to the United States of America,” must demand that the New York Times pay a price for its costly, arrogant defiance. The administration should withdraw the newspaper’s White House press credentials because this privilege has been so egregiously abused, and an aggressive investigation should be undertaken to identify and prosecute, at a minimum, the government officials who have leaked national-defense information.

The Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP) was initiated soon after the 9/11 attacks. It ingeniously focuses on the hub of interlocking systems that facilitate global money transfers. The steward of that hub, centered in Brussels, is the Society of Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or “SWIFT.” SWIFT is an organization of the world’s financial giants, including the national banks of Belgium, England, and Japan, the European Central Bank, and the U.S. Federal Reserve. SWIFT, however, is not a bank. It’s a clearinghouse that manages message traffic pursuant to international transfers of funds.

Intelligence about those communications implicates no legally recognized privacy interests. To begin with, they are predominantly foreign, and international. To the extent the U.S. Constitution might be thought to apply, the Supreme Court held nearly 30 years ago that records in the hands of third parties — including financial records maintained by banks — are not private, and thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, to the extent Congress later supplemented privacy protections by statute, those laws regulated disclosures by financial institutions. SWIFT is not a financial institution.

Despite this legal daylight, the Bush administration has gone out of its way to defer to privacy concerns. Assuming that American law applied, it obtained SWIFT information by administrative subpoena. It carefully narrowed its scrutiny to those transacting with suspected terrorists. It concurred with its international partners that the resulting intelligence should be used only for counterterrorism and security purposes—not for prosecutions of ordinary crimes (even though such prosecutions would be legal under American law). And it agreed to subject the TFTP to independent auditing to ensure that the effort was trained on terrorists.

By all accounts, the program has been a ringing success. The administration maintains that the TFTP has been central to mapping terror cells and their tentacles, and to shutting off their funding spigot. It has resulted in at least one major domestic prosecution for providing material support to al Qaeda. It has also led to the apprehension of one of the jihad’s most insulated and ruthless operatives, Jemaah Islamiya’s Riduan Isamuddin, who is tied to the 2002 Bali bombing.

But as has happened with other crucial counterterrorism tools — such as the NSA’s program to monitor the enemy’s international communications, which the New York Times exposed, and the CIA’s arrangements for our allies to detain high-level Qaeda operatives, which the Washington Post compromised — the TFTP’s existence was disclosed to the Times and other newspapers by anonymous government officials, in violation of their legal obligation to maintain secrecy. The Bush administration pleaded with the newspapers not to publish what they had learned. But these requests, rooted in the national-security interests of the United States, were rebuffed. The Times, along with the Los Angeles Times (which also rejected a government request not to publish) and the Wall Street Journal, ran stories exposing the program. Yes, the public was being protected. Yes, terrorists trying to kill Americans were being brought to heel. Yes, it appears the program is legal. And yes, it appears the Bush administration made various accommodations out of respect for international opinion and privacy concerns. Despite all that, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller concluded that “the administration’s extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest.”

It is a matter of interest mainly to al Qaeda. The terrorists will now adapt. They will find new ways of transferring funds, and precious lines of intelligence will be lost. Murderers will get the resources they need to carry out their grisly business. As for the real public interest, it lies primarily in safety — and what the Times has ensured is that the public today is less safe.

Success in defeating the terrorists at war with us is dependent on good intelligence. Without obtaining it and keeping it secret, the government can’t even find the dots, much less connect them. If the compromising of our national-security secrets continues, terrorists will thrive and Americans will die. It has to be stopped.

The New York Times is a recidivist offender in what has become a relentless effort to undermine the intelligence-gathering without which a war against embedded terrorists cannot be won. And it is an unrepentant offender. In a letter published over the weekend, Keller once again defended the newspaper’s editorial decision to run its TFTP story. Without any trace of perceiving the danger inherent in public officials’ compromising of national-security information (a matter that the Times frothed over when it came to the comparative trifle of Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee), Keller indicated that the Times would continue revealing such matters whenever it unilaterally decided that doing so was in the public interest.

The president should match this morning’s tough talk with concrete action. Publications such as the Times, which act irresponsibly when given access to secrets on which national security depends, should have their access to government reduced. Their press credentials should be withdrawn. Reporting is surely a right, but press credentials are a privilege. This kind of conduct ought not be rewarded with privileged access.

Moreover, the Justice Department must be more aggressive than it has been in investigating national-security leaks. While prosecution of the press for publishing information helpful to the enemy in wartime would be controversial, pursuit of the government officials who leak it is not. At the very least, members of the media who report such information must be made to understand that the government will no longer regard them as immune from questioning when it investigates the leakers. They should be compelled to reveal their sources, on pain of contempt.

Cowardly DLC Dems ALLOW Bush approval rating UP to 38%. The FIX is in...

This ain't rocket science. The FIX IS IN for our DLC Democrat "leadership" to THROW the election of 2006.

(For a perhaps more articulate explanation, see David Sirota's latest, "When Out of Touch Dems Get Desperate"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/when-outoftouch-politic_b_23771.html)

Just as John Kerry THREW the election of 2004 by sitting there like a box of rocks as President Bush sneered in the third debate "My opponent is a FLIP-FLOPPER!" Kerry either too stupid, too corrupted, or too cowed to mention Bush's own 'flip-flop" backtracking on his "Get Osama dead or alive!" pledge, among 1,000 other Bush 'flip-flops' candidate Kerry COULD have highlighted to national media attention if he had run a vaguely competent campaign.

Just as Tom Daschle (then Sen. Majority Leader) and Joe Lieberman (then Sen. Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman, thanks to the courageous 'defection' of Vermont Sen. Jeffords from the Repub. Party) THREW midterm election 2002 to the Republicans by throwing a WET BLANKET on the ENRON investigation in the Senate. The House that year was controlled by Republicans; ONLY the Senate Dems. had the authority outside of Republican circles to SUBPOENA Enron documents, officials, and even Bush government officials. This Daschle and Lieberman REFUSED to do, thereby ROBBING Democrats nationwide of their best midterm election issue: the ability to DEFINE George W. Bush as the "man from Enron." In REFUSING to make this elementary political effort - LINK your opposition to a known scandal! - Lieberman, Daschle, and the Senate Democrats in 2000 SOLD ENRON VICTIMS - employees, investors, pensioners, customers - DOWN THE RIVER.

SELLING AMERICAN CITIZENS DOWN THE RIVER is what our DLC Democratic "leadership" DOES BEST, which, in a nutshell, is why union, "heartland," and senior voters have been wishy-washy supporters of Democratic candidates over the past three elections. (aka "What's the Matter With Kansas: why Heartland voters vote against their own economic self interest. Because Dems MUDDLE the message of steadfast and consistent support to wage- and salary-earning American families, sufficiently for Right-Wing "morality" rhetoric to drown out the appeal or message of Dem candidates.)

And, of course, just as Al Gore and Donna Brazille SOLD TEXAS SCHOOLCHILDREN DOWN THE RIVER to Texas Gov. George W. Bush's education, environment, healthcare, and social programs BUDGET SLASHINGS in Texas leading up to the 2000 presidential election. Both Gore and Brazille CALCULATED that to stand up for Texas schoolchildren tossed off those vital programs was a losing proposition.

One thing you must understand about the Right-Wing - especially the maestro's or right-wing smear, i.e. the Bush campaign teams - is that they well understand the cost-benefit ratio for just about every SELL OUT of one group of people by another, anywhere in the world. Thus if Al Gore REFUSED to DEFEND Texas schoolchildren from the agenda of Bush-Rove Texas budget cuts, you can damn well rest assured that Rove and the Bush team were aware of it.

In short, Al Gore DESERVED more than a little of his 2000 reputation for vacillation, deception, and calculated positions. IF Al Gore had STEADFASTLY and COURAGEOUSLY STOOD UP for poor and minority students in Texas against Bush-Republican budget slashings, MILLIONS of Americans would have noticed - and APPLAUDED the Vice President for taking a stand against the "mainstream media" and GOP talking points. And let's face it: then, as now, Republican pro-corporate BUDGET SLASHINGS were based on the right-wing notion that minority Americans somehow "DEGRADE" our nation - that Black, immigrant, and minority voters are not "real" Americans like the mythical gun-nut Republican voters who listen to Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and FOX news as the Holy Grail of American citizenship. In 2000 Al Gore REFUSED to confront the memes and themes of EXCLUSION and RACISM and corporate-government BULLYING of vulnerable citizens in EVERYONE's America, which is why Gore will forever have the legacy as the candidate who won the presidency, only to lose it to Republican skullduggery.

And this year, the DLC Democrats ARE DETERMINED to REPEAT the pathetic errors of the past 3 elections.

NO effort to CONFRONT the cruel Bush-Republican agenda of TAX CUTS FOR MULTIMILLIONAIRES, budget slashings for education, healthcare, and social services - in time of war while the Republicans call for SACRIFICE!!

NO EFFORT to HOLD Mr. Bush to his 2000 "uniter, not divider... more bipartisan" pledge.

NO EFFORT to CONFRONT Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, or Mr. Rumsfeld ABOUT TORTURE.

NO MENTION of the Republican administrations of the 1980s (Reagan & Bush Sr.) COOPERATION WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN's regime during the Iran-Iraq war - including Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld (as Secretaries of Defense) SUPPLYING Saddam's regime with WMD PRECURSOR technologies. (The fact that "WMD precursor technologies" is NOT on the tip of every American's tongue, is merely a reflection of how awful the Democrat 'inform-explain' campaign media is, See"Spider's Web- The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq" and this Teicher affadavit << During George Bush's reign as President, the U.S. government quietly, covertly armed Iraq with deadly weapons of mass destruction. This story has long been acknowledged, but buried.
For a quick summary of this bizarre affair which made possible the Gulf War, read this article from the Columbia Journalism
http://www.webcom.com/lpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm >>

NO EFFORT by DLC Dems to DEMAND BETTER for Katrina victims or to expose the gross, criminal negligence of FEMA incompetence and Bush administration neglect of the flooding that occured AFTER Hurricane Katrina had passed.

NO EFFORT by DLC Dems to raise a hue or cry about massive CORRUPTION in Iraq war contracts.

NO EFFORT by DLC Dems to LINK Mr. Bush with his old friends, CONVICTED Enron Chairman Ken Lay and CEO Jeff Skilling - or Jack Abramoff, who was no more and no less than the lobbyist extortion-arm of the Tom DeLay Congress.

Of course, practically no effort made by DLC Dems to demand that President Bush honor his pledge to FIRE anyone in his administration who "outed" an undercover CIA operative.

And most recently, and perhaps the MOST COWARDLY BETRAYAL to date, the Dems. offer up practically NO opposition to the Bush-Cheney jihad against NEWS REPORTING of their massive SPYING on American citizens... from voice data-mining to e-mail data-mining to now, massive bank and financial data-mining of EVERYONE in America.. under the rubric of "WAR ON TERRA!" of course. As our previous post detailed, CNN has gotten 'THE MESSAGE" from their masters in the White House, and titled the transcripts of Howard Kurtz's Sunday media show ("Reliable Sources") "Press, media- Do They AID, ABET the Enemy?"


THANK YOU DEMOCRATS, FOR ALL THOSE SELLOUTS. THANK YOU, for letting the Bush admin. campaign RELENTLESSLY on "War on Terra," even as they do WORSE_THAN_NOTHING to protect America's vulnerable chemical plants, SELL OFF our ports, railways, and even highways to foreign robber barons, encourage massive migration across US borders, and above all, take diabolical delight in ENCOURAGING THE OUTSOURCING of US jobs and even entire industries, including the manufacture of rare-earth magnets vital to US aerospace/defense to companies now based in China.

THANK YOU, Democrats, for letting George Bush, Karl Rove, and Dick Cheney send an endless supply of RED MEAT to their "core constituents" WHILE YOU TREAT US LIKE PLANTATION SLAVES, to be sold off or traded at the whim of the master.

------------------------------------------

Bush Approval Rating Eases off the Brink
Improved Views on Iraq Push President's Approval Rating Slightly Higher

Analysis by GARY LANGER
June 26, 2006 —
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2120516

- Slightly less negative views on Iraq have eased George W. Bush's job rating off the political brink, while the lack of a better idea of what to do there is helping to complicate the Democrats' opportunities in this fall's midterm election.

Bush is hardly in the clear: Just 38 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll approve of his work in office, up from 33 percent last month, a gain chiefly among moderate Republicans who'd been inching away. Sixty percent still disapprove of his performance, including just shy of half, a new high, who disapprove "strongly."

Sampling, data collection and tabulation for this poll were done by TNS.

Iraq remains Bush's biggest problem. There's been a slight five-point advance (to an even split) in views that the United States is making progress there, and a five-point gain in approval of how he's handling it. But 58 percent still say the war was not worth fighting, just off its peak, and 64 percent say Bush lacks a clear plan of what to do in Iraq.

However, after a fractured Democratic debate on withdrawal options last week, even more, 71 percent, say the Democrats lack a clear plan as well.

The Democrats maintain a substantial lead in overall voter preferences in November, but their advantages on specific issues have diminished. In trust to handle Iraq, a 14-point Democratic lead in May has slipped to six points now. And their advantage on national security has proved short-lived: A five-point Democratic edge on handling terrorism last month has shifted to a seven-point Republican advantage now. That change has occurred mainly among independents, the quintessential swing voters.

The Democrats also have lost ground in trust to handle immigration, a red-meat issue for core, conservative Republicans, and one on which congressional Republicans rebuked Bush last week by setting aside his two-pronged initiative -- stronger border enforcement coupled with a program leading to residency status for many illegals here now.

Despite that spat, most of Bush's gains in overall job approval have been in his own party: He's improved by 14 points among Republicans in the past month, to 82 percent approval. Seventy-eight percent of moderate Republicans now approve of his performance, up 21 points from a career-low 57 percent in May.

IRAQ -- With the difficulties in Iraq, a withdrawal deadline has gained in appeal: Given pro-and-con views (avoiding further casualties vs. the risk of encouraging the insurgents), Americans split on a withdrawal deadline, with 47 percent in favor, 51 percent opposed. Opposition is down from 60 percent in an ABC/Post poll six months ago.

Another problem in Iraq -- charges that some U.S. military forces have intentionally killed civilians there -- is broadly seen as an aberration, with 78 percent viewing these as "isolated incidents" rather than a more widespread problem. Indeed an overwhelming 86 percent approve of the way U.S. forces are handling their jobs in Iraq; 61 percent approve strongly.

Notably, even among Americans who say the war was not worth fighting, eight in 10 approve overall of the way U.S. forces are doing their jobs.

Still, there is broader recognition of a problem: Half the public is upset or even angry about the charges of civilian killings. And while 58 percent say the United States is doing enough to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq, that's sharply down from 82 percent shortly after the war began in spring 2003. Nearly four in 10 now say the United States "should do more" to avoid such casualties; three years ago just 15 percent said so.

There are substantial divisions on whether the military is doing enough to avoid civilian casualties. Men are 15 points more likely to think so than women (66 to 51 percent), most young Americans think not, and while more than three in four Republicans and seven in 10 conservatives think so, more than half of Democrats and six in 10 liberals differ.

Upset or anger about the civilian killings also peaks in some groups in order, among liberal Democrats, better educated Americans, young adults and women (including equal numbers of Republican and Democratic women alike).

PROGRESS? -- As noted, Americans divide now evenly on whether or not the United States is making significant progress restoring civil order in Iraq. While hardly optimistic, that's better than it was in March, when 56 percent saw no such progress. The killing of al-Zarqawi and the formation of a new government under Nouri al-Maliki may have helped. (Bush got a similar bump in job approval after the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2004, but it subsided within months.) Interestingly, views of progress have advanced the most among two largely unlike groups -- Republicans and liberals. Sustained rather than episodic progress in Iraq would be the best medicine, and there the public remains skeptical: Just 40 percent express confidence Iraq will have a stable democratic government a year from now, no better than views a year ago.

Some other views on Iraq also remain glum: Fifty-eight percent say the war has not contributed to peace and stability in the Mideast, and three-quarters say it's damaged the United States' image in the rest of the world.

At the same time, despite the violence there, two-thirds still believe that overthrowing Saddam Hussein has helped to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. Americans divide on whether the war has encouraged democracy in other Arab nations.

The public continues also to divide on whether the war has improved long-term U.S. security, its chief rationale. However most, 56 percent, continue to see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism; 57 percent think the war on terrorism more broadly is going well (down, however, from 65 percent in late 2003 and a high of 88 percent in January 2002); and nearly six in 10 say the country is safer now than it was before 9/11, the basic evaluation that got Bush re-elected in 2004.

Having the war in Iraq perceived as part of the war on terrorism is crucial for Bush. Holding that view significantly predicts support for the war, belief that it's contributed to U.S. security and belief that the United States is making progress there, even when political affiliation and ideology are held constant.

METHODOLOGY -- This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone June 22-25, 2006, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

NY Times, network media, Democrats in fight for their lives against Cheney-Bush admin. CENSORSHIP and thuggery...

The Cheney-Bush admin. well know that they are in a FIGHT FOR THEIR LIVES as election 2006 bears down on a somnolent and unawares America. The Bush 2000 presidential campaign's NUMBER ONE DONORS - Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling of ENRON corporation - have both already BEEN CONVICTED of massive stock-fraud leading to Enron's spectacular collapse. Due to terrific pressures from within the government (that is, the government controlled by the Cheney-Bush admistration) Enron's Chairman and CEO, respectively, dodged an idictment and trial of the massive fraud in the California rate-payers extortion of higher electricity rates due to coordinated and systematic grid shutdowns. But neither one (Lay or Skilling) will be in the least bit happy to spend time in prison, much less the YEARS that they have already been sentenced to. (Of course, neither Mr. Skilling nor Mr. Lay has yet stepped foot in a prison, as Martha Stewart did soon after HER conviction for - gasp! - "dumping" $50,000 lousy dollar's worth of shares in a company she had NO control over.)

No, it is absolutely IMPERATIVE that the Bush administration PARDON their number-one campaign donors throughout the 2000 presidential campaign, Florida vote recount debacle, and 2001 inaugueration. And, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that the Bush-Cheney White House PARDON Lewis "Scooter" Libbby BEFORE HE GOES TO TRIAL for his role in "outing" an undercover CIA operation, so the White House vendetta to humiliate Ambassador Joe Wilson also stays buried from major-media front-page attention. (Ambassador Wilson was the target of the Cheney-Rove-Bush vendetta for having the temerity to go public in an July 2003 op-ed in the New York Times not only contesting the administration's rational for war, but publicly confirming that President Bush KNEW that his "Niger yellowcake uranium for Iraq" story was FALSE when the president included those comments in his Jan. 2003 State of the Union speech.)

The "outing" of Ambassador Wilson's CIA undercover wife had all the hallmarks of a Karl Rove smear operation. It was only because of terrific and intense pressure that Independent Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did NOT indict Karl Rove, Rove's early testimony to FBI investigator's on the "outing" scandal being publicly at odds with his later testimony, based on a memory "refreshed" when Time magazine's Matt Cooper was forced to testify that he had indeed discussed the story with Mr. Rove.

At any rate, Lay and Skilling have been convicted, Libby has been indicted, Rove missed being indicted by the narrowest of margins, super-lobbyist, frequent White House visitor, and lobbyist extortion-arm of Tom DeLay's Congress Jack Abramoff HAS also already been convicted (along with several DeLay ex-staffers); while former Republican House Whip (and defacto Congressional dictator) Tom DeLay STILL faces indictments of his own.

In short, not only MUST the Bush-Cheney administration PARDON their friends and cronies, but they MUST be able to do so in an atmosphere that does not create massive political backlash.

Therefore, they #1. MUST COW THE PRESS FURTHER; and #2. must insure that the Democrats do not have A PRAYER of winning the House (the senate is even less likely for a Dem. majority).

What we are seeing this weekend/week, is the start in all seriousness of the Cheney-Bush-Rove efforts to sustain a Republican majority in the House in November of 2006. In both cases, the C-B-R team must resort to the same tactic: SMEAR those who would investigate, or even write about them, as UNPATRIOTIC - "AIDING and ABETTING THE ENEMY."

As we wrote in our previous post, CNN has found a way to use those exact words, "AIDING and ABETTING THE ENEMY!" in the headline to their textbook media-smear attack on Dan Rather, obliquely LIKING the demeaning Rather fired-at-CBS story to the "story" of how "the media" (in this case the NY Times, WSJ, and LA Times) "LEAKED - - - GOVERNMENT SECRETS!"

We won't recap our o'er long analysis - it is the post immediately precedes this posting!

We'll just point out that dependable White House attack dog Congressman PETER KING (R-NY) has called for CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE NY TIMES for reporting the story "Dick Cheney can read your financial transactions any time he wants to... with NO oversight or supervision by anyone, anywhere!"

(Note: Peter King is the Congressman in the video taken on the back lawn of the White House on election day 2004. Talking with President Bush, a female reporter, and one or two other off-camera persons, Rep. King says President Bush has already won the election. When the woman reporter asks him how he can know that - being daylight, Florida's westernmost polling stations are still open - Rep. King replies, "It's all over but the counting, and we_have_taken_care_of_the_counting.")

HOW wil the NYT, Wall St. Journal, LA Times, and other media players handle this story?

Well- WE ALREADY KNOW! CNN has ALREADY SMEARED those who would write the story of government spying on American financial accounts as "AIDING THE ENEMY".

And the NYT is once again back on the defensive. They have been put on the defensive alot lately, mostly for SHODDY REPORTING (the Wen Ho Lee and Jason Blair scandals), for fraudulent reporting (Judith Miller is SYNONYMOUS with "LIES for pushing WMDs as an excuse to attack Iraq), and for participating in the STONEWALL/COVER-UP of the administration's direct role in the "outing" of Ambassador Wilson's undercover CIA wife (and her ENTIE CIA front-group cover organisation.) (The NYT participation in the COVER-UP of the CIA outing was also on the party of Judith Miller, who had informed her editors that she had been told about Ms. Plame's undercover identity by VP Chief of Staff Scooter Libby.)

SO, it is ironic that this latest, and most savage, attack on the New York Times' credibility comes from it reporting a TRUTHFUL, HONEST story - the adminstration is spying on American banking records without warrants, orversight, or restraint!

Given this balance of journalistic power to report on a rogue government, and given the Times' record of previous atrocious reporting, it is DOUBLY, TRIPLY ESSENTIAL that DEMOCRATS STAND UP FOR A FREE PRESS and the RIGHT of Americans to KNOW if their government IS SPYING ON THEM.

But as the pages and pages and pages of posting in C-dems.blgspt.com demonstrate, their is hardly a chance that the cowed, impotent, and practically faceless Dems will rise to this challenge... much less UNITE, FORCEFULLY AND DETERMINDLY, to CONFRONT the abuses and bullying of the Cheney-Bush administration.

But there's always hope! That the Democrats will actually DO THEIR JOBS - REPRESENT those MILLIONS of us Americans who DO NOT want to give a blank check to Dick Cheney and George Bush to spy on us and bully our free press and negelect our war veterans, torture our prisoners, and turn us all into wage slaves as they sell of America to foreign investors who treat their own workers as chattel slaves.







GOP Congressman Calls for Criminal Charges Against 'NYT'

By The Associated Press and E&P Staff
June 25, 2006
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002727811

WASHINGTON The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration Sunday to seek criminal charges against The New York Times for reporting on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.

Rep. Peter King blasted the newspaper's decision last week to report that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.

"I am asking the Attorney General to begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times -- the reporters, the editors and the publisher," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous."

The conservative lawmaker called the paper "pompous, arrogant, and more concerned about a left-wing elitist agenda than it is about the security of the American people."

Conservatives have expressed outrage against the media ever since the Times, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times first reported on the money-monitoring program, but King's call for a criminal prosecution is the strongest denunciation to date.

King said he thought investigators should also examine the reports by the Journal and Los Angeles Times, but said the greater focus should be on The New York Times, because of their previous reporting on a secret domestic wiretapping program.

Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis did not immediately reply to a message seeking comment Sunday. But when the Times chose to publish the story, it quoted executive editor Bill Keller as saying editors had listened closely to the government's arguments for withholding the information, but "remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

Following Sept. 11, Treasury officials obtained access to a vast database called Swift -- the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The Belgium-based database handles financial message traffic from thousands of financial institutions in more than 200 countries. After the revelations of Swift monitoring, Democrats and civil liberties questioned whether the program violated privacy rights.

The service, which routes more than 11 million messages each day, mostly captures information on wire transfers and other methods of moving money in and out of the United States, but it does not execute those transfers. The service generally doesn't detect private, individual transactions in the United States, such as withdrawals from an ATM or bank deposits. It is aimed mostly at international transfers.

King said he would send a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez formally requesting a criminal investigation into the report.

But the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Sunday it was too early to talk about investigating the newspaper. "On the basis of the newspaper article, I think it's premature to call for a prosecution of the New York Times, just like I think it's premature to said that the administration is entirely correct," Sen. Arlen Specter said on "Fox News Sunday."

Also appearing on Fox News, King said, "The time has come for the American people to realize, and the New York Times to realize, we’re at war and they can’t be on their own deciding what to declassify, what to release. If Congress wants to work on this privately, that’s one thing. But for them to, on their own, for the editor of the New York Times to say that he decides it’s in the national interest -- no one elected them to anything.

"Remember, this is the newspaper that brought us Jason Blair." This is true enough, but then King added: "Going back a few years ago, they’re the ones who gave Fidel Castro his job in Cuba. They have no right to do this at all."

The New York Times posted on its Web site today, with a link on its home page, a statement by Executive Editor Bill Keller, responding to many e-mails on the subject of the banking records revelations.

Below is the main section of his reply. [Reply in full at the NY Times editors comments, link below]
***
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/media/25keller-letter.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report
Published: June 25, 2006


The following is a letter Bill Keller, the executive editor of The Times, has sent to readers who have written to him about The Times's publication of information about the government's examination of international banking records:

Related
Court Review of Wiretaps May Be Near, Senator Says (June 26, 2006)
Cheney Assails Press on Report on Bank Data (June 24, 2006)
Bank Data Is Sifted by U.S. in Secret to Block Terror (June 23, 2006)
[All three of these above headlines are MISLEADING: what they are talking about is MASSIVE DATA MINING of ALL American's financial records, in addition to previous concerns of massive data-banking of telecommunications conversations.]

[Bill Keller:]

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

The press and the government generally start out from opposite corners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only the official line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything else as harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of the Administration have argued over the past three years that when our reporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we risk demoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start from the premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news, and that the more they know the better they will be able to make their views known to their elected officials. Our default position — our job — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair and accurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed to dig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down its advance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedly said he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented a fiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the war in Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of the Administration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start with as journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold information of significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compelling reason to do so.

Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements.

Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem to support extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinary threat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe The Times and others in the press have served the public interest by accurately reporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view of them.

Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetration of the international banking system followed weeks of discussion between Administration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrote the story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently and attentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoke to others — national security experts not serving in the Administration — for their counsel. It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editors responsible for this story live in two places — New York and the Washington area — that are tragically established targets for terrorist violence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.

The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that there are safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable in deterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk.

It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that this is the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts about its legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while some bank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air of permanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about this program, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preempt the role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, which cannot consider a program if they don't know about it.