Jan 23 2006

NY Times Grasping To Comprehend

Published by at 12:54 am under All General Discussions,FISA-NSA

Since Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is rampant at the NY Times, it is understandable they are going to be the last to be clueing into what is happening in the country regarding Bush’s efforts on the war on terrorism. In a week where Osama Bin Laden has resurfaced to once more threaten attack on this country, the liberals find themselves protecting Bin Laden’s right to communicate with his forces here in America, and pretending the risk is not Bin Laden, but the fact the liberals are not in power and the Republicans are in power.

Naively thinking BDS is rampant across the country, they launched into calls to impeach Bush for violating the civil rights of terrorists here in the US – even though they have no evidence any law has been broken!

So it is not surprising the NY Times is just now comprehending what is happening around them:

With a campaign of high-profile national security events set for the next three days, following Karl Rove’s blistering speech to Republicans on Friday, the White House has effectively declared that it views its controversial secret surveillance program not as a political liability but as an asset, a way to attack Democrats and re-establish President Bush’s standing after a difficult year.

Whether the White House can succeed depends very much, members of both parties say, on its success in framing a complicated debate when the country is torn between its historic aversion to governmental intrusion and its recent fear of terrorist attacks at home.

Recent fear? I guess the NY Times is trying to refer to 9-11, the most horrific attack on our homeland ever. And it is just stunning that the liberals have not yet been able to discern between a government intruding on legal, political activities and a government stopping an act of war, that being an attack on our people. Why can’t liberals differentiate between an attack and an invasion of privacy? Is it because to them Al Qaeda’s 9-11 attack was not an act of war but a legitimate political statement? One they support?

But as the White House and Democrats are well aware, the issue can draw very different reactions depending on how it is presented. These next few days could prove critical, as both Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats move aggressively to define what is at stake.

Personally, Bush is at little to no risk because his actions target overseas terrorists and their communications here in the US. But liberals and democrats – are they at risk? They have everything on the line. Because Nagourney is right – it all depends on how the debate is ‘framed’. The NY Times tried to frame the debate as a violation of FISA, only to have to back track and call it simply a burden on the FBI to track all the leads. What the liberals do not understand is this is their last stand.

If America continues to see Bush’s efforts as necessary to stop terrorist attacks, and not related in anyway to the claims the government is invading the rights of good citizens (which has never even been claimed, let alone proved), the left will be deemed dangerously opportunistic in their lust for power.

Americans may be willing to support extraordinary measures – perhaps extralegal ones – if they are posed in the starkest terms of protecting the nation from another calamitous attack.

Let’s get real here. Unless there is clear evidence of misuse of these power against political enemies, America is going to see this as part of the war on terror. If Bush sets the tanks against the Democrat party – that would be the kind of act that would put him at odds with America. Just the fact he could use tanks against Democrats is not going to shake America from wanting tanks on the front lines facing our enemies. Same goes for NSA surveillance.

Viewed from the perspective of the battles over the Homeland Security Act or the USA Patriot Act, this White House holds a tactical edge; it has repeatedly proved highly effective in defining complicated debates against the Democratic Party

Duh! Maybe that’s because they still do what they say and mean what they say. They say they are using these powers to fight terrorism – nothing more. And in many cases these are the same tools used against drug crimes and organized crime.

Applying the campaign lessons of simplicity and repetition, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove, his chief political adviser, have systematically presented arguments in accessible if sometimes exaggerated terms, and they have regularly returned to the theme of terrorism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Nagourney should admit we wouldn’t have to repeat the implications of 9-11 on the rabid left if the rabid left could simply recognize we are at war with a group of people who claim themselves they are ready to die in order to destroy us. Repetition is only required for those lunatics that missed what 9-11 was all about. War.

By contrast, there is no single Democrat who stands as the voice of opposition.

Translation: they are not as stupid as Nagourney and his liberal comrades who think 9-11 was not a wake up call. The liberals are playing a losing game. They want to pretend (a) there is not risk from terrorism and (b) Bush is monitoring political opponents – not enemies.

What happens when America decides liberals simply see themselves as the brethren of Al Qaeda, who are a suppressed and misunderstood political movement with the right to kill Americans to make their case known. Well, if that happens there will be a political shift this nation sees once in a millennium.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “NY Times Grasping To Comprehend”

  1. mary mapes says:

    Americans may be willing to support extraordinary measures – perhaps extralegal ones – if they are posed in the starkest terms of protecting the nation from another calamitous attack.

    Internal polls are SCREAMing, no matter how big an effort, this has already turned from a dud to a liability for Dems.

    34 Times paragraphs to just hint at the truth.

  2. sbd says:

    Transcript of the President’s Radio Address to the Nation U.S. Newswire August 12, 1996

    August 12, 1996


    LENGTH: 1587 words

    HEADLINE: Transcript of the President’s Radio Address to the Nation

    CONTACT: White House Press Office, 202-456-2100


    Following is a transcript of President Clinton’s weekly radio address to nation:

    Jackson Hole, Wyoming

    THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Earlier this week Hillary and I were honored to welcome America’s Olympic team to the White House. I believe the Centennial Olympics were the best ever. The competition was wonderful — a record 197 teams were involved. The crowds were enormous and enthusiastic. Our athletes amassed a terrific record. There were powerful moments of courage in victory and defeat that captured the imagination of the entire world. I think most of us wish the world would work more like the Olympics. There were all kinds of people bound together by mutual respect and acceptance of the rules of the game. All the individuals and teams had a chance, gave it their best, and win or lose, were better off for their efforts.

    As heroic as the feats of the athletes in this Olympics was the way all those involved in the Atlanta Games pressed on in the face of adversity. Just two weeks ago today a pipe bomb exploded in Centennial Olympic Park. It was a terrorist act aimed not only at the innocent people there, but the very spirit of the Olympics. This was brutal evidence that no nation is immune from terrorism, and an urgent reminder that we must do everything we can to fight the terrorists.

    The world we live in is more open than ever. People have more opportunities than ever because people and technology and information travel quickly across national borders. But these things that make us all closer and give us more chances also make us more vulnerable to the forces of organized destruction — to the drug traffickers, the organized criminals, the people who sell weapons of mass destruction, and of course, especially to the terrorists.

    What happened in the Olympic Centennial Park, that wonderful public space open to all people who visited Atlanta, is symbolic of the world’s problem with terrorism. Now, that’s why terrorism must be a central national security priority for the United States. Our efforts must and will be unrelenting, coordinated, and strong.

    We are pursuing a three-part strategy against terrorism. First, we’re rallying the world community to stand with us against terrorism. From the Summit of the Peacemakers in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where 13 Arab nations for the very first time condemned terror in Israel and throughout the Middle East, to the antiterror agreements we reached with our G-7 partners in Russia last month to take specific common actions to fight terrorism, we are moving forward together.

    Our intelligence services have been sharing more information with other nations than ever, to stop terrorists before they act, capture them if they do, and see that they’re brought to justice. We’ve imposed stiff sanctions with our allies against states that support terrorists. When necessary, we’re acting on our own. A law I signed this week will help to deny Iran and Libya the money they use to finance international terrorism.

    Second, our antiterrorism strategy relies on tough enforcement and stern punishment here at home. We made terrorism a federal offense, expanded the role of the FBI, imposed the death penalty. We’ve hired more law enforcement personnel, added resources, improved training. And I’m proposing a new law that will help to keep terrorists off our soil, fight
    money-laundering, and punish violent crimes committed against Americans abroad.

    Third, we’re tightening security on our airplanes and at our nation’s airports. From now on, we’ll hand-search more luggage and screen more bags and require pre-flight inspections for any plane flying to or from the United States. I’ve asked Vice President Gore to head an effort to deploy new high-technology inspection machines at our airports and to review all our security operations.

    We’ll continue to press forward on all three of these fronts. But we cannot cast aside any tools in this fight for the security of our country and the safety of our people. That is exactly what the Republican majority in Congress did by stripping from the antiterrorism legislation key provisions that law enforcement needs to help them find out, track down, and shut down terrorists.

    Law enforcement has asked for wiretap authority to enable them to follow terrorists as they move from phone to phone. This is the only way to track stealthy terrorists as they plot their crimes. This authority has already been granted to our law enforcement officials when they’re dealing with organized criminals. Surely, it is even more urgent to give them this authority when it comes to terrorists. But Congress said no.

    And law enforcement has also asked that explosives used to make a bomb be marked with a taggant — a trace chemical or a microscopic plastic chip scattered throughout the explosives. This way sophisticated
    machines can find bombs before they explode, and when they do explode police scientists can trace a bomb back to the people who actually sold the explosive materials that led to the bomb.

    Now, tagging works. In Switzerland over the past decade it’s helped to identify who made bombs and explosives in over 500 cases. When it was being tested in our country several years ago, it helped police to find a murderer in Maryland.

    In the last two weeks since the Olympic bombing, our law enforcement officers have been working around the clock, but they have been denied a scientific tool that might help to solve investigations like this one.

    Our antiterrorism bill would have given us the ability to require tagging gunpowder often used in making pipe bombs. The
    Republicans in Congress could give law enforcement this antiterrorism tool, but once again they’re listening to the gun lobby over law enforcement.

    It may be good politics, but it’s not good for the American people. This is a reasonable proposal from our law enforcement
    community. It doesn’t have anything to do with limiting people’s ability to own or use guns in a lawful manner. The same people who opposed the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban are opposing this provision. I’d
    just like to remind them that no hunter or sportsman has lost a weapon or the right to use a weapon in a lawful manner as a result of the Brady Bill or the assault weapons ban, but we’re getting rid of 19 deadly assault weapons, and 60,000 felons, fugitives and stalkers have not gotten handguns because of the Brady Bill.

    We should have a good taggants provision in our antiterrorism legislation. So let’s put aside interest group politics and honor the victims of terrorism, protect our people, and support our law enforcement officials by giving them the tools they plainly need.

    This fight against terrorism will be long and hard; there will be setbacks along the way. But let’s remember, we can win. Already we have prevented planned terrorist attacks — on the Holland Tunnel in New York, on the United Nations building, on our airplanes flying out of our West Coast airports. Already we have succeeded in extraditing terrorists back to America and convicting terrorists, and arresting others who are suspected of terrorism. We can whip this problem.

    Just as no enemy could drive us from the fight to meet our challenges and protect our values in World War II and the Cold War, we cannot be driven from the fight against today’s enemy — terrorism. Weknow that if we all work together, America will prevail.

    Thanks for listening.

    LOAD-DATE: August 12, 1996


  3. mary mapes says:


    “Law enforcement has asked for wiretap authority to enable them to follow terrorists as they move from phone to phone. This is the only way to track stealthy terrorists as they plot their crimes. This authority has already been granted to our law enforcement officials when they’re dealing with organized criminals. Surely, it is even more urgent to give them this authority when it comes to terrorists. But Congress said no.”

    is this what you would highlight?

    Also AJ
    I noticed your exchange with Snapple regarding Rockefellar and MacRangers tidbits. It occurred to me, that as far back as Jan.2002 (and heck before) a number of Senators were identifiable (as in pretty easy for those in gov’t to make a good educated guess) leaking (Levin and Rock, CIA planes for one, investigations)…and I am sure the Syria trip was well documented (if not in papers, but minds of many, which reminds too – communication of in syria?)

    Anyhow, there’s an odd connection between the Plame investigation and current ones. One result of Plame was a precedent set by reporter privilege with regards to a criminal investigation…and the precedent was set oddly by the President. Had he not order full “waivers of confidentiality” the reporter privilege battle would be waged over the CIA Prison and NSA leak. There is also the precedent set now with regards to civil cases and reporter privilege (Wen ho lee)

    The President has taken criticism for making that call and cooperating so fully with the Prosecutor (which is so opposite to Clintons dealings with his SP).

    I just wonder, if the Pres. did not anticipate some pretty devious leaking and had the wisdom to hedge a bet on Plame

    (you know that doesn’t seem like the best analogy “hedge a bet”, maybe he was willing to sacrifice an indictment? to set a precedent)

  4. BIGDOG says:

    “maybe he was willing to sacrifice an indictment?”

    The Carl Rove rope-a-dope….:)

  5. James says:

    The reason there are no available quotes of Democrats arguing that we shouldn’t spy on al Qaeda is that they don’t exist. Only a liar would make a partisan claim that al Qaeda has significant support in America, or isn’t considered a significant threat by all Americans. The issue is that this Administration (and anyone suffering from BWS (Bush Worshipping Syndrome)) has constantly and needlessly eroded the system of checks and balances that keep America free. The issue is that Americans are protected by law from an over-reaching Government (including having military tanks turned on us), but that conservatives are willing to give up the rights that make America great in return for any imagined security. Real Americans support the Constitution.

    It really is time to stop lying about Democrats. Framing the argument as being for-or against terrorism is bullshit.

  6. patch says:

    That’s the EVIL Karl Rove rope a dope…

  7. The NSA Story Fizzles Out

    When is a story not a story? When the big media outlets slowly come to the realization that the rest of the nation still has its eyes on the prize – winning the war against the Islamic terrorists and sets aside the petty political panderings of the l…

  8. BIGDOG says:

    James i respect your opinion. However….

    You said: ” Real Americans support the Constitution.”

    I think you should evaluate this statement. The reason being, the percentages of americans that know the constitution are far lower than your assertion, that Real Americans support the constitution. How can they support something the average real american knows very little about; oh and i will not allow you to placate, that a real american is one that supports the constitution, this is not the ONLY defining characteristic of a real american. American’s reliance on a MSM campaign of dis-information, only deludes your assertion even more. Although im not debating your entire premise, i think you havent thought it through.

    I think the Democrats at every turn have displayed the hate towards Bush, framing every decision he has made as bad for America, bad for the Constitution, bad for civil rights, etc etc etc. The framing of this administration, by the DNC, has been all based on lies and half truths. They perpatrated this dis-information campaign,( see rockefeller memo) for a great example of a purposefull agenda, designed to take Bush down. The cognitives ochestrated an unfounded rhetorical campaign, easily identified by a growing populas of bloggers and the debate that ensues is what real americans do. The DNC in order to regain dwindling support, thus leading to the regaining of their power thruought the branches of Gov. That hope grows dimmer every year because of BDS, not because of BWS.

    So please explain to me how you can, with any intelectual honesty say: “It really is time to stop lying about Democrats. Framing the argument as being for-or against terrorism is bullshit. ”
    When in fact shouldnt you being saying the same thing about BDS MSM and the DNC soundbite intelectualisms, full of abhorrent dis-information and outright lies. Why havent you defended Bush in this same maynor you are defending the DNC. Truelly a real american doesnt need party affiliation to define his character as a real american.

    Peace my friend..:)