This is a continuation of yesterday's post in which conclusive proof is offered showing that the outrage expressed by Bush over the New York Times "leak" was a complete fraud.
Yesterday we made two basic points:
- That there were in fact no damaging details in the Times article. An individual with Osama's sophistication would have expected our examination of SWIFT transfers, since it was exactly what Bush had announced he would do in his Press Conference of Sept 24, 2001.
- That this is part of a pattern of behavior by this administration. The same play was performed over six months ago when the Times committed the "crime" of publishing damaging details of the government's wiretapping program. It is clear that no one is being prosecuted in any way for that "crime."
Today we will look at other indications that this show of outrage is purely political theater and at the possibility that the play's director may also have been the leak-er:
- The same morning that the New York Times published the story, it was also published in the Wall Street Journal. Yet no one is calling them disgraceful. In fact the Journal has refused to give definitive answers concerning their discussions with the government about the leaks. When questioned about this, Tony Snow instructed his questioner to ask the Treasury Department. Treasury has not responded to inquiries as of this morning. Snow went on to say that the Times was being focused on because it had the story first. The Times did have the story first, but it did not publish it first. It was asked by the government not to publish, and it withheld publication until it had weighed the administration's arguments. If we are to believe that any information "damaging" to our nation's security was published, the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times are equally guilty. Yet they are not being equally condemned by the right.
- Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine" had already broken the story. It states on page 144 that "Initiatives launched by Treasury and CIA were getting better at tracking money as it passed through accounts across the world...[using] international banking compacts." The most significant "banking compact" is, of course, SWIFT. Why not slam Suskind's book, as they did the New York Times?
- The possibility that Rove was directly involved in this leak is supported by the fact that he has leaked to the press before for vicious partisan reasons. (He leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Matt Cooper. Ms. Plame's covert status at that time was confirmed by the Republican Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, who was appointed by Republican Attorney General Ashcroft.) His pattern of spreading lies and disinformation as a campaign tactic is undeniable. (Governor Ann Richards was dominated by lesbians, McCain has a black baby, Gore's receipt of a tape showing Bush preparing for a debate after which Rove screams Foul!, after which a Bush worker admitted that she has given it to the Gore campaign; The Swiftboating of Kerry, Smearing Murtha)
- Just as Howard Dean, and now Hillary Clinton have built relationships on the left side of the blogosphere, I am sure that Rove and his operatives have done the same on the right side. Thus it is no surprise how the captains of the wingnut-o-sphere spoke so quickly and with one voice. Powerline supported and quoted John MacEntyre's writing in RealClear Politics "this is a huge win politically for Bush," "The issue plays to Bush's strengths and continues to paint the picture of the President as a stalwart fighter,protecting America's safety while the left-wing press does their best to undermine...[him]." Bill Kristol and MacEntyre see the opportunity to harm Hillary Clinton especially. Hugh Hewitt asks soldiers serving in Iraq to write letters to the mainstream media saying that the Times was making their lives more dangerous. (Just a few days ago, the right was making the argument that those who suffer personally should have no more influence on the convbersation than any other American.) Prairie Pundit wrote that "The terrorist rights lobby in Washington would rather lose the war than stop a terrorist ploy by surveillance."
This entire damned episode may not actually have been engineered by Rove. But he certainly took advantage of it in that slimy way he has that is evocative of nothing so much as pond scum. A phony "leak." A torrent of abuse deluging the N.Y. Times, and only the Times. A complete diversion from the truth of what SWIFT is and it's place in international finance. And a deafening chorus of croaks and ribbets from the frogs that are the right side of the blogosphere.
The current adminsitration is composed of scum-encrusted liars.