President Bush looks like he is upset. He isn't.
"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America," Bush said, jabbing his finger for emphasis. He said the disclosure of the program "makes it harder to win this war on terror." reports the AP today. He offered absolutely no evidence to back up this assertion.
Is there anyone out there who does not immediately recognize this as just another whopper of a lie made up by Karl Rove? Who does not suspect that the leaks were once again from Karl Rove?
I'm not talking about the outrageous postss of a Michelle Malkin or of a Powerline - these guys know it's a lie, but it advances their personal careers to promote the lie, and so they do it. I'm trying to ask someone for an honest, sincere response.
The Times's revelations, such as they were, did not do any harm to our security. The only way that this argument could pass the smell test is if its proponents agree that the Bush adminsitration are such a bunch of liars, and al Qaeda is so keenly aware that they are liars, that when we announced over and over again that we were tracking international wire transfers, al Qaeda thought we were lying.
Michael Barone wrote today, commenting on the NSA wiretaps:
Now, thanks to The New York Times, al-Qaida terrorists are aware that their phone calls can be monitored, and presumably have taken precautions.
They ask us to believe that the guy who successfully engineered 9/11, and has eluded a world wide manhunt ("Wanted Dead or Alive") by the strongest nation on earth for amost five years was not aware that phone calls can be monitored for 4-1/2 of those years - until "he read it in the New York Times."
At the same time that they want us to realize how smart and resourceful our enemy is, they also need to convince us that they're made up of complete morons in order for them to have us believe that what he Times did caused any harm at all. How else can they drum up the hysteria necessary to make it seem that they are protecting us?
They really want us to swallow bilge. Barone again, today, again:
Why do they hate us? No, I'm not talking about Islamofascist terrorists. We know why they hate us: because we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, because we refuse to treat women as second-class citizens, because we do not kill homosexuals, because we are a free society.
Right, the reason they attacked us on 9/11 is because we don't kill homosexuals. It had nothing to do with their perception of our continued support for the occupation of Palestine. It had nothing to do with our maintaining a military base on what they consider holy land. Barone expects someone to believe that?
The Times does not alway make the best choices. This time they did. The idea that they need to ask the government for permission to print is so against the First Amendment that it would be laughable, were it not part of their campaign to paint the left as weaklings who are borderline traitors.
You folks rail at the supposed exposure of a CIA analyst who turned out not to be undercover at all; who's husband openly bragged that his wife was "with the agency". You go nuclear to protect a Washington "party goin wanna be power couple". Then the spiraling towards total irrelevance, New York Times reports a top secret operation aimed at disrupting an enemy's capabilities during a time of war and you leap to it's defense? Strange ducks you elites.
And you believe Rove leaked the story to the Times?? You have to cease this kind of folly or you will never be taken seriously again. You are only a half step away from believing the towers were hit be a joint effort between us and the Israelis and that the pentagon was struck by a missile.
And the homosexual thing? When you place your tongue in your cheek, you must be less subtle or it does not work.
Posted by: Rick | June 27, 2006 at 09:52 AM