"I liked what he said...I'd like to see President Obama follow more closely in the footsteps of George Bush and his passion for keeping the homeland safe"
---Sarah Palin, on her reaction to President Obama's acceptance speech of the Nobel Peace Prize
"I thought the speech was actually very good. And he clearly understood that he had been given the prize prematurely, but he used it as an occasion to remind people, first of all, as he said, that there is evil in the world."
---Newt Gingrich, on his reaction to President Obama's acceptance speech of the Nobel Peace Prize
Thanks folks. It's nice to see a recognition from two mammoth figures on the right that my guy hit a home run.
22 comments:
That must sting a little bit to admit that he's being complimented for following the footsteps of Dubya.
Not at all. While I still think the President Bush was an awful president (not the worst, though, that would be LBJ), he did manage to do a few good things.
He was extremely successful in disrupting Al Qaeda's (and other extremists') financial networks. To me, this is the chief reason why we have not had another attack.
He was also the first US President to call for a Palestinian state. I don't agree with him on this one but I think it is admirable that he said it.
As I have said previously, Bush lost me when he pursued the lesser threat of Iraq. Had he focused more heavily on AfPak and finished the job there (rather than letting it whir out of control into a far greater danger than before 9-11) he would've had my full support.
Did it bother you when the New York Times was busy exposing and undermining the work the Bush administration was doing to disrupt these financial networks?
What exactly are your sources for this, Tom? Don't bother posting links from townhall, hotair, or worldnet.
What do you think about Judith Miller going to jail for Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby?
Hey Mark, how about nationalreview.com, michaelsavage.com, michellemalkin.com and weeklystandard.com.
heeheehee
My source was the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1151121600&en=18f9ed2cf37511d5&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Pwned
Kevin said...
Pwned
ha, again...and again...
Tom et al, do you honestly think that the Bush Administration DIDN'T want that information leaked?
Even when try to be nice....sheesh...
Jaw dropping. Just jaw dropping. Again.
So the Bush Administration did everything possible to prevent the release short of actually invading the offices of the Times, then tried to punish them afterwards, but somehow, by combining those actions with "the right questions" you come to the conclusion that they wanted it leaked? Un. Be. Liev. Able.
Those must be the kind of "right questions" where you can look at out at your lawn and conclude that grass is red.
Karl Rove thought that Obama was probably using Bush speech writers.
I thought it was a fantastic oration given by the teleprompter in chief.
What's jaw dropping Ed, is that you apparently didn't read this paragraph.
"The program, run out of the Central Intelligence Agency and overseen by the Treasury Department, "has provided us with a unique and powerful window into the operations of terrorist networks and is, without doubt, a legal and proper use of our authorities," Stuart Levey, an under secretary at the Treasury Department, said in an interview on Thursday."
Why would Mr. Leavy grant an interview explaining how vital the program has been if they didn't want the information leaked? Think, Ed. You're a smart guy, c'mon!
Bush Slams Leak of Terror Finance Story
Note this paragraph:
"In a note on the paper's Web site Sunday, Executive Editor Bill Keller said the Times spent weeks discussing with Bush administration officials whether to publish the report."
Think about it. The Bush Administration was trying to talk the Times out of publishing the article FOR WEEKS. The Times' article said that statement was made "Thursday". The article was released on Friday, making the statement THE DAY BEFORE THE ARTICLE WAS REALEASED. That statement was clearly defending the program to the Times, and was almost certainly part of the Bush Administrations attempts to talk them out of publishing the story.
Also note that the article I linked to was published the Monday morning after the leak was published (which was on the previous Friday).
"President Bush on Monday sharply condemned the disclosure of a program to secretly monitor the financial transactions of suspected terrorists. "The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," he said.
"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.""
Well, Ed, it all comes down to a matter of opinion. It sounds to me like Bush would do an excellent job in the theater.
Think, Ed. Why would Levey grant the interview in the first place if they didn't want the story out? What other reason would he have to pretend to be upset about the leak?
Hmm..believe it or not it was possibly the smartest thing he did as president.
"Why would Levey grant the interview in the first place if they didn't want the story out?"
They were talking to the Times to try to kill the leak.
Now how about answering my question:
Why would the Bush Administration want to leak something they were convinced was both legal and effective, and which would lose its effectiveness if revealed?
They would so because leaking it would benefit them in a way that we, without national security clearance, can't see. In other words, they played the Times.
There are many possible reasons why they did this. One may be that the hirabis found out what they were doing so they decided to "leak" it and switch some tactics. But I don't have NSC clearance so I don't know for sure. I am basing my opinion on what past presidents have done, Woodward's books, and my step brother in air force special forces.
Ed, I have no problem if you want to slam the media. I do it all the time. I am simply saying that the Bush administration DID have some good moments and this one was a very effective one in several ways.
You’re such a phony. You’re acting all magnanimous with your little bit of acquiescence toward the Bush administration, only because the Obama administration is following suit. When provided evidence demonstrating how your team was undermining that one Bush administration program you did support, you turn negative and my question. Should the evidence have come from a source you deemed unworthy, you were set to criticize its authenticity but when the source is the infallible New York Times, you backpedal it to the Bush administration leaked the information on purpose; for reasons which you of course cannot present but are certain are out there. You’re a fraud.
"They would so because leaking it would benefit them in a way that we, without national security clearance, can't see."
Your one and only speculation doesn't even require a leak, just simply stopping what they were doing.
In other words, you're convinced that Bush Administration undermined itself despite a complete lack of evidence for your position, any reasonable speculations, and against all the evidence to the contrary. That's par for the course with you.
Ever heard of Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation is the best one. That's a critical part of reasoning. Even if there are other "possibilities," the one that the evidence points to is the most likely explanation.
For example, we could have popped into existence only 5 minutes ago, complete with memories of a past which didn't actually occur. But we don't have any evidence whatsoever that such an event occurred. Therefore, the most rational explanation is that we did not just pop into existence and the past actually did occur.
The same applies here. All the evidence runs in the direction that the Bush Administration did NOT want the Times publishing that story and no evidence goes the other way. Therefore, the rational conclusion is that the Bush Administration did not want it leaked. Furthermore, even if the Bush Administration wanted it leaked for some unfathomable reason, the New York Times still took the side of the Terrorists and against American interests.
But getting back to the primary point, you praised the Bush administration for undermining the terrorist's networks. Tom pointed out that the New York Times undermined that work. And all of a sudden, you're running to defend the New York Slimes despite what you initially wrote? So either the Times was wrong for undermining the program or you shouldn't have praised Bush for striking a blow against the terrorist financial networks to begin with.
"how your team was undermining"
My team, Tom? Who exactly would be "my team?"
"Ever heard of Occam's Razor?"
Yes, Ed. We've had this discussion before and I dismiss it. That's not how the world works and I think it's terribly short sighted, not to mention dangerous, to apply that logic given such a dynamic and complicated situation. Take at look at this statement of yours...
"So either the Times was wrong for undermining the program or you shouldn't have praised Bush for striking a blow against the terrorist financial networks to begin with."
How about neither? The Times wasn't wrong and the Bush administration did a great job. I'm going to humbly request, again, that you think, Ed. Remember how well Kennedy and Reagan used to play the media like this. Sadly, you might not want to or are incapable of thinking especially with a line like this...
"the New York Times still took the side of the Terrorists and against American interests."
And I'm done here as long as you spout this paranoid nonsense. Oh, and this would be yet another example of Mastiff's emotional mind-rational mind quote.
"We've had this discussion before and I dismiss it. That's not how the world works and I think it's terribly short sighted, not to mention dangerous, to apply that logic given such a dynamic and complicated situation."
What more really needs to be (or can be) said? Logic doesn't apply? To a "dynamic" situation which occurred 3 years ago? Which is a "complicated" choice between A and Not(A)?
…and you wonder why we don't take you seriously…
I think it's terribly short sighted, not to mention dangerous, to apply ANY logic given such a dynamic and complicated situation
FTFY
Post a Comment