Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BULLSHIT ALERT!!!-Bush Confused About Leaks: by Larry C Johnson

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 06:25 PM
Original message
BULLSHIT ALERT!!!-Bush Confused About Leaks: by Larry C Johnson
BULLSHIT ALERT!!!-Bush Confused About Leaks: by Larry C Johnson

Bush Confused About Leaks
by
Larry C Johnson

Bullshit alert! After watching George Bush and Dick Cheney weep and wail over the "damage" done by the New York Times for reporting that financial data is being dumped into the CIA as part of an effort to find terrorist networks, I kept waiting for Darryl Hannah to pop up and say, "Live, from New York, it's Saturday Night". Does George have Alzheimer's Disease? Has he forgotten that he used to love the New York Times? The only thing funnier is that most of the main stream media is reporting the antics of these clowns as straight up news.

I guess Bush and Cheney decided that leaks to the New York Times were no longer kosher when their go to girl, Judith Miller, got canned. Of course, Judy wasn't the only member of the now "traitorous" New York Times to benefit from White House largesse. Doug Jehl published a piece on August 2, 2004 that exposed an Al Qaeda informant:

The unannounced capture of a figure from Al Qaeda in Pakistan several weeks ago led the Central Intelligence Agency to the rich lode of information that prompted the terror alert on Sunday, according to senior American officials.

The figure, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, was described by a Pakistani intelligence official as a 25-year-old computer engineer, arrested July 13, who had used and helped to operate a secret Qaeda communications system where information was transferred via coded messages.

A senior United States official would not confirm or deny that Mr. Khan had been the Qaeda figure whose capture led to the information. But the official said ''documentary evidence'' found after the capture had demonstrated in extraordinary detail that Qaeda members had for years conducted sophisticated and extensive reconnaissance of the financial institutions cited in the warnings on Sunday.


........................

We should also remember that the New York Times was not the only friendly outlet for planting "news". White House officials turned to Time Magazine and the Chicago Sun Times in shopping information about Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA officer. For this White House, leaking classified information that damages national security is okay as long as it can be used to save the President's political reputation.

President Bush crying about "leaks" to the New York Times is like listening to former Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss complain about sexual promiscuity. Sorry George, we ain't buying your song and dance.

Lots more WH Leaking at:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/republican_leak.html

Bush Crying About Leaks-Like Heidi Fleiss Crying About Promiscuity-Larry Johnson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jawja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. This charade
is about intimidating the major newspapers into silence in regard to this criminal regime's activities.

Why aren't they going after the leaker? Because the banking story was deliberately leaked in order to create justification to go after the newspapers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. It is possible
to both blast the papers publicly and seek the leaker privately.

This doesn't negate your main suggestion however (intentional leak to set up papers).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jawja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Yes it is, absolutely.
But I thinking back to the leak of the CIA gulags (wasn't that the Times as well?) and they did not go after the leaker privately. They talked about it publically.

I could be wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fearthem Donating Member (573 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. They are just buying time, changing the subject - diversion from Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well, I think they also want the first ammendment dead and out of their
way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
5. David Schuster on Hardball showed video of dimson shortly after
9/ll speechifying, saying how they would be going after the banking practices of any supposed terraists. So it's no big surprise, it's just another diversion. If they can do away w/the 'free' press while they're at it, so much the better.
And did I mention what hypocrites they are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-28-06 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
8.  leaker in chief
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spartan61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
6. The conservative Wall Street Journal also published the story.
Why aren't georgie and dickie going after that paper too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-27-06 10:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. Larry, please outline the applicable law,...the one enacted in,...
,...'94, "CIPA",...and tell us how they are leaving out the juicy parts which DO NOT intrude upon "whistle-blower" protections for revealing illegal acts by government officials.

Please, tell us about THAT, if it exists. Thing is, the "ruling" party has been on a long-term mission to concentrate power. It has LITERALLY been a conspiracy to acquire and concentrate wealth and power, and they are going to fight like hell to keep it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 05:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC