Squiggler

Nothing funny about a death threat ...

Late last night I posted a link list to a day's worth of articles about Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Larry Johnson, Jason Leopold and others in their cabal. A good number of the links were discussing the ongoing Johnson/Leopold saga that Seixon has been involed in disclosing. This morning, Seixon has posted the following:

Browner Still

At approximately 7:00 AM Central European Time I received a phone call from a blocked number. The person on the phone told me I had written naughty things on my blog, and then laughed when I asked them who they were.

"You're a dead man."

There is nothing funny about those words. Some want to write off this crazy group as BDS sufferers and think that designation explains all. I agree that they all suffer from BDS, but BDS is not what is driving this story. Like I said yesterday, keep your eye on the ball. This is a rogue CIA cabal of ex and active CIA agents working all around the world. It is unraveling, in large measure because Joe Wilson has a big mouth and an even bigger problem with the truth. A few years ago, it was much easier for a rogue group to operate under the radar, but the advent of the blogosphere, with its Army of Davids, has made this much more difficult. The leaks to the NYTs and the WaPo were pounced on by the blogging world and even with limited amounts of public information, a picture has begun to emerge and there are many in and out of government who should be quaking in their boots about now.

Related:

The Saga Of The Digital Brownshirts "(I did a little bit of humor about it here). But I don't think George is laughing right now."

Another Lefty Melts Down "This has gone from amusing to creepy."

Protein Wisdom in his Brave New Worlds post speaks to the larger issue:

But as I noted on Hoist the Black Flag yesterday, there is more at work here than simple playground bickering.  To wit:  beyond a particular individual’s pathology, what the Frisch incident revealed—to me, at least—was the lengths some in press will go to to turn a clear case of boorish behavior into a story about the “cycle of violence” between political opponents; what the Greenwald (alleged) sockpuppetry episode reveals is that many of those being cited as “experts” on issues that will shape public opinion and could, in theory, manifestly impact public policy and law, are in fact puffed up creations of an organized message machine whose goal it is to shape the official public narrative—even if doing so requires behind the scenes machinations.  Because to adherents of such a worldview, anything is acceptable once you’ve decided that it is up to you to fight for the “greater good”—an impulse that I imagine grows even stronger once it joins forces with others who share that same tinpot Machiavellian’s sense of social pragmatism.

And now, with this new story, what we have is several reporters and a former CIA agent using base intimidation that has escalated into a potentially actionable—and quite serious—offense.

And then nails it with You know…

...for a supposedly peaceable, “reality-based” community, they sure do have a thing for online puppet shows and overt thuggery, don’t they?

Of course, in their defense, I suppose one can begin to get a bit cocky when one has had the intelligence bureaucracy and the press on one’s side for so very long.  Or, you know—so they think.

Patterico has been covering the sock puppet/blog war shenanigans and sees them as all connected too.

MacRanger asks: Is Larry Johnson harrassing Seixon? and gives some good advice.

I would suggest keeping a copy of the email and forwarding to the FBI. Interstate communication of a threat is a Felony and as such Johnson could be in a jam if in fact he sent the email. To wit:

"Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

Again, finding out if it is Johnson isn't hard and it would seem to be his MO. So don't let it go by, report it.

Mac has been on the entire "big picture" case that goes way beyond the small minds of Larry Johnson, Jason Leopold or even Joe Wilson. See:  The Coming Storm - Rep. William Jefferson -  Jefferson, Wilson, Clinton and the tenacles of corruption and his whole Rockefeller did you "teller?" series.

And Confederate Yankee asks:

So tell me now Mr Greenwald: does Jason Leopold constitute "a known opinion maker," as a "regular contributor" to CNBC and National Public Radio? Is he "representative of the 'Left'" as a writer for Alternet, CounterPunch, Common Dreams, Raw Story, and Truthout?

What of Larry Johnson, who gave the weekly radio address on July 23, 2005 for the Democratic Party, and wrote a July, 2001 NY Times editorial claiming a declining terrorist threat, and has appeared on many of the major news channels? I think he qualifies as well.

Leftist Hate Campaign Against Blogger Gets Deadly Serious

Byron York stays on the Wilson/Plame story.

Can the Left Fall Any Lower?

You probably haven't heard of former CIA employee Larry Johnson, but he has a certain cachet on the left. He has given the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, is a big favorite among liberal bloggers, and has appeared as an "expert" on terrorism on PBS and other mainstream outlets. So you might assume he isn't a complete moron.

Think again. The Larry Johnson paper trail starts in July 2001--two months before September 11--when he wrote in the New York Times that the terrorist threat was "declining," and that Americans, despite being "bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism," have "little to fear" from such attacks. An interesting window into the mindset of the CIA, or at least a portion thereof, pre-September 11, but hardly a qualification to be considered an "expert" on the subject.

 

Liars, those they lie to, and lie about

Aaaah, come on, admit it, you love a mystery, a good cat fight, and taking sides in blogger wars. Lots of people have been busy in the last day or so, while I've been snowed under and under the weather. Have fun!

Clarice Feldman's piece over at American Thinker

...... it is quite probable that the bribery iGate’s owner has acknowledged is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the dubious business associations of Representative Jefferson.

Many other figures, some of them quite prominent, are likely to turn up as players in the temporarily suspended probe. Independent citizen-investigators, posting at such websites as Just One Minute, Macsmind, and Free Republic, have been poring over publicly-available documents and reports, in search of clues as to the identities of those as yet unnamed in the Jefferson investigation.

Few people outside these internet circles realize that one of those names may be Joseph C. Wilson IV.

The Jefferson-Joe Wilson Connection

Macsmind first mentioned this in May. I have been thinking about this possibility and reviewing the detailed and well-documented research published at Free Republic by a poster known as “Fedora,” who has examined public domain information and connected some very interesting dots. Joe Wilson, it turns out, left the State Department and became a business promoter with some rather intriguing connections before he went on his infamous mission to Niger.

Today's article at Slate from Christopher Hitchens

This means that both pillars of the biggest scandal-mongering effort yet mounted by the "anti-war" movement—the twin allegations of a false story exposed by Wilson and then of a state-run vendetta undertaken against him and the lady wife who dispatched him on the mission—are in irretrievable ruins. The truth is the exact polar opposite. The original Niger connection was both authentic and important, and Wilson's utter failure to grasp it or even examine it was not enough to make Karl Rove even turn over in bed. All the work of the supposed "outing" was inadvertently performed by Wilson's admirer Robert Novak. Of course, one defends the Bush administration at one's own peril. Thanks largely to Stephen Hadley, assistant to the president for national security affairs, our incompetent and divided government grew so nervous as to disown the words that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union address. But the facts are still the facts, and it is high time that they received one-millionth of the attention that the "Plamegate" farce has garnered.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1450846/posts

The Digital Brown Shirts

When it comes to finding examples of the mythical digital Brown Shirt, I think I have come close to identifying a small network of such unethical and intimidating creatures. While investigating the genesis of why my identity and personal details were divulged at Think Progress a few weeks ago, which included a phone call to the home of my family, I came upon quite an interesting set of facts that I now want to reveal. Unlike the goons Gore envisioned targeting journalists, the group of people I came upon is quite the opposite – they use threatening, intimidating, and unethical tactics to protect their own stories. If you couldn’t read between the lines already, this story centers around the most infamous journalist of recent times, Jason Leopold, and those who so foolishly choose to associate with him. This includes terrorism commentator Larry Johnson, the most visible and outspoken member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Short Summary of Leopold Story

The Shirts Get Browner

And More Crazy: Someone Posts Jason Leopold's Information

The Glenn Greenwald Sock Puppet Story, From Start To (Almost) Finish

Some Jackass Posted Seixon's Personal Info

The Truth Regarding Iraq’s Yellowcake Connection

George, We Hardly Knew Ye

With Hitch On Our Side

I'm With AllahPundit

Did The CIA Block NSA Leads To FISA?

Liberal Lies And Slander

More Embarrassing Than $90,000 In The Freezer?

Verrücktenfreude Part Zwei

And you thought the DU and Kossacks were nutcases

Leftist Reporter Forges Emails, Smears Blogger Who Dares to Question 'Truth'

The problem with all of this is that Larry Johnson is one of the national media's "go to" guys and he's up to his eyeballs in all that is nefarious. Cornered animals can be very dangerous when they strike out. The CIA cabal is unraveling, keep your eye on the ball.

Jimmy Carter, again

Reliapundit writes in response to a Clark Mountain Musings via Gateway Pundit:

It's always worth remembering that most of the major problems the Free World faces all began on Jimmy's horrifyingly awful single term in office: the Shah fell - giving rise to Khomeini and islamofascism; Afghanistan fell to the USSR; Saddam came to power in a coup. All while Jimmy's cronies profiteered with BCCI - a bank with nefarious ties to the hubs of islamofascism.

Here at The Squiggler, I support all of the posters above in the low opinion of Jimmy Carter and would add that he nearly destroyed our own military. As an active duty family during the Carter years, I can say from personal experience that in our 26 years of being an active duty military family, those four years were the pits, the worst of the worst.

Gingrich on WW III with a big huh? - UPDATED - Bush drops "diplospeak" (Video)

Dave Postman of the Seattle Times interviewed Newt Gingrich and then followed up by watching him on Meet the Press before writing his article. In the course of the interview, Gingrich makes the following statements as detailed in Postman's article:

On Meet the Press Gingrich did repeat his assertion that World War III has begun. He said the current fighting in the Middle East:

"is absolutely a question of the survival of Israel, but it's also a question of what is really a world war. ... I mean, we, we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war, and frankly, our bureaucracies aren't responding fast enough, we don't have the right attitude about this, and this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel.

"MR. RUSSERT: This is World War III?

"MR. GINGRICH: I, I believe if you take all the countries I just listed, that you've been covering, put them on a map, look at all the different connectivity, you'd have to say to yourself this is, in fact, World War III."

Russert seems genuinely surprised to hear the words World War III, but should anyone be surprised? Gingrich makes a valid point. A point, by the way, that President Bush made back on May 5th (Hat tip: Reliapundit):

BREITBART (AFP):

US President George W. Bush said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III."

In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war -- World War III".

Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

The article ends with some very strange ramblings by Gingrich that seem to knock the President or at least his policies of the last couple of months pretty hard.

On Meet the Press Gingrich seemed to be drawing a distinction between two visions of foreign policy and how to deal with dictators and terrorism. But it came out sounding like he was comparing his view to that of the Bush Administration -- which he advises as a member of the Defense Policy Board -- rather than what I heard as the contrasting views of Democrats and Republicans.

He told Russert:

"My point is -- and this is a core difference in how, in how I think we think about foreign policy. When in doubt, I want the United States to be very strong and I want us to be very clear with dictatorships. We're sending signals today that no matter how much you provoke us, no matter how viciously you describe things in public, no matter how many things you're doing with missiles and nuclear weapons, the most you'll get out of us is talk.

"MR. RUSSERT: You're talking about the Bush administration.

"MR. GINGRICH: I'm talking about the policies of the United States today.

"MR. RUSSERT: But that is such a condemnation of George W. Bush.

"MR. GINGRICH: Well, it's not a condemnation of George W. Bush. It's a statement that--look what we've done in the last six weeks. I mean, I think we are in a very serious crisis in this country."

Perhaps he was projecting a message to someone, because to say that President Bush isn't strongly motivated and very focused on taking a hard line against terrorists would be ludicrous. Or perhaps he was tailoring his message to Russert's liberal NBC audience. Or perhaps its all a Rovian plot. Even the Instapundit is confused: "IS NEWT GINGRICH CRITICIZING BUSH, or is he criticizing the left? Maybe both?"

UPDATE:

Perhaps I was too hasty. I hope the President clarifies this remark which comes from the joint G8 statement released earlier:

"These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict. The extremists must immediately halt their attacks. It is also critical that Israel, while exercising the right to defend itself, be mindful of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of its actions. We call upon Israel to exercise utmost restraint," the statement continues.

I want the old George Bush back, you know, the one who says things like "wanted dead or alive." This diplomatic Bush is B.S.

And just in case anyone has forgotten, Israel has been following the "be patient" plea from the United States for years, going all the way back to Bush 41's plea as Iranian scuds were landing in their country during the first Gulf War back in 1991.

UPDATE II:

Hmmm. Perhaps this is the clarification from Condi Rice  (Hat tip: Tammy Bruce):

Rice: No point in temporary ceasefire

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned that for the time being the United States is not interested to assist in negotiating a ceasefire. There is no point in achieving a ceasefire so long as Hizbullah and Hamas are capable of firing rockets at Israel, and by doing so to breach it...

The Pentagon notified Congress of plans to sell Israel jet fuel valued at up to USD 210 million "to keep peace and security in the region".

"The proposed sale of the JP-8 aviation fuel will enable Israel to maintain the operational capability of its aircraft inventory," the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in notice required by law.

UPDATE III:

Aaaah, I feel better. Behind the scenes, GWB tells it like it is.

Bush was talking privately to British Prime Minister

Tony Blair during a lunch at the Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg about an upsurge of violence in the Middle East, not realizing a microphone was recording what he said.

"I think Condi (Secretary of State

Condoleezza Rice) is going to go pretty soon," Bush said.

Blair replied: "Right, that's all that matters, it will take some time to get that together."

The two leaders also referred to an offer by Blair to help. Blair said Rice has "got to succeed" if she goes out to the region.

Bush replied: "What they need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit." Shortly afterwards Blair noticed the microphone and hastily switched it off, but not before the recording had reached news media. Video.

 

Disproportionate Response

Disproportionate Response by Cox and Forkum

This cartoon pretty much says it all, right? Wrong! It forgot to tell you that it is:

BDS - “It’s Bush’s Fault”!

By MacRanger

First, Time Magazine has Bush being despured and begging him to go it alone and go after North Korea, now Newsweak wants the same thing in regards to Israel.  This time Michael Hirsh (Creator of BDS), continues his thread of last week.  In essence: "It's all Bush's fault - Israel misbehaving and damn it and he'd better fix it!'

"The Bush team didn’t see this one coming. Maybe it was simply that too many other volcanoes were erupting at the same time. Iraq was tipping closer to civil war, Iran was getting more brazen by the day and North Korea’s missiles were roiling East Asia. The president, meanwhile, was preoccupied with what would likely be a testy G8 summit hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin. True, the two top U.S. Mideast envoys—David Welch and Elliott Abrams—were in the region when hostilities began. But they had been reassured by Lebanese contacts that Hassan Nasrallah, the Hizbullah leader, didn’t plan to “stir things up” while Hamas and Israel contended over a kidnapped Israeli corporal, according to a senior U.S. diplomat who would divulge the details only if he remained anonymous. “You had six and a half years of, if not calm, basically a stable deterrence between Hizbullah and Israel,” the official told NEWSWEEK. “I did not expect this at all."

I don’t know who this so-called diplomat is, judging from Hirsh’s sourcing past it could have been a clerk at DOS. But they’re full of crap. Any smuck - even Joe Biden could have seen this coming (of course Biden sees all, knows all and does all - except his own writing). Did you think that with Hamas and Hizbullah rattling swords and their chief funder Iran getting jiggy, that no one saw this coming - that Israel would say “enough!”?

Hirsh goes on an almost hysterical rant about this being the “defining moment” of Bush’s foreign policy and legacy. Gee, and and I thought you guys saw him as a maniacal chimp. It’s that a lot to expect from such a “dolt”?

You can see what is happening here and its simple. It’s just more of the same/lame Bush Derangment Sydrome which has by now gone into endless re-runs.

Of course it’s not the thugs in Hamas or Hizbullah, or those “innocents in Lebonnon” who have been waging war - kidnapping and slaughering men, women and children, or blowing up school buses - no, they are not to be blamed. It has nothing to do with

"On April 9, 2000, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared that Israel was a “cancerous body in the region . . . [which] must be uprooted.” Like Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah added, for good measure: “Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities.” But rather than ostracize him, Kofi Annan became the first senior international leader to shake hands with the terror chief. His outreach did not moderate Hezbollah, but rather emboldened the group and endowed it with newfound prestige."*

And of course not Bill Clinton’s “deal with the devil” that is actually the root cause of a lot of what we are seeing.

Nope! It’s Bush’s fault! But god forbid they put the blame on those poor terrorist that need “just a little understanding”.

This is the “touchy feely” mentality that makes a murderous thug like Arafat get a hero’s send off by our media when he finally croaked, or on a domestic level cries to save “Tookie” another murderous thug who now doing his time in the pit of hell.

Yeah, but I’ll bet that was Bush’s fault too.

UPDATE:  More on the history of Hizbullah over at American Thinker.

UPDATE II:  Think Progress displaying even more BDS. Absolutely clueless and yes, Rice is right again, any suggestion that Iraq = the current conflict is "Grotesque". Remember to the left America sucks, we're always wrong, Terrorist aren't thugs, they're just cuddly teddybears gone astray.

Or maybe not. The following quote on "proportionality" was too good not to pass on.

Hat tip to Red State who credits Betsy's Page for the quote.

"In the old days, the idea of fear of a nasty response from a well-armed power often acted as a deterrent (remember that word?) to attacking that country. In fact, that was one of the reasons countries had armies and weapons--not necessarily to use them, but to keep from having to use them very often; to keep themselves from being overrun and attacked, to defend its citizens. And the best way to defend them would be to not even have to defend them, but to just use the threat of a response in defense. And to be threatening, it helped if that threat was somewhat unpredictable in its force and scope.

In the olden days (which weren't so very long ago) responses were seldom (if ever?) discussed in terms of proportionality. ...Each nation would do what it determined necessary to end the threat--no more and no less. Sometimes it would miscalculate, of course. But the idea was that a sovereign nation had a right to defend itself to the best of its ability and its own judgment, and everyone knew that.

And that knowledge probably served to prevent many asymmetrical attacks. "The Mouse That Roared" notwithstanding, weak countries didn't tend to attack the strong; it would be suicidal. But asymmetrical warfare is now not only chic, but it's actively encouraged by this idea of "proportionality," which ties the gigantic Gullivers of the world (such as that mean old, bad old US and its vile mini-me, Israel) down with many tiny ropes.

It's in the interests of those with less power, and fewer arms, to advance the doctrine of "proportionality." This evens the playing field, something like a handicap in golf, and makes the game better sport for those with fewer skills....But war is not a game of golf. And leveling the playing field doesn't make for more fun. It makes for the emboldenment of tyrants in the third world. It makes for lengthy, drawn-out conflicts that never seem to end or be resolved. It buys time for countries such as Iran to gain power and become contenders by acquiring the most disproportionate weaponry of all, the nuclear variety." -- Neo-Neocon

Mark Levin, on the radio the other day, called them the Axis of Appeasement and called them as dangerous as Bush's Axis of Evil. I think they are even more dangerous. These are the leakers who are destroying this country and our ability to go after the terrorists. These are the ones who care far more about scumbags trying to kill us being given 5-star treatment at Gitmo than about our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. These are the Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, New York Times, Larry Johnson, Ray McGovern, Howard Dean, Daily Kos Kiddie Korps types who despise America and most especially despise anybody who thinks that the Reagan doctrine of peace through strength is imperative. In other words, the wimps, wooses, pantywaists, racists, bigots, and antisemites known as the liberal left. And their fearless leader, "Goofy":

Pinch Sulzberger: On the side of whomever's killing Americans.

 

Breaking Plamegate news ... UPDATED

So one day after Robert Novak comes clean and tells the world that he learned about Joe Wilson's wife through an inadvertent remark during a long interview with his primary unnamed source, someone "not a political gunslinger," and someone suspected to be Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell and one day after he also said that Karl Rove did not supply a name or try to "out" Plame in anyway and that the CIA did, here comes "our gal Val" filing a civil suit against .... drumroll please ... Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby.

WASHINGTON  — The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

This couple are a couple of narcissistic freaks. Val would do better to file divorce papers against her eogtistical and blabbermouth husband, Joe Wilson, than to continue this farce against Dick Cheney, et al. Afterall, it is big mouth Joe who published his wife's name and started the whole brouhaha in the first place.

Related:

Copy of Complaint here

Wowie Zahawie! (Christopher Hitchens)

Backing up a day to Robert Novak's article, this article by Clarice Feldman that appeared at Real Clear Politics is a must read for context on the whole mess known as Plamegate.

The Fitzgerald case falls apart

I take it that the nod to Novak signals the long Fitzgerald circus is breaking up the tents and moving on, having succeeded only in tying up the time and money of the hapless White House staffers whom he enmeshed in this preposterous long-running carnival of misadventure and misdirection. His accomplishments consist of smearing the reputation of one of the key warriors against terror, the brilliant and hard-working Lewis Libby, and the added burden on an already pressed White House staff.

That the circus was about to close was obvious during the discovery proceedings in May. During those hearings, Libby's counsel argued that he should be entitled to notes not yet provided to him (because not in the Prosecutor's possession). In argument, that counsel argued from what he did have that there was much more in Time's and the New York Time's possession that was exculpatory to his client to which Libby was entitled. For example:

Apropos Being Outed

Plame Game - Answered Prayer Mac says: "There is a God" 

Joe And Val Suing To A Best Seller AJ Strata asks: "And is anyone surprised to see leftwing nut Erwin Chemerinsky on the Plame Team?  Check out the very last thing on the very last page."

John Podhoretz

Outside the Beltway

Breaking: Valerie Plame Files Suit Lorie Byrd says: "For those who have not been following the story this week, Wizbang has had the best coverage in the blogosphere. See here, here, here, here, here and here for a primer."

This is too funny for words 

And speaking of publicity, let's not forget Joe Wilson's own egotistical entry in Who's Who:

Here's what's inside the book siting on that desk...

"Copyright (c) 2002 by Reed Elsevier, Inc."

Melvin Schuetz from Baylor's Moody Library forwarded Joseph Wilson's bio from the 2003 edition of Who's Who in America [Volume 2 (L-Z)]. He notes:

Wilson's entry carries over about 5 lines to the next column, which is why it cuts off in mid-sentence at the end. The relevant text is "m. Valerie Elise Plame, Apr. 3, 1998," which not only appears in the 2003 edition, but ALL editions from 1999-2005!

So, via Who's Who, the name "Valerie Plame" has been associated publicly with Joe Wilson since the Clinton era - nice secret... ***

Jay Tea (Wizbang) makes the point that being in Who's Who and listing spouse and children is almost a requirement for someone in Joe Wilson's "ambassadorial" position.

Who's Who is, to be blunt, an ego stroking for the rich and famous and powerful, as well as those who want to be. Its main use is as a source of information for the press, like Robert Novak, who might want to contact some of these folks who like to be thought of as "movers and shakers."

In that context, it is entirely logical that Joseph Wilson would submit his personal and contact information to Who's Who. But why did he mention his wife?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that having Valerie Plame's name listed in Who's Who was no violation of CIA security. In fact, it was probably recommended.

Spies don't live in a vacuum. They don't sit quietly in safe houses until they are summoned to duty, when they carry out their missions and then return to base. They live in homes. They have families. They have friends. They look, walk, talk, eat, sleep, and do everything just like everyone else.

So it's impossible to make spies invisible. Normal people don't just vanish. So what do you do?

You make them normal. You make them indistinguishable from non-spies. You make them look as average, as mundane, as boring as possible. You do absolutely nothing to call attention to them.

This may all be true, but once one lists himself in Who's Who with CIA spouse's name, can those same two people claim "invasion of privacy?" Seems a no brainer to me.

Mark Levin

The world is at war and these fools bring this lawsuit.  Another 15 minutes of shame.    

JOM has two three four posts going and all the comments sections are buzzing: A Wilson Civil Suit? and Novak Speaks Out and Snark is a Tell and The Wilson Civil Suit - All Applaud

Bring It On Baby! (Kesher Talk)

pLamegate, part 2 (UPDATED) (Sister Toldjah)

Bring It On Baby! (Abracadabrah) 

And Clarice Feldman, Washington, DC attorney, writes in a comment at JOM:

What a coincidence--there is a new book deal--and it was announced on the same day as this suit:

"Ex-CIA Officer Finds New Memoir Publisher

Thursday, July 13, 2006

BY HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer

NEW YORK — Former CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose outing led to the indictment of a White House official, has agreed to write her memoirs for Simon&Schuster, weeks after a reported seven-figure deal with the Crown Publishing Group fell through.

"It will be a very interesting book by a key figure of our time," Simon&Schuster spokesman Adam Rothberg said Thursday.

Financial terms were not disclosed and no publication date has been set. In early May, Crown announced that it would publish Plame’s book, but the two sides could not agree on a final contract."

I have to think Fitz does not like this one bit.

Posted by: clarice | July 13, 2006 at 04:11 PM

Valerie Plame Finds a New Publisher Ouch!

“Former CIA Officer Valerie Plame and Husband Sue Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove Over Leak”

I eagerly await any and all cross-examination of Plame, Wilson, former CIA agents like Larry Johnson, etc.

And of course, the question we have to ask is, if Cheney, et al., had truly “outed” Plame, why did not Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald bring indictments against them?

Plame Sues Cheney, Rove, Libby, Their Moms Sweetness and Light may be kidding about the Moms but asks:

How has Plame been damaged again? And does she really want to go through "discovery"?

And is it really a good idea to use your next door neighbor (who specializes in "internet law") as your attorney?

It sounds like her good pal Larry Johnson and ace journalist Jason Leopold must be advising her.

Taking A Stroll Through The Garden Of Half-Truths

This is one of those moments when one wonders what color the sky is in another's world. 

Civil Suit Leaked in October (Seixon) For those unfamiliar with VIPS and why I, for one, want to see complete exposure of this rogue group who is doing so much damage to our intelligence capabilities with their constant leaks, Seixon is one of a handful of bloggers who has a handle on the interconnecting web of this group.

The civil suit uses evidence that seems to have come from a source close to the Wilsons in what seems like a setup.

On October 26, 2005 Richard Sale, a reporter for UPI, wrote an article that was oddly only featured at Truthout, presented by Larry Johnson who is a regular contributor at the now infamous liberal news source. Johnson is a member of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group founded by Ray McGovern (a contributor for the LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review) early on in 2003 to compel government officials to reveal damaging information about the Bush administration. There’s evidence to suggest that this group has been involved in a concerted effort to propagate damaging news stories in liberal publications, often with false information and wild speculation.

The article by Sale, his last one on the Plame investigation, was titled “Aides to Be Indicted, Probe to Continue” and was riddled with inaccuracies, as even the title shows. I asked Mr. Sale about this article back in May, and he conceded that much of it had turned out to be completely inaccurate. Sale asserted that VIPS, as far as he knew, were not sources for this story, because he had no idea what VIPS even was. Interestingly enough Sale is good friends with Patrick Lang, a former intelligence official who appears to be a member of VIPS. He stopped writing about the leak case because he had been burned on this story by his sources, which is quite commendable. However, the recent filing of the civil suit brings up the question, who were Sale’s sources for information relating to the leak case for this article?

The Plame Complaint (Red State) Some interesting information here.

6. The initial issue in the case, before the legal sufficiency of the allegations and before any discovery is taken, is whether some or all defendants (or other interested parties) will ask for a stay or dismissal of the litigation. There are three bases for doing so. One, the liberal quotation from the indictment underscores the fact that this suit overlaps substantially with the subject of a pending criminal trial. Fitzgerald may well intervene to ask for a stay of all proceedings - he won't want his trial witnesses deposed in a civil suit. Second, Dick Cheney in particular has duties as the Vice President, including dealing with an unstable and dangerous world potentially lurching into another war on top of the two-front war we're already fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Clinton v Jones, there's no absolute bar to such a suit but the district court can balance the intrusion of the litigation, among other factors - here, with the case focusing on Administration foreign policy, the level of intrusion could be significant. And third, there's the state secrets privilege, described extensively in this opinion (later upheld by the DC Circuit) dismissing claims by Sibel Edmonds, who charged retaliation by the FBI relating to her work as a translator of national security documents. Basically, if a civil suit would involve discovery of national security information (such as, for example, details of any covert activities by Plame, to say nothing of discovery directed at Cheney), the court can dismiss it in the greater national interest. The Bush Administration has been loath to press the envelope on the kinds of legal privileges asserted by the Clintons to deflect personal scandals (as opposed to expanding the rights of the Executive Branch more broadly) but the desire to get this lawsuit out of the way may compel them to seek a stay or dismissal on this basis.

Sheer Hell! How Else to Describe the Life of Hero Joe Wilson?

By Gateway Pundit

Joseph Wilson and wife Valerie Plame have suffered enough!

They have lived in fear long enough.
They have had their privacy invaded long enough.
They have suffered enough significant damage for far too long.

Coming out of their shell...

Valerie and Joe at the Tribeca Film Festival in May 2006.

and also

The Wilson-Plames Forced to Bring Suit Against Dick & Karl

Amazingly, through all of this intense anguish, it was only through support from their friends...

...That the Plame-Wilsons were able to make it through this most difficult period.

Val, Joe: Time to Fold 'Em When Even O'Donnell Says Your Case 'Very Weak'

Valerie? Joe? Are you listening? Let me offer some well-intentioned advice. When liberal Larry O'Donnell - he of the infamous anti-Swifty meltdown - goes on Keith Olbermann's Countdown and calls your lawsuit 'very weak' and even the Olber-meister won't ride to your defense, it's time to fold your tent, toss in your hand, throw in the towel and quietly slink away.

Can You Spare A Dime For Joe And Valerie Wilson's Bogus Suit?

By Lorie Byrd

I thought I had seen the height of brazen behavior when I saw news of Valerie Wilson's lawsuit. I was wrong. Ankle Biting Pundits has the story of the Joeseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust. I can't find the words, but Bull Dog Pundit had a few at ABP:

I don't think I've ever seen something quite as ballsy as this website in which our favorite media-whoring Bush haters Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie are asking people to contribute to them for the bogus lawsuit they filed today.

Keep in mind that Valerie Wilson just sold her silence for $2.5 million in a book deal. The first thought that comes to my mind is how does she expect to win damages in a lawsuit when she and Joe became rich and famous beyond their wildest dreams, even though Pat Fitzgerald found no one committed a crime by allegedly "outing her".

The Plame Lawsuit - Plenty Of Laughs To Go Around

By Curt on Wilson

Whoa boy.  I cannot tell you how floored I am that Joe and Valerie Wilson have decided to sue pretty much everyone over their supposed "outing" in the media.  I mean they have both displayed a large amount of common sense and intelligence……

Ok, seriously now.  This lawsuit which can be found here is the biggest joke I have seen come from the left side of the aisle in quite some time.  You really need to read the whole thing to understand what a field day the defense will have with this case…if it ever sees the light of day, which it will not.  Yes, I am calling it here and now.  This will NEVER see the light of day in court.  Can you imagine what the defense is going to do just in the discovery phase along?

Check out some of the outright falsehoods and lies:

And if you have read or even given a cursory look at the different links in this post, you can't help coming away with the knowledge that the liar in Plamegate is Joe "Suffering from NPD" Wilson. But Val doesn't get a pass either. Her career was virtually over with the CIA when she got "outed" by Aldrich Ames and when her records got sent to the Cubans. In fact, her desk job at Langley was probably the one way she could stay with the Agency until her government retirement kicked in. And anyone who thinks that after she came off disability for her bout with post partum depression there would be any "secret" jobs or "covert" activity in her future is dwelling in fantasyland. And let us not forget that she is a trained liar. I also have a personal theory that those who go into the "spy" business or any type of risky business love living on the edge, they need the rush.

UPDATE:

Valerie 'Flame' Wilson Files 'Double Exposure' Suit Over the top, but very funny too.

Robert Novak Answers YOUR Questions Just a sample:

It seems to me that if your primary source were an honorable man, he would have immediately stepped forward to explain himself and clear the record. His failure to do the right thing has created terrible problems for others, injured his party, and his president. I would be interested in your comments.— THOMAS (Jackson, WY)

ROBERT NOVAK: I think you have a good point.

Can you explain the incident involving Mr. Wilson’s "friend" that happened to run into you on the street. What did you and him discuss? What is your impression of the situation? I appreciate the way you have handled yourself through this whole ordeal. You are a true journalist! — JUDY

ROBERT NOVAK: I foolishly answered questions about the case by a stranger who stopped me on the streets of Washington. He turned out to be a friend of Wilson who immediately went to Wilson's office to report after our conversation. Some people think this was set up by

Wilson, but I have no evidence of this. Thanks for the compliment.

Val would rather cut off her arm Yeah and Alex Baldwin was leaving the country and, and, and ... ::eyes rolling::

The King of Plame

By MacRanger

We all know by now who has and still is behind the Plame and Wilson show.

Yet in a name - Ray McGovern, member in residence and founder of VIPS.

(Look for more on VIPS here in the coming weeks. This group is extraordinarily destructive and needs lots and lots of sunshine.)

More bigmouth blabbers!

WASHINGTON — FBI agents monitoring Internet chat rooms smashed an Al Qaeda terrorist plot to attack New York City's underground transit link with New Jersey, law enforcement officials said Friday.

       

Eight suspects — including an Al Qaeda loyalist arrested in Lebanon and two others in custody elsewhere — had hoped to pull off the attack in October or November of this year, federal officials said. But federal investigators working with their counterparts in six other countries intervened.

     

"We're here today to discuss what we believe is the real deal," Mark Mershon, former assistant FBI director in New York, said during a press conference Friday. "We believe we intercepted this group early in their plotting and in fact, the plan has largely been disrupted."

     

The main target of the plot was the heavily traveled underground PATH train system that connects lower Manhattan and New Jersey's suburban communities, officials confirmed. The system carries more than 215,000 commuters daily. Mershon said the plot was supposed to be executed in October or November, but that it still was in the "planning stages."

     

"It was never a concern that this would actually be executed," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in Boston. "We were, as I say, all over this."

   

CONTINUED HERE

FOX News Video:

•

FBI: Man Arrested in Plot

•

NYC Tunnel Plot Foiled

 

What is the most disturbing about this announcement is learning that yet another leak blew the investigation:

In opening the press conference, Mershon blasted the leaking of the ongoing investigation, and the publishing of a report on Friday by the New York Daily News. Officials later downplayed the Daily News report.

I am losing patience with our Justice Department. These leakers have got to be stopped. If Gonzales doesn't have the cajones, then get someone in the job who does. Where is Rudy when you need him?

Related:

Looks like MacRanger has some "who leaked" questions:

One thing I do know from the few people I could talk to today that there was a leak and the FBI had to pull the wire way before the time it had to. This specfic plot was in genesis and months away from any type of completion. Additionally, the bureau is actvily looking for whoever provided the leak to the Times and who is continuing to leak ongoing investigations and programs.

For those morons who desire leaks, know that leaking isn't a game folks. It puts our agents and operatives in harms way and pulling the plug before it's time to do so can jepardize the convictions of those we catch. Additionally many investigations are tied to others and when you cut one tie, you may lose the others.

AJ Strata covered this well, and it looks like this by the American Spector was right on that dislosure of the SWIFT program has had similiar effects on other such cases.

Put it this way. Some of the field agents I've talked to are taking this "personal", that's not good news for the leakers when they catch them. Not good news at all.

Let's hope that those disgruntled field agents can exert enough pressure on their higher-ups that they actually get off their duffs and make finding the leakers a first priority.

How to stop the New York Times III ... First expose their lies!

For context, start with our previous post on this subject HERE.

In that post, I called for a multi-pronged approach to stopping the New York Times and other irresponsible media. And point three called for press credentials to be pulled:

Third, demand that our government, and most especially the White House, pull the press credentials for the New York Times and the LA Times too, if you believe them to be equally guilty. End all cooperation with them and all their media, no interviews, no credentials. Anyone meets with or talks to them, they lose their job or get demoted or counseled. Treat all contacts between their reporters and government officials as we would contacts with foreign agents.

I have also made the point that no approach would work where public outrage is the driving force without publicity so that the outraged public can find each other and join forces to get something done. So with that in mind, I could not be happier than I am right now to see a National Review editorial calling for the implementation of my Suggestion Three:

The New York Times is a recidivist offender in what has become a relentless effort to undermine the intelligence-gathering without which a war against embedded terrorists cannot be won. And it is an unrepentant offender. In a letter published over the weekend, Keller once again defended the newspaper’s editorial decision to run its TFTP story. Without any trace of perceiving the danger inherent in public officials’ compromising of national-security information (a matter that the Times frothed over when it came to the comparative trifle of Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee), Keller indicated that the Times would continue revealing such matters whenever it unilaterally decided that doing so was in the public interest.

The president should match this morning’s tough talk with concrete action. Publications such as the Times, which act irresponsibly when given access to secrets on which national security depends, should have their access to government reduced. Their press credentials should be withdrawn. Reporting is surely a right, but press credentials are a privilege. This kind of conduct ought not be rewarded with privileged access.

Moreover, the Justice Department must be more aggressive than it has been in investigating national-security leaks. While prosecution of the press for publishing information helpful to the enemy in wartime would be controversial, pursuit of the government officials who leak it is not. At the very least, members of the media who report such information must be made to understand that the government will no longer regard them as immune from questioning when it investigates the leakers. They should be compelled to reveal their sources, on pain of contempt. ... More 

With the President's outrage this morning, perhaps something will begin to happen:

Via Hot Air:

Video: Bush calls Times’s expose “disgraceful”

I haven’t seen him this angry … ever, really.  Maybe prosecutions aren’t that unlikely.

 The White House has a transcript.

My reaction was exactly the same as to Bush's anger. And I would add ... he is at his very best when he is angry!

But the President's anger pales next to Treasury Secretary, John W. Snow. (Letter to the Editors of The New York Times  by Treasury Secretary Snow) Talk about hot! Whew! He all but calls Bill Keller out to a duel and he does call him a liar: [emphasis mine]

Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor The New York Times 229 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Keller:

The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Let's tell it like it really is. A job at the New York Times is the pinnacle for a reporter. I doubt there is a single working or retired reporter who hasn't drooled over the prospect of  getting a job there. So, to get any of them to speak out against the paper is a statement against interest in their minds. And the New York Times, with their cohorts of other massive media, whether the Washington Post or TV news, are the life-blood in a politician's mind. Get mentioned positively or negatively in the Times and it gets picked up by every TV and newspaper news department in the country via the wire services. So, it is with great risk (the way things stand right now) for a politician or government employee to speak against the big media. They can be vicious if they turn on you. They can be your best friend if you are one of their darlings.

The best way to combat this is to implement my First, Second, and Fifth suggestions:

First, stop linking to either paper. And most especially, stop linking to anything behind a "pay" wall such as Times Select.

Second, start demanding that major news outlets, especially TV cable news outlets, stop using the New York Times as their primary source for news. I'm sick of always hearing, "according to the New York Times," aren't you?

Fifth, find the quality newspapers and TV outlets that can move into the slots vacated by the NYT, the LA Times and dare I say it, the Wall Street Journal. If they are quality but have been struggling to make it against the big boys, throw the blogosphere weight behind them. Of course, I would like to see news outlets with a more libertarian or conservative bent get the nod, but partisanship should not be the criteria. Instead, make national security the criteria and make this a "citizen" issue rather than a political one.

My hope of seeing this happen on a scale of one to ten is about a four at this point.

This country is being torn apart by the traitors. The leakers are controlling a debate that is a false debate. We've got nearly half the electorate actually believing in the lie that "Bush lied so people died." I have grave reservations about how we as a people can take back this country and bring some sense back to those who have now been brainwashed for years with this skewed and disengenuous meme.

It is a constant battle, never more apparent than by some of these statements:

3.  Jane Hall, eternal defender of the MSM on the unwatchable Fox News Watch, says on Bill O'Reilly that we mustn't accuse the New York Times of anti-American or treasonous sentiments because reporters are risking their lives in Iraq.

2.  This absurdity by Bill Keller, defending his decision to reveal top national security secrets to the enemy:

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)

1.  Juan Williams claims the NYT did American national security a favor, by informing Al Qaeda we were watching their bank transfers, thus forcing them to seek other means of transfering money.

[READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE  ... it boggles the mind.]

And yes, Betsy, it is very infuriating:

What is so infuriating is that if Bill Keller had called up a terrorist from Al Qaeda and told them about this program, he'd have been guilty of treason. But if he publishes it on the front page where that same terrorist can read it along with all his terrorist buddies, there seems little that we can do to Bill Keller other than cancel subscriptions that, judging by the NYT's subscription numbers, many have already cancelled.

I'd like to see the Justice Department call these reporters and publishers before a Grand Jury to investigate who leaked this story to them. And when they refuse to answer, throw them in jail. At least they won't be receiving any leaks about our anti-terrorist efforts while they're there. If Judy Miller can go to jail for a story she never even wrote for a leak that Fitzgerald didn't even find was illegal, these guys can certainly warm a cell.

Captain Ed sums it all up rather nicely:

The inclusion of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission is particularly telling. The Times urged the Bush administration to adopt the Commision recommendations in toto, parroting the Kerry campaign's demands after the publication of the Commission's final report. They considered the Commission's findings determinative, and brooked little dissent from the Bush administration when it hesitated to implement the entire set of recommendations. Now, however, Keller and Pinch Sulzberger finds them less than expert on matters of national security, and their efforts "half-hearted".

Well, one has to have a heart before one can put half of it into any effort, and as far as Keller has demonstrated, we lack evidence that he qualifies. His whiny excuse-making had already been rightly and roundly denounced as non-responsive. Now we know it was dishonest and misleading as well. The New York Times has descended rapidly into the mainstream media's equivalent of the Weekly World News. The Sulzbergers may want to rethink Pinch's oversight of the family business.

Related:

Just One Minute Tom Maguire, with tongue firmly planted in cheek opines:

Hmm.  At the CNN site, the story is this:

Keller said he knew of only three people outside of the administration who were asked by the administration to contact the paper -- Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton from the 9/11 commission, and Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha.

"Not all of them urged us not to publish," Keller said.

Keller, who was accused of arrogance by Snow, told CNN, "I think it would be arrogant of us to pre-empt the work of Congress and the courts by deciding on our own that these programs are perfectly legal and abuse-proof."

"We spent weeks listening to the administration's case," he said.

Well, I am glad the Times decided to pre-empt Congress by publishing their story rather than deferring to Congressional hearings, legislation, or, dare we say it, Congressional silence.

So does that mean one of the three did tell them to publish? Or, does it mean one expressed no opinion one way or the other? Which one? Where's the sunshine?

Leave it to Sweetness and Light Check out the date of this editorial in the NYT:

Finances of Terror

September 24, 2001, Monday
(NYT); Editorial Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 30, Column 1,

Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America´s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.

What a bunch of BDS-laden hypocrites!

The New York Times on a Swift Boat to Court? American Thinker   "In today’s terror-stricken world, which is more vital to the public’s interest: being safe, or being informed?"

Bill Keller responds ... arrogancy meter burned out over this one

Bill Keller responds to the uproar of the NYT promoting themselves above the law and above the safety and security of the citizens of the United States. Not only does he put himself and the Times above the law, but above the President, and then claims that it is his duty to know what is best, despite many who tried in vain to convince him otherwise. Can you say God complex? Hugh Hewitt has fisked the letter and a taste appears below. But first I thought I'd bring you Wizbang's summary:

I'll give you the Reader's Digest version:

Dear Reader:

1) We have no reason to believe the program was illegal in any way.

2) We have every reason to believe it was effective at catching terrorists.

3) We ran the story anyway, screw you.

Bill Keller

Tom Maguire warns: "The longer version is simply a longer insult to the intelligence of their critics."

Thanks Tom, I know people listen to you. Readers consider yourself warned.

Okay got that? Now for Hugh's response to Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the Traitor Times:

Mr. Keller Believes You Are Easily Confused

By Hugh Hewitt

The NYT's Executive Editor Bill Keller refuses interviews but does provide a wholly unpersuasive reponse that is, at best, defensive posturing.

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquette demands, but our story about the government's surveillance of international banking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take very seriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publish that story, I'd like to offer a personal response.

First, unless mr. Keller makes himself available for interviews on this subject, he is not taking the questions and concerns seriously.

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.) Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question and wonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes from readers who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable to have a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone in combatting the threat of terror.

The very first thing Mr. Keller does is suggest that "conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits" are behind the uproar. This is not responsive at all to any of the many criticisms of the decision to publish, and the parenthetical aside is absurd --does he really think that the story is more publicized among terrorists because critics react to it? He must believe the terrorists to be very stupid indeed, but in so arguing reveals himself to be ignorant of the very sophisticated internet tacticians among the jihadists.

And the sentence noting the support he has received is more posturing. Unless every letter received is published, we have no way of knowing what his mail says, and no reason to trust him.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publications that also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the President and his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish.

This is the first asssertion by Mr. Keller that the Times is above the law. It is
also a crude trick to exchange the publication of national security secrets for "taking the President at his word," which is most certainly not what triggered the outrage.

Nor has his paper "surrendered" anything obviously. I haven't seen one argument that the story could have been enjoined, only that its publication violated the law and damaged the national security.

The straw men are falling fast.

The power that has been given us is not something to be taken lightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issue involves national security, and especially national security in times of war. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among the most agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

Deep into the letter and we still have no argument over his right to violate national security laws or endanger national security. So what if he tells us he "agonizes" over these decisions. [READ IT ALL HERE]

Please join our effort on How to Stop the New York Times. I tried in that post to stay  reasonable and not fall into calling for all kinds of terrible things to happen to Bill Keller and his minions, but it is getting harder and harder not to say, "hang the bastard." What a jerk this guy is. Ignorant jerk, no less. It is no wonder the quality of the NYT is so deteriorated, if he is representative of who is running that clownhouse. And to which Don Surber replies: 

Oh, brother. This is the fellow Pinch hired to run things? The gray lady is sinking.

Keller would have been better off remaining silent.

Mr. Keller, some of  us become very offended when we are patronized, lied to, and generally treated as fools, especially when it is by a true fool trying to play God.

Urban Dictionary:
A person who is said to have a "God complex", does not believe he is god, but acts so arrogantly that he might as well believe he is God or appointed to act by God.

Some believe that "God complexes" are particularly common in arrogant, highly educated, worldly, or powerful people.

Sounds like Mr. Keller to me.

Related:

Reliapundit is not buying any of it. His take at DID THE NYTIMES LEAK TO PROTECT NGO-FRONTS FOR TERROR?

In my opinion, the ONLY explanation is that BOTH the NYTIMES and their leakers KNEW THAT THIS WOULD AID THE TERRORISTS. And that this was the CHIEF REASON THEY DID IT.

WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO HURT THE USA AND AID THE TERRORISTS?!

Because they are Arabists who hate Bush and Israel.

Austin Bay gives us the winning quote:  "Bill Keller’s analytic process is a shame and a sham– he does not think America is at war. The semblance of peace in the Hamptons and in Hollywood has blinded him. He isn’t conscientious, he’s unconscious– and the Times act is unconscionable."

Although  Glenn Reynolds may have the tie: "The founders gave freedom of the press to the people, they didn't give freedom to the press. Keller positions himself as some sort of Constitutional High Priest, when in fact the "freedom of the press" the Framers described was also called "freedom in the use of the press." It's the freedom to publish, a freedom that belongs to everyone in equal portions, not a special privilege for the media industry. (A bit more on this topic can be found here.)"

How to stop the New York Times II ... (UPDATED & Additions)

NOTE: If you think all or some of these ideas are good ones, please link this post and spread the word. In order to make any of it work, we need to spread the word and generate major publicity both in the blogosphere and within government and media circles. Everyone can help. PERMALINK for this post. TRACKBACK for this post. Additions of blogs are listed in their alphabetical order, all other updates are under UPDATE below.

**********************

So Patterico has canceled his subscription to the LA Times, Marc Dansinger does too. Several bloggers have indicated they have canceled their subscriptions to the New York Times. Kathryn Jean Lopez at NRO's The Corner has decided not to re-up her weekend subscription. I suppose if enough people cancel, they will see a blip, but I see this more as a statement than as an actual tool to hurt the newspapers where it matters. But, Tom Maguire says, "I don't see how the Times can be stopped."

My suggestion is to take a multi-pronged approach.

First, stop linking to either paper. And most especially, stop linking to anything behind a "pay" wall such as Times Select.

Second, start demanding that major news outlets, especially TV cable news outlets, stop using the New York Times as their primary source for news. I'm sick of always hearing, "according to the New York Times," aren't you?

Third, demand that our government, and most especially the White House, pull the press credentials for the New York Times and the LA Times too, if you believe them to be equally guilty. End all cooperation with them and all their media, no interviews, no credentials. Anyone meets with or talks to them, they lose their job or get demoted or counseled. Treat all contacts between their reporters and government officials as we would contacts with foreign agents.

Fourth, hit them in their pocketbooks with their advertisers. I wouldn't go after the advertisers directly. Instead, I suggest a national campaign that asks the public not to patronize any advertiser who runs an ad in any newspaper or on any TV station that puts terrorist interests above the safety and security of the citizenry of the United States.

Fifth, find the quality newspapers and TV outlets that can move into the slots vacated by the NYT, the LA Times and dare I say it, the Wall Street Journal. If they are quality but have been struggling to make it against the big boys, throw the blogosphere weight behind them. Of course, I would like to see news outlets with a more libertarian or conservative bent get the nod, but partisanship should not be the criteria. Instead, make national security the criteria and make this a "citizen" issue rather than a political one.

Sixth: And it should go without saying, that the blog world needs to demand of DoJ that leakers be found and prosecuted. My suggestion would be to start with Larry Johnson and that whole rogue ex-CIA and VIPs group first and work out from there.

If you have other suggestions or think these need modifying, let me know.

The following is a link list of those proposing various suggestions on how to deal with news outlets who "aid and give comfort" to enemies of the United States by revealing classified information during a time of war. This list is only a start and there are many blogs who have expressed an opinion about the NYT article, but do not offer any suggestions in current posts. And although I may agree, I don't think wishing the NYT would get blown up by terrorists is a very productive suggestion, nor is tar and feathers for Bill Keller, Risen or Lichtblau. We will update as we find more.

Ace of Spades Impose an immediate ban on any government official in any security-oriented agency from speaking to the NYT. They're already forbidden from disclosing national secrets; but apparently that doesn't matter to them. So just make it a firing offense to even be seen talking with a NYT reporter.

The Anchoress People who see all sources of information as equally good will, in time, drop those that cost money. I no longer subscribe to any newspapers at all. I can get everything I want on the Internet for free. The NYT has to make clear it’s value proposition to the consumer. My bet is that they are positioning themselves as being the only news media large enough to uncover government scandals. They are appealing to the fear that in their absence, government agencies will run wild with corruption and deceit. The San Diego Union is currently running just such an ad campaign.

And Another Thing (Mark Levin) The shareholders who own stock in the corporations that own the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal need to become active in demanding that their employees stop giving strategic assistance to terrorists.

Austin Bay "What should be done? The intel program has been compromised; loose lips have sunk this ship. Al Qaeda isn’t the smartest of enemies but many of its  global financiers are sharp– they will change their m.o.  US and coalition intelligence agencies will have to be creative and agile. The Bush Administration should prosecute the leakers, but I don’t think the Administration has the spine for this."

Barking Moonbat Early Warning System I propose that Congress drag the editors of the NY Slimes before an investigating committee and grill the asshats to find out by what authority they assume the power to keep the terrorists overseas and in sleeper cells here in the US so well informed about attempts to track them down and bring them to justice. Personally, I don’t feel a great need to stay informed as to how the work is being done to keep me safe and alive. All I care about is that it is being done. Perhaps the NY Slimes needs to see another 3,000 dead Americans before they decide to act responsibly? I certainly hope not ...

Democracy Project "What is required is new legislation that broadens the existing U.S. Code to include all matters of national security, applicable to all present and former government employees and officials, Congressional members and staff, and the media, coupled with confidential prior judicial consideration and enforcement mechanisms, and strict prosecution of those not abiding." This is an excellent article, I would encourage everyone to read it.

Flopping Aces EMAIL THE NYT’S AT [email protected] AND THE LA TIMES HERE.

GOP Bloggers "Tell the DoJ to finally get serious about prosecuting those responsible for illegally revealing national security secrets." [email protected]

Hugh Hewitt "... let's have some new hearings on the federal press shield law. If the papers really believe they deserve it, let them send their editors to defend that. proposition." Hugh has several posts on this topic and is also covering it on his radio show.

In the Bullpen "Just as there should be in the other cases before, there should be prosecutions in this case."

Powerline "The Times purports to invoke the rule of law where no law has been broken, and where the Times itself has both broken the law and damaged American national" security.

Protein Wisdom I'll take this as a "go ater the leakers" suggestion. "... the real violation of trust here—namely, that leakers within our intelligence agencies are jeopardizing national security, and that both the leakers and those publishing the leaks (whose aim, clearly, is to gin up whatever outrage they can with the hope of undermining this Administration’s tactics for conducting a war they don’t believe truly exists), are doing so with impunity."

The Strata-Sphere "What is criminal here is not the Bush administration investigating terrorists (we want that), and it is not the administration giving US citizens or people here in the US any special bye’s when their information comes up as part of these terrorist investigations, it is the out of control liberal media which exposed this against the warnings of the admininstration. When will the madness end in DC with all these leaks? How much are votes worth to these people?"

Strategy Page "Because the war on terror is fought in a peacetime atmosphere, treason can be presented as dissent, and you can get away with it. Case in point is the energetic pursuit, and publication, of  U.S. intelligence gathering techniques, by the American media.  ...... These traitors will continue to get away with it. Unless their activities are shown to assist terrorists in a particularly direct and obvious way ..." Another very good article.

The Wide Awakes "For the sake of security, let’s tell the media to shut the hell up."

Wizbang " hope other subscribers to the LA Times and the New York Times do the same so as to communicate to these organizations that their publishing of classified antiterror programs in an effort undermine the Bush administration will cause them to take an even bigger hit in their subscription rates."

Related:

SWIFT statement on compliance policy

Fighting illegal uses of the financial system

New York Times Refuses to Hold Surveillance Story

Mr. Keller Believes You Are Easily Confused This is Hugh Hewitt's fisking of Bill Keller's attempt to explain why he became a traitor. Unfortunately Keller's letter sits behind a NYT registration wall, so I will not link to it here, but if you must, you can get the link from Hewitt's fisk. (We have covered this in a separate post HERE.)

UPDATE:

Rep. King Seeks Charges Against Papers Over Terror Reporting

Sunday, June 25, 2006

WASHINGTON  — The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee urged the Bush administration on Sunday to seek criminal charges against newspapers that reported on a secret financial-monitoring program used to trace terrorists.

Rep. Peter King cited The New York Times in particular for publishing a story last week that the Treasury Department was working with the CIA to examine messages within a massive international database of money-transfer records.

King, R-N.Y., said he would write Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urging that the nation's chief law enforcer "begin an investigation and prosecution of The New York Times — the reporters, the editors and the publisher."

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous," King told The Associated Press.  [CONT'D. HERE]

This is a start. Let's all let Congressman King know we  support such an investigation and a few emails to Gonzales wouldn't hurt either.

And from comments, Clarice Feldman offers these three suggestions worth considering. I like all of them:

-- Publish the names of the stockholders and their contact information.
-- Ditto the NYT's major advertisers. All the blogs can run these.
-- Publish the names of the papers, TV stations the NYT owns and urge that people in those areas boycott them as well.

                More Photoshopping of the New York Times HERE >>>>>>