Just when you thought the New York Times had leaked every counterterrorism secret in existence, they surprise us with new conspiracy theories, most of them existing only in their heads. To the chagrin of Vice President Cheney and President Bush, the Times reported last week on the existence of a financial monitoring program designed to thwart financial dealings of suspected terrorists -- a perfectly legal and secret government program.
Executive Editor Bill Keller defended the Times’ disclosure of the classified programs as being consistent with their idea of defending “constitutional rights,” whatever that means. To the contrary, a reader recently reminded the Times that the President sometimes needs to do things secretly in the best interests of national security. Plenty more applauded the Times for their courage to “report the truth,” and a Chapel Hill man recently decried NPR’s impending death knell in government funding, a ploy designed by Bush to “prevent truth in journalism.” How I’ll miss hearing NARAL chairwoman Kate Michelman’s “complete, in-depth analysis of the Roberts court” on “Morning Edition” and “Talk of the Nation.”
While the Times’ think that somehow a Dubai Ports deal makes us vulnerable to attack, which is true, terrorists’ knowledge of classified counterterrorism operations is well, their constitutional right.
Treasury Secretary John Snow defended the program as crucial to the prevention of cash flow to fund terrorism. After all, Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, was wired more than $100,000 from European bank accounts to a SunTrust account to fund the attacks of September 11. Thereafter, President Bush pledged to stop the flow of money used to finance terrorists and their allies. Even Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) said the program was legal, and not indicative of the administration’s “repeated attempts to usurp the Constitution and the power of Congress.” The Times, however, wouldn’t hear of it. The defiant Times is now calling fowl after Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.) requested that the attorney general investigate the Times for their Pulitzer Prize-winning violations of the Espionage Act.
The American Civil Liberties Union, also known as the legal and fundraising arm of New York Times Co., pledged to push for investigations into the legality of the actions by the Treasury department. ALCU President Anthony Romeo, to no surprise, denounced the program as a blow to the privacy rights of terrorists, much like the NSA’s “illegal” wiretapping program. This, after government surveillance led to the arrest of seven Miami men plotting to blow up Chicago’s Sears Tower and numerous government buildings. Like environmentalists, the livelihood of civilians is secondary to the spotted owl and the privacy rights of terrorists. I often wonder if the ACLU is on the al Qaeda payroll.
The ACLU cited actions by the Treasury as a breach of financial privacy rights. I hope Romeo plans to join Martha Stewart’s legal staff soon. I somehow doubt that the FEC said “we’re watching you Martha! It’s a good thing!” before throwing her in the slammer with deposed North Carolina agriculture commissioner Meg Scott Phipps in West Virginia for six months. Financial transactions are private information for law-abiding citizens, but avowed al Qaeda members renounce those “rights” when they put IEDs in their backpacks.
While the New York Times and the ACLU have been busy crying fowl at the administration and comparing Bush to Nixon, they have been mum on Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer’s (D.-N.Y.) disclosure of Maryland Lt. Gov. and Senate candidate Michael Steele’s credit report in a smear campaign against Maryland’s “Oreo.” Where’s the outrage about “privacy rights”?
Steele is a Catholic, a former candidate for the priesthood, and a Republican. To add insult to injury, he’s an African-American. Maryland Democratic Party officials have used Steele’s illegally begotten credit report in attempt to smear him as an “Oreo” (their words, not mine) -- a man who is “black on the outside, white on the inside.” Congratulations, Michael. You can now count yourself among the other successful African-Americans that white liberals have decried as “race traitors” for leaving the old homestead. The ranks include Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell, NFL star Lynn Swann, and super-traitor Bill Cosby, who, according to Travis Smiley, is kicking the black man when he’s down by criticizing his own people. Sorry, Ann, but it appears that the capital sin in the Church of Liberalism is to use the words “black,” “successful,” and “conservative” in the same sentence.
While the administration is dutifully trying to keep America safe by using all tools available to hunt down terrorists, the ACLU and the Times make no attempt to hide their efforts to bring about American defeat in the global war on terror. Stopping the flow of terrorists’ finances is illegal, but using racial epithets and personal information to smear a Republican just for being black is perfectly defensible, kind of like “that late-term procedure critics call partial-birth abortion.” The outrageous double standard and the use of racial epithets by supposed “statesmen” smacks of the Democrat’s Jim Crow heritage. Most of America is now in a 21st century, post-9/11 mindset. Yet the Democrats are desperate for al Qaeda and the old South to rise again.