|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Another OOOPS, from the NYT....go figure.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Another OOOPS, from the NYT....go figure.
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| NCMike06 |
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/o...c%20Editor&_r=4
Quote: Banking Data: A Mea Culpa
Since the job of public editor requires me to probe and question the published work and wisdom of Times journalists, there’s a special responsibility for me to acknowledge my own flawed assessments.
My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.
Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.
The source of the data, as my column noted, was the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. That Belgium-based consortium said it had honored administrative subpoenas from the American government because it has a subsidiary in this country.
I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.
Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.
In addition, I became embarrassed by the how-secret-is-it issue, although that isn’t a cause of my altered conclusion. My original support for the article rested heavily on the fact that so many people already knew about the program that serious terrorists also must have been aware of it. But critical, and clever, readers were quick to point to a contradiction: the Times article and headline had both emphasized that a “secret” program was being exposed. (If one sentence down in the article had acknowledged that a number of people were probably aware of the program, both the newsroom and I would have been better able to address that wave of criticism.)
What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column. |
But....too late now....the damage done might never be known. But what does that matter to the American hating, terrorist appeasers at the NYT. |
|
|
| salafibrigades |
| The New York Times is blasphemizing the name of our dear leader. Supreme Leader Bush should close this rag mag down. I just wish Fox News would start a newspaper. Well, a boy can dream. Love it or leave it. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Ummm, yeah. Some secret it was....
Quote: Bush erupts over the disclosure of a secret everyone knew
By Scott Shane The New York Times
Published: June 29, 2006
WASHINGTON Ever since President George W. Bush vowed days after the Sept. 11 attacks to "follow the money as a trail to the terrorists," the government has made no secret of its efforts to hunt down the bank accounts of Al Qaeda and its allies.
But that fact has not muted the fury of Bush, his top aides and many members of Congress at the decision last week by The New York Times and other newspapers to disclose a centerpiece of that hunt: the Treasury Department's search for clues in a vast database of financial transactions maintained by a Belgium-based banking consortium called Swift.
Speaking Wednesday at a fund-raising event in St. Louis, Missouri, for Senator Jim Talent, Republican of Missouri, Bush made the news reports his central theme.
"This program has been a vital tool in the war on terror," he said. "Last week the details of this program appeared in the press."
He received a prolonged, standing ovation from the Republican crowd when he added, "There can be no excuse for anyone entrusted with vital intelligence to leak it - and no excuse for any newspaper to print it."
On Thursday, the House was expected to take up a resolution expressing support for the tracking of financial transactions and condemning the publication of the existence of the program and details of how it works.
The resolution says Congress "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs."
Democrats are proposing a variant that expresses support for the Treasury program but omits the language about the news media.
The director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, has ordered a formal assessment of any damage to counterterrorism efforts resulting from the disclosures, but the review is expected to take months, and its findings will probably remain classified.
Experts on terrorist financing are divided in their views of the impact of the revelations. Some say the harm in last week's publications in The Times, The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal may have been less in tipping off terrorists than in putting publicity-shy bankers in an uncomfortable spotlight.
"I would be surprised if terrorists didn't know that we were doing everything we can to track their financial transactions, since the administration has been very vocal about that fact," said William Wechsler, a former Treasury and National Security Council official who specialized in terrorism financing.
But Wechsler said the disclosure may nonetheless hamper intelligence collection by making financial institutions resistant to requests for access to records.
Although privacy advocates have denounced the examination of banking transactions, the Swift consortium has defended its cooperation with the counterterrorism program and has not indicated any intention to stop cooperating with the broad administrative subpoenas issued to obtain its data.
A former federal prosecutor who handled major terrorism cases, Andrew McCarthy, said he believed that the greatest harm from news reports about classified programs like the Swift monitoring was the message it sent that Americans cannot keep secrets.
"If foreign intelligence services think anything they tell us will end up in the newspapers, they'll stop sharing so much information," said McCarthy, now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington.
McCarthy said he thought the Swift disclosure might encourage terrorist plotters to stop moving money through the banking system, depriving the United States and its allies of a valuable window on their activities.
"Methods they assumed were safe they now know are not so safe," he said.
But Bob Kerrey, a member of the 9/11 Commission and a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, took a different view, saying that if the news reports drove terrorists out of the banking system, that could actually help the counterterrorism cause.
"If we tell people who are potential criminals that we have a lot of police on the beat, that's a substantial deterrent," said Kerrey, now the president of New School University in New York.
If terrorists decide it is too risky to move money through official channels, "that's very good, because it's much, much harder to move money in other ways," Kerrey said.
A State Department official, Anthony Wayne, made a parallel point in 2004 congressional testimony.
"As we've made it more difficult for them to use the banking system," Wayne said, "they've been shifting to other less reliable and more cumbersome methods, such as cash couriers."
As such testimony suggests, government agencies have often trumpeted their successes in tracking terrorist funding.
Bush set the tone on Sept. 24, 2001, declaring, "We're putting banks and financial institutions around the world on notice - we will work with their governments, ask them to freeze or block terrorists' ability to access funds in foreign accounts." |
|
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote:
Is President Bush SWIFT?
by
Larry C Johnson
Outrage voiced today by President Bush, whether feigned or genuine, over recent news that the U.S. Government is using bank data to track terrorists, is disturbing because it reveals how little the President knows about tracking terrorist financing. President Bush called:
the New York Times story revealing the administration’s monitoring of bank records “disgraceful,” and said the decision to publish details of the program “does great harm to the United States of America.”
His selective moral outraged, directed exclusively against the New York Times, was in response to a story that also appeared in the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times reported that:
Under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials. (This is a quote from the NY Times by Lichtblau and Risen)
Excuse me, but where is the beef? As someone who works on a daily basis on money laundering issues and who is credited (see page 3, footnote 15), along with my partner, for identifying a money laundering technique employed by terrorists, I am mystified why this is even considered a story. It is no secret that the U.S. Government has been trying to monitor terrorist financial transactions since 9-11. Anyone who works in the banking/financial sector knows that SWIFT--the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication--is a major, but not only mechanism, for moving financial assets around the world.
The only "secret" I can see, based solely on my understanding of how financial investigations work, is the fact that the CIA has access to this data without any judicial oversight. This is the classic FBI vs. CIA connundrum. If you use a law enforcement approach you are subject to judicial oversight. If you are doing "international" intelligence you have no effective oversight; the key is not to get caught.
What has the President's shorts in a knot is that this latest revelation may create a political problem for the Administration and could lead SWIFT to stop "sharing" the information with the CIA. But, to paraphrase Shakespeare, methinks the President doth protest too much. If his outrage was directed at all three media outlets and he announced a search for the leakers, I would give him the benefit of the doubt. But, I have learned from one of the reporters from the three outlets who published the story that the White House did not make a serious effort to get the story stopped (and no I was not a source for any of them and learned about the story the way the rest of America did). We have to entertain the possibility that this was deliberately leaked so the President and his Republican allies could try to refocus public attention on the evil "liberal" media.
The dog that has not barked here, however, if you carefully read the story, is the paltry results produced to date despite having access to this enormous volume of data. If we had taken apart major terrorist operations besides the two referenced in the NY Times story, we would have heard about it. If they had developed information that helped identify the location and activities of Osama Bin Laden or Ayman Zwahiri, we would have heard about it. Instead, despite this massive volume of data, there are few tangible results to point to. That appears to be the real story.
Let me conclude with some good news, the U.S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment of December 2005 is a remarkable document and offers a great overview of some key money laundering techniques. Terrorism, however, rarely relies on money laundering. Money laundering starts with a crime, such as drug trafficking, and involves activities to create a "clean" trail to explain how the money was earned legally. When it comes to terrorism, the money ususally starts out clean. It may come from a legitimate business or a charitable contribution. It is only when the money is put in the hands of a terrorist, who then uses the funds to pay for food and shelter or buy explosives that the "crime" is about to occur. Identifying and tracking such activity is difficult.
What the Bush Administration needs to do, rather than pitch a childish fit about reporters doing their jobs, is to figure how to marshall the various investigative and intelligence resources in the U.S. Government to work in a coordinated fashion to go after the finaciers of terrorism. A careful reading of the various articles over the weekend makes it clear that the CIA is doing this on its own with some minimal assist from Treasury. Three other agencies that do financial investigations on a regular basis--DEA, Customs (now ICE) and Secret Service--are conspicuously absent in these articles. That, in my view, explains a lot why so few terrorist financiers have been wrapped up in the last four years.
|
|
|
|
| Kill Van Kull |
pwned...
...yet again.
:p |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
pwned...
...yet again.
:p |
Dumb and Dumber respond…how nice.
Since the terrorist know we are going to try and track their money and finances, the NYT article was nothing new: Now lets see this logic at work:
- Hitler knew we were going to invade Western Europe….it would have been perfectly acceptable then to publish the invasion plans on the front page of the NYT a week or 2 (or more) pre invasion.
- The defense in a football game is well aware that the offense is trying to score…yet for some reason the offense does not share the play call with the defense…hmmm go figure.
The notion that that just because the terrorist know we will try to track their money movement, its ok to give details on exactly how we are doing that tracking is aboslutely ludicroius, and can only be spouted by the America/Bush hating left wing loons. (as in this thread)
According to Treasury, the leaks harmed 3 ongoing investigations.
Quote: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10043
According to Treasury and Justice Department officials familiar with the briefings their senior leadership undertook with editors and reporters from the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, the media outlets were told that their reports on the SWIFT financial tracking system presented risks for three ongoing terrorism financing investigations. Despite this information, both papers chose to move forward with their stories.
"We didn't give them specifics, just general information about regions where the investigations were ongoing, terrorist organizations that we believed were being assisted. These were off the record meetings set up to dissuade them from reporting on SWIFT, and we thought the pressing nature of the investigations might sway them, but they didn't," says a Treasury official.
In fact, according to a Justice Department official, one of the reporters involved with the story was caught attempting to gain more details about one of the investigations through different sources. "We believe it was to include it in their story," says the official. |
Debunking the 'everybody knew about it' claim :
Quote: http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzc0NjJhZjczMDlmY2E1YzIzMjVlMTdmMTA2NDhiMDc=
The European Parliament demanded Thursday that European institutions in Brussels and European governments disclose how much they knew about a secret American program to tap into international banking data.
In a resolution that reflected rising concern among Europeans about their countries' cooperation in the United States' effort to curb terrorism, the Parliament voted 302 to 219, with 22 abstentions, to demand that the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Union's 25 member states "explain fully the extent to which they were aware of the secret agreement" between Swift, an international banking consortium, and the United States government.
Didn't anyone tell the European Parliament that everyone knew about the SWIFT program all along? |
AND
Quote: http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTE3NjFjNTQ3YzIwM2FmNmNhZTJmM2U2ZTYyN2RiZWM=
We're starting to see the consequences of Keller's bad call:
http://archive.gulfnews.com/article...2/10050876.html
Last month the New York Times broke the story that CIA agents and US treasury officials have been secretly monitoring financial transactions routed through Swift, an acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. [...]
The European Commission has already said that EU law does not cover the handing over of financial data by Swift. The European Parliament will debate the US action on Monday.
Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has ordered an investigation into the activities of Swift, which is regulated by the Belgian central bank and is subject to Belgian law.
There you have it: a public debate about the program in the European Parliament — during which sensitive details about the program are sure to be repeated over and over in several languages — and an investigation launched by the Belgian prime minister. Why should any company in any country cooperate with the United States? Its assistance will almost certainly become a major liability once the New York Times splashes the details all over its front page.
ALSO: For further reading on the consequences SWIFT might face for helping the U.S. gather intelligence on terrorists, read http://crookedtimber.org/2006/06/28/swift-and-europe |
Here's a more on the subject:
http://www.slate.com/id/2145619/nav/tap1/
Don't worry AB, I fully expect you to comment without reading any of the articles I have posted. I know you won't dissappoint. |
|
|
| angrychink |
using assholeface for an avatar
the guy who lies more than anyone
while bashing a newspaper
the irony |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Dumb and Dumber respond…how nice.
Since the terrorist know we are going to try and track their money and finances, the NYT article was nothing new: Now lets see this logic at work:
- Hitler knew we were going to invade Western Europe….it would have been perfectly acceptable then to publish the invasion plans on the front page of the NYT a week or 2 (or more) pre invasion.
- The defense in a football game is well aware that the offense is trying to score…yet for some reason the offense does not share the play call with the defense…hmmm go figure.
The notion that that just because the terrorist know we will try to track their money movement, its ok to give details on exactly how we are doing that tracking is aboslutely ludicroius, and can only be spouted by the America/Bush hating left wing loons. (as in this thread)
According to Treasury, the leaks harmed 3 ongoing investigations.
Debunking the 'everybody knew about it' claim :
AND
Here's a more on the subject:
http://www.slate.com/id/2145619/nav/tap1/
Don't worry AB, I fully expect you to comment without reading any of the articles I have posted. I know you won't dissappoint. |
Nothing you posted proved me wrong, douche. The New York Times did not report anything everyone didn't already know.
Quote:
Terrorist funds-tracking no secret, some say
Cite White House boasts of tighter monitoring system
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | June 28, 2006
WASHINGTON -- News reports disclosing the Bush administration's use of a special bank surveillance program to track terrorist financing spurred outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, but some specialists pointed out yesterday that the government itself has publicly discussed its stepped-up efforts to monitor terrorist finances since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
On Monday, President Bush said it was ``disgraceful" that The New York Times and other media outlets reported last week that the US government was quietly monitoring international financial transactions handled by an industry-owned cooperative in Belgium called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Communication, or SWIFT, which is controlled by nearly 8,000 institutions in 20 countries. The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal also reported about the program.
The controversy continued to simmer yesterday when Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican of Kentucky, accused the Times of ``treason," telling reporters in a conference call that it ``scares the devil out of me" that the media would reveal such sensitive information. Senator Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican, requested US intelligence agencies to assess whether the reports have damaged anti terrorism operations. And Representative Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has urged Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to pursue ``possible criminal prosecution" of the Times, which has reported on other secret government surveillance programs. The New York Times Co. owns The Boston Globe.
But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.
``There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."
Victor D. Comras , a former US diplomat who oversaw efforts at the United Nations to improve international measures to combat terror financing, said it was common knowledge that worldwide financial transactions were being closely monitored for links to terrorists. ``A lot of people were aware that this was going on," said Comras, one of a half-dozen financial experts UN Secretary General Kofi Annan recruited for the task.
``Unless they were pretty dumb, they had to assume" their transactions were being monitored, Comras said of terrorist groups. ``We have spent the last four years bragging how effective we have been in tracking terrorist financing."
Indeed, a report that Comras co-authored in 2002 for the UN Security Council specifically mentioned SWIFT as a source of financial information that the United States had tapped into. The system, which handles trillions of dollars in worldwide transactions each day, serves as a main hub for banks and other financial institutions that move money around the world. According to The New York Times, SWIFT executives agreed to give the Treasury Department and the CIA broad access to its database.
SWIFT and other worldwide financial clearinghouses ``are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information," according to the 33-page report by the terrorist monitoring group established by the UN Security Council in late 2001. ``The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries."
Some worry that the new disclosures will nonetheless hamper US counter-terrorism efforts.
``I worked this stuff and I can guarantee that [revealing the SWIFT] information made a difference," said Dennis Lormel, a retired FBI special agent who helped establish the bureau's Terrorist Financing Operations Section before leaving government in 2003. ``The disclosure will have an adverse impact on investigations. It was used in two specific instances where it helped to track terrorists. We also used it for lead value."
But the White House has also been very public about its efforts to track the overseas banking transactions of Americans and other foreign nationals.
Less than two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Bush signed an executive order calling for greater cooperation with foreign entities to monitor money that might be headed to terrorist groups. The executive order was posted on the White House website.
The document called for ``cooperation with, and sharing information by, United States and foreign financial institutions as an additional tool to enable the United States to combat the financing of terrorism."
Richard Newcomb , the head of the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control at the time, later publicly credited the president for enabling US law enforcement and intelligence agencies to nab suspected terrorists, including followers of ``Hambali, " Al Qaeda's leader in Southeast Asia. The New York Times report said Hambali's capture in 2003 came with the aid of information gleaned from SWIFT.
Administration officials have said this week that the disclosure of such details were particularly damaging to US security.
Nevertheless, in July 2003 -- a month before Hambali was captured -- Newcomb told the Senate Government Affairs Committee in detail about a program initiated after 9/11 between his office and the Pentagon to track Hambali's financial network in Southeast Asia. The scope of the project included Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore, focusing on the finances of Jemaa Islamiyah , the Al Qaeda group run by Hambali that was responsible for deadly bombings in Bali in 2002.
He said the operation ``identified the key leaders, fund-raisers, businessmen, recruiters, companies, charities, mosques, and schools that were part of [Jamaa Islamiyah] support network. Thus far, we have imposed sanctions against two of these key nodes, and are coordinating action against several others," Newcomb told the committee.
Other public documents have also detailed post-9/11 efforts to follow terrorist money.
The Patriot Act approved by Congress after the attacks emphasized providing new authorities for the Bush administration to track and choke off terrorist funds around the world. One part of the act, dealing specifically with terrorist money, was described by the Treasury Department as the most ``significant [anti-money-laundering] law" since a 1970 law requiring banks to report cash transactions over $10,000.
That section of the Patriot Act required the Bush administration to ``adopt regulations to encourage further cooperation among financial institutions, their regulatory authorities, and law enforcement authorities" to track terrorist-related money laundering.
In testimony before Congress in early 2002, Juan C. Zarate , deputy assistant Treasury secretary in charge of terrorism and violent crime, discussed how the global exchange of information was a key element in choking off their source of funds.
He cited a special international meeting hosted a month after the attacks by the international Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, ``to eliminate existing impediments to exchanging information" between financial institutions and to find solutions to the challenges of tracking terrorist funds.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...ome_say?mode=PF |
Try again, Mikey:
 <--------Mikey |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| Not true. We kicked the shit out of you, browneye and DOUCHE-HERE while we waited for those 2 whipping boys to return.... |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
| I have the scars :sleep: |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
I have the scars :sleep: |
You have displayed time and time again you are too stupid to know when you are beat... You and ironcunt are on the same level... |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You have displayed time and time again you are too stupid to know when you are beat... You and ironcunt are on the same level... |
Why did you post in a forum as to where Mike was you homo, did you miss him not paying any mind to your leftwing homo ass???
wwwaaaaaaaaaaaa Mike notice my rants cause i am the smartest leftist in the world. u got bored sucking up to your left wingbots, Bush is bad wwwaaaaaaaaa, stem cell research wwwaaaaaaaaa, economy bad wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaa, global warming wAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaa(depending on the temp for the day)
Send Mike some flowers you fagg, maybe he will come out and play with you bun boy. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by SDVT-2
Why did you post in a forum as to where Mike was you homo, did you miss him not paying any mind to your leftwing homo ass???
wwwaaaaaaaaaaaa Mike notice my rants cause i am the smartest leftist in the world. u got bored sucking up to your left wingbots, Bush is bad wwwaaaaaaaaa, stem cell research wwwaaaaaaaaa, economy bad wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaa, global warming wAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaa(depending on the temp for the day)
Send Mike some flowers you fagg, maybe he will come out and play with you bun boy. |
LMAO! Boy are you a closet homosexual. Anyone who uses that term as much as you is definitely trying to hide something.
And you better check again who started that thread, stupid ass. I posted once in that thread, and it was a picture that said "who fucking cares"?
As usual, your stupidity undoes you....
LOL |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
[B]Nothing you posted proved me wrong, douche. The New York Times did not report anything everyone didn't already know.
Try again, Mikey: |
Prove you wrong????? What do you mean?
First of all, YOU didn't write anything, you simply cut/pasted articles from Liar Larry, and the New York Slimes. But if everybody already knew, why was it front page news then?? if everybody knew, why were European governments and agencies beginning investigations because of the disclosure.
What everyone knew was that we were going to track terrorist finances. Everyone DIDN'T know the details of our methods. Thanks to the traitorous leaker, and the traitors at the NYT, that is no longer the case. Not to mention the FACT that it harmed 3 ongoing investigations. But thats ok with you, since you perceive the leak as hurting Bush, who cares what the harm is to national security.
Regardless of what you think, just because you post some BS from your left wing moonbat friends, its not the gospel truth, and doesn't have to be proved wrong. its ridiculous on its face and any objective reader sees that from just reading it.
Sorry, AB...try and deal with the truth sometime...without the benefit of your hate filled conclusions and responses.
In fact, you are so insecure about your anemic responses that you must identify who is who in the picture you post because anyone reading your drivel would get the complete opposite impression. YOU know you lose every argument, and that simply proves that fact.
Try again. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| Mikey is definitely feeling the pressure as the attacks against AB increase. Mikey, face it you are a pure Karl Rove pavlovian creature. How high will you jump in LESS than 2 weeks? |
|
|
| muntz |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
But....too late now....the damage done might never be known. But what does that matter to the American hating, terrorist appeasers at the NYT. [/B] |
u havent answered my questions about, heather wilson, or rush demeaning Michael J Fox... why are u hiding from me???? |
|
|
| SDVT-2 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
LMAO! Boy are you a closet homosexual. Anyone who uses that term as much as you is definitely trying to hide something.
And you better check again who started that thread, stupid ass. I posted once in that thread, and it was a picture that said "who fucking cares"?
As usual, your stupidity undoes you....
LOL |
You can dish it up cant you, look at you, you baby gorilla. :mfight: |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by muntz
u havent answered my questions about, heather wilson, or rush demeaning Michael J Fox... why are u hiding from me???? |
Hiding from you???? C'mon… Unfortunately, I don't read/respond to every post in every thread. Could be that I just didn't see it. Ever think of that?
Haven't really followed the Heather Wilson thing. So I know very little about it.
Concerning Michael J. Fox - this entire episode just goes to prove Ann Coulters point. The left puts out 'victims' in one sense or another, for the sole purpose of negating any criticism of what they might say due to their disablilty or victim status. This is straight from the liberal playbook. Just because Fox has Parkinsons, doesn't mean he can lie with impunity on a television ad. It also does not mean he is immune from criticism. He has admitted in the past to not taking his medication to show the full effects of his disease, (in hearings before the Senate) and given that, it is perfectly reasonable to question or suspect he may have done that for this commercial. |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Hiding from you???? C'mon… Unfortunately, I don't read/respond to every post in every thread. Could be that I just didn't see it. Ever think of that? good point.
Haven't really followed the Heather Wilson thing. So I know very little about it.
I don't blame you. It doesn't make your side look very good, especially in light of recent events. It's yet another in a long list of republican scandals, lies and coverups.
This one also involves "fine upstanding" republican politicians protecting possible pedophiles from investigation. You know, like Hastert.
Concerning Michael J. Fox - this entire episode just goes to prove Ann Coulters point. The left puts out 'victims' in one sense or another, for the sole purpose of negating any criticism of what they might say due to their disablilty or victim status. This is straight from the liberal playbook. Just because Fox has Parkinsons, doesn't mean he can lie with impunity on a television ad. It also does not mean he is immune from criticism. He has admitted in the past to not taking his medication to show the full effects of his disease, (in hearings before the Senate) and given that, it is perfectly reasonable to question or suspect he may have done that for this commercial.
This entire episode proves that Ann Coulter has no fucking point.
Micheal J Fox said what he had to say, and your side attacked him for it. There is no "negating criticism". You can say whatever you want about it, and nothing is "negated".
Ann's "point" is like yours: non-existant. |
|
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
This entire episode proves that Ann Coulter has no fucking point.
Micheal J Fox said what he had to say, and your side attacked him for it. There is no "negating criticism". You can say whatever you want about it, and nothing is "negated".
Ann's "point" is like yours: non-existant. |
Sorry, there would be no controversy and you would most likely not know anything about the situation if Coulters point was not valid. The only reason its an issue is BECAUSE Fox has Parkinsons and played the victim on a TV ad.
The fact that he has the disease still does not insulate him from critisism. If he is going to lie on a TV ad, like he did, he is going to get called on it. You said NOTHING to rubutt that point. He said what he had to say, he got called out. Its that simple. The left is whining about it BECAUSE he got called out. Validating the point again. |
|
|
| angrychink |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Sorry, there would be no controversy and you would most likely not know anything about the situation if Coulters point was not valid. The only reason its an issue is BECAUSE Fox has Parkinsons and played the victim on a TV ad.
The fact that he has the disease still does not insulate him from critisism. If he is going to lie on a TV ad, like he did, he is going to get called on it. You said NOTHING to rubutt that point. He said what he had to say, he got called out. Its that simple. The left is whining about it BECAUSE he got called out. Validating the point again. |
fox has parkinsons and 'played' the victim?
you fucking retard - HE HAS PARKINSONS
the fuck is wrong with you? |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Sorry, there would be no controversy and you would most likely not know anything about the situation if Coulters point was not valid. The only reason its an issue is BECAUSE Fox has Parkinsons and played the victim on a TV ad.
The fact that he has the disease still does not insulate him from critisism. If he is going to lie on a TV ad, like he did, he is going to get called on it. You said NOTHING to rubutt that point. He said what he had to say, he got called out. Its that simple. The left is whining about it BECAUSE he got called out. Validating the point again. |
He didn't "play the victim" you douchebag.
He is a victim. That does not invalidate his right to say whatever he wants for whomever he wants. If you want to attack him personally (like rush) and look like an asshole (like rush), that's your prerogative.
BTW, looking like an asshole shouldn't put you off, you've been doing it in here for quite some time now. :) |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
He didn't "play the victim" you douchebag.
He is a victim. That does not invalidate his right to say whatever he wants for whomever he wants. If you want to attack him personally (like rush) and look like an asshole (like rush), that's your prerogative.
BTW, looking like an asshole shouldn't put you off, you've been doing it in here for quite some time now. :) |
Sorry, he is just the latest victim used by the left to pass of the lies of the left. As soon as he is called on it, the lefties like you whine and cry. He has every right to say what he wants, just as anyone else has every right to call him on the lies and misrepresentations he puts out. That cuts both ways and that’s what you hate the most. The fact that he has parkinsons does not make his lies any more acceptable than anyone elses lies .
You should know all about assholes, given that your head is firmly planted up your ass. |
|
|
| angrychink |
fuckhead
he has parkinsons
he is not lying
you are the biggest dickhead on this board, but, your avatar proves that |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Hiding from you???? C'mon… Unfortunately, I don't read/respond to every post in every thread. Could be that I just didn't see it. Ever think of that?
Haven't really followed the Heather Wilson thing. So I know very little about it.
Concerning Michael J. Fox - this entire episode just goes to prove Ann Coulters point. The left puts out 'victims' in one sense or another, for the sole purpose of negating any criticism of what they might say due to their disablilty or victim status. This is straight from the liberal playbook. Just because Fox has Parkinsons, doesn't mean he can lie with impunity on a television ad. It also does not mean he is immune from criticism. He has admitted in the past to not taking his medication to show the full effects of his disease, (in hearings before the Senate) and given that, it is perfectly reasonable to question or suspect he may have done that for this commercial. |
whoa, so you would not want him to have freedom of speech, and freedom to campaign as anyone else does.
Furthermore what he HAS to take his medicine? maybe he would like to point out how some people cannot afford mediciation. what is your point? that instead of looking for a real cure he should just take drugs?
EVEN YOU are not that sick in the head, Mike, listen to what you are saying.
FW |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Sorry, he is just the latest victim used by the left to pass of the lies of the left. As soon as he is called on it, the lefties like you whine and cry. He has every right to say what he wants, just as anyone else has every right to call him on the lies and misrepresentations he puts out. That cuts both ways and that’s what you hate the most. The fact that he has parkinsons does not make his lies any more acceptable than anyone elses lies .
You should know all about assholes, given that your head is firmly planted up your ass. |
maybe the "victims" support the left, because the right isnt concerned with anything but money, and war. The "victims" want help, and they know they are not getting it from the right.
Maybe your side should start paying more attention to what the people need, rather than making unneeded wars, and profiteering and fearmongering. The right is RUINING America, and the "victims" can see that.
FW |
|
|
| Reed Rothchild |
| What exactly are they saying Fox is lying about anyway? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Prove you wrong????? What do you mean?
First of all, YOU didn't write anything, you simply cut/pasted articles from Liar Larry, and the New York Slimes. But if everybody already knew, why was it front page news then?? if everybody knew, why were European governments and agencies beginning investigations because of the disclosure.
What everyone knew was that we were going to track terrorist finances. Everyone DIDN'T know the details of our methods. Thanks to the traitorous leaker, and the traitors at the NYT, that is no longer the case. Not to mention the FACT that it harmed 3 ongoing investigations. But thats ok with you, since you perceive the leak as hurting Bush, who cares what the harm is to national security.
Regardless of what you think, just because you post some BS from your left wing moonbat friends, its not the gospel truth, and doesn't have to be proved wrong. its ridiculous on its face and any objective reader sees that from just reading it.
Sorry, AB...try and deal with the truth sometime...without the benefit of your hate filled conclusions and responses.
In fact, you are so insecure about your anemic responses that you must identify who is who in the picture you post because anyone reading your drivel would get the complete opposite impression. YOU know you lose every argument, and that simply proves that fact.
Try again. |
You idiot! If Bush is out there bragging from the start about what they are doing to stop the funding of terrorism, what response do you think the terrorists might have? They went back to using cash & couriers, you stupid monkey. The minute details are not necessary. Cheerleader Bush had already told the world we were onto their financing.
Quote:
In a September 24, 2001, speech, Bush announced the establishment of a "foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks." He added, "It will bring together representatives of the intelligence, law enforcement and financial regulatory agencies to accomplish two goals: to follow the money as a trail to the terrorists, to follow their money so we can find out where they are; and to freeze the money to disrupt their actions."
In a September 24, 2001, letter to Congress, Bush noted, "Terrorists and terrorist networks operate across international borders and derive their financing from sources in many nations. Often, terrorist property and financial assets lie outside the jurisdiction of the United States." He affirmed his commitment to working with international agencies such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) "to build momentum and practical cooperation in the fight to stop the flow of resources to support terrorism."
A White House fact sheet published on September 24, 2001, noted the launch of the Treasury Department's Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center (FTAT): "The FTAT is a multi-agency task force that will identify the network of terrorist funding and freeze assets before new acts of terrorism take place."
In a September 26, 2001, statement, Bush said, "We're fighting them on a financial front. We're choking off their money. We're seizing their assets. We will be relentless as we pursue their sources of financing. And I want to thank the Secretary of Treasury for leading that effort."
On October 10, 2001, Bush stated that the "nations of NATO are sharing intelligence, coordinating law enforcement and cracking down on the financing of terrorist organizations."
During remarks at FTAT, then-Treasury Seceretary Paul O'Neill said, "[W]e have begun to act - to block assets, to seize books, records and evidence, and to follow audit trails to track terrorist cells poised to do violence to our common interests. " O'Neill added, "We have built an international coalition to deny terrorists access to the world financial system."
A December 2001 report on the steps the administration had taken to combat terrorism noted that the FATF "-- a 29-nation group promoting policies to combat money laundering -- adopted strict new standards to deny terrorist access to the world financial system."
A September 10, 2004, Treasury Department statement read: "The targeting of terrorist financing continues to play an important role in the war on terror. Freezing assets, terminating cash flows, and following money trails to previously unknown terrorist cells are some of the many weapons used against terrorist networks."
|
Quote:
Reports of US Monitoring of SWIFT Transactions Are Not New: The Practice Has Been Known By Terrorism Financing Experts For Some Time
By Victor Comras
Yesterday’s New York Times Story on US monitoring of SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) transactions certainly hit the street with a splash. It awoke the general public to the practice. In that sense, it was truly new news. But reports on US monitoring of SWIFT transactions have been out there for some time. The information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002. The UN Al Qaeda and Taliban Monitoring Group , on which I served as the terrorism financing expert, learned of the practice during the course of our monitoring inquiries. The information was incorporated in our report to the UN Security Council in December 2002. That report is still available on the UN Website. Paragraph 31 of the report states:
“The settlement of international transactions is usually handled through correspondent banking relationships or large-value message and payment systems, such as the SWIFT, Fedwire or CHIPS systems in the United States of America. Such international clearance centres are critical to processing international banking transactions and are rich with payment information. The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions. The Group recommends the adoption of similar mechanisms by other countries.”
Suggestions that SWIFT and other similar transactions should be monitored by investigative agencies dealing with terrorism, money laundering and other criminal activity have been out there for some time. An MIT paper discussed the pros and cons of such practices back in 1995. Canada’s Financial Intelligence Unit, FINTRAC,, for one, has acknowledged receiving information on Canadian origin SWIFT transactions since 2002. Of course, this info is provided by the banks themselves.
While monitoring SWIFT-handled transfers is a useful tool in identifying and tracking certain suspicious transactions, its importance should not be overstated. The information in SWIFT’s hands is no better than the information which it is provided by the banks handling the transactions at both ends. And there is already an obligation on banks in the US and Europe to report all “suspicious transactions” The problem is that FINCEN and the corresponding FIUS in other countries have simply been overwhelmed by the enormous amount of transactions that are reported to them (see my earlier blog) Another problem is that European Banks are just getting around to providing (and requiring) information, such as names, account numbers and addresses of originators and recipients of transactions channeled or handled by them through SWIFT or other international transfer facilitators (see my earlier blog). And most banks outside of Europe, the United States and other OECD countries, still do not require, or verify, such information.
The fact is that there is really very little privacy today when it comes to the international transfer of funds. That is why criminal networks, money launderers and terrorist groups have increasingly turned to Hawalas and cash couriers for such transactions
http://counterterrorismblog.org/200...oring_of_sw.php |
|
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You idiot! If Bush is out there bragging from the start about what they are doing to stop the funding of terrorism, what response do you think the terrorists might have? They went back to using cash & couriers, you stupid monkey. The minute details are not necessary. Cheerleader Bush had already told the world we were onto their financing. |
Facts are that the leaking of his information jeopardized 3 ongoing investigations. I guess the terrorism expert you quoted was not privey to that information.....This program was successful in monitoring cash movements and capturing terrorists. Seems that quite a few terrorists didn't know about it until they read it in the Times either. (or were captured before the article) So that makes a few governments in Europe, and plenty of terrorists who seem to have NOT known about the ways we were tracking terrorist money....
Lets see, successful program, perfectly legal, great aid to national security.....Sounds like a great deal...except for the Bush haters at the Times, and like you, who will risk the lives of thousand of Americans to 'get' Bush. When you live soley on hate...this is where you end up.
Try again...this time, put the interests of America before your Bush hatred. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reed Rothchild
What exactly are they saying Fox is lying about anyway? |
He completely misrepresents Talents position on Stem Cell research...which isn't surprising in a political ad. But if you do the misleading ad, expect criticism and rebuttle. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Facts are that the leaking of his information jeopardized 3 ongoing investigations. I guess the terrorism expert you quoted was not privey to that information.....This program was successful in monitoring cash movements and capturing terrorists. Seems that quite a few terrorists didn't know about it until they read it in the Times either. (or were captured before the article) So that makes a few governments in Europe, and plenty of terrorists who seem to have NOT known about the ways we were tracking terrorist money....
Lets see, successful program, perfectly legal, great aid to national security.....Sounds like a great deal...except for the Bush haters at the Times, and like you, who will risk the lives of thousand of Americans to 'get' Bush. When you live soley on hate...this is where you end up.
Try again...this time, put the interests of America before your Bush hatred. |
Wow. I had no idea you hated leaks so much... I'm sure you were seething when the Bush administration leaked the name of this al qaeda mole we had working for us, weren't you?
Quote:
Who 'Outed' Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan?
Al Qaeda's terrorist 'geek' could have led us to Osama – but instead wound up 'burned' by the U.S. govt'
As the President of the United States and his reelection campaign invoked the specter of another terrorist attack on American soil – implicitly warning against the dangers of switching horses in midstream– other members of his administration were undermining the war on terrorism by naming a double agent working inside Al Qaeda to the New York Times and other news outlets.
Never mind who outed Valerie Plame – what I want to know is who outed Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan? Because in terms of damage done to U.S. national security, the exposure of the latter is by far the most serious breach. We may, indeed, one day look back on this betrayal as the reason why we didn't prevent another 9/11.
The baffling and really quite depressing story was reported in a Reuters piece revealing the consequences, if not the source, of the leak:
"U.S. officials providing justification for anti-terrorism alerts revealed details about a Pakistani secret agent, and confirmed his name while he was working under cover in a sting operation, Pakistani sources said on Friday. A Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, who was arrested in Lahore secretly last month, had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al Qaeda operatives when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers."
Khan, dubbed a "computer geek" on account of his technical prowess, functioned as a one-man information hub for Al Qaeda, coordinating and forwarding messages between the top leadership and Bin Laden's foot-soldiers worldwide. Once captured, Khan "flipped" and agreed to cooperate. CIA interrogators had him sending emails to his former confederates all day Sunday and Monday of last week, and getting back encrypted replies. On Monday morning, however, the Times came out with its story, naming Khan and reporting his disclosures as the real basis of the code orange security alerts issued by Homeland Security czar Tom Ridge. The Times cited both Pakistani and U.S. government officials.
It is hard to know what to make of this. Either these unidentified officials had certain knowledge that Bin Laden's New York Times subscription had run out, or else someone deliberately sabotaged a top secret anti-terrorist operation while it was in progress.
As is so often the case with this administration, one is faced with the question: is it incompetence, or is it treason?
Looking at U.S. policy in the Middle East, and the abysmal U.S. failure in Afghanistan and Iraq, the anonymous author of Imperial Hubris, a current CIA analyst, bitterly quips:
"I think it is fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally."
He meant it in a metaphorical sense, of course, but the burning of Khan makes one wonder: who and what is working inside the U.S. government, actively undermining the fight against Al Qaeda?
Forced to spring their trap prematurely, British authorities moved quickly to arrest 12 suspects, including at least one top Al Qaeda operative, in daytime raids involving arrests on the street and a high-speed car chase. This was touted as a great victory in the war on terrorism, but was, in reality, a tragic defeat.
With the capture of the "treasure trove" contained in Khan's computers, and the flipping of Khan, for the first time since we let Al Qaeda get away from Afghanistan, the top terrorists, and even Bin Laden himself, were within our grasp – only to slip out on account of what is being characterized as a slip of the tongue.
Reuters cites Kevin Rosser, a security expert with the London-based Control Risks Group, as saying:
"When these public announcements are made they have to be supported with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety and fatigue you can risk revealing sources and methods of sensitive operations."
We are supposed to believe that administration officials, forced to justify security alerts that had become a political issue, found it necessary to reveal Khan's name to a curious New York Times reporter. While the Times cited a Pakistani intelligence official as one of the sources for the story, it soon came out that it was administration officials who had spilled the beans, as Juan Cole relates:
"[CNN's Wolf] Blitzer then revealed that he had discussed the Khan case with U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on background. He reported that she had admitted that the Bush administration had in fact revealed Khan's name to the press. She said she did not know if Khan was a double agent working for the Pakistani government."
What a profoundly weird remark, but then Condi has been way over her head ever since they fished her out of the Hoover Institution to front for the neocons on the White House National Security staff.
What I'd like to know, however, is who is working as a double agent inside our own government? Because someone has sure sabotaged the hunt for Bin Laden and his cohorts just as effectively as if they'd been working for the Islamists.
It has been the tendency of the powerful and often dominant neoconservative clique to always downplay the importance of capturing Osama bin Laden and pulverizing his terrorist network once and for all. The neocons worked overtime to divert American efforts away from Al Qaeda, and draw attention to Saddam Hussein. This group moved to the fore immediately after 9/11, when Bush was demanding "evidence" to convict Iraq of the deed, and Paul Wolfowitz was counseling that we ignore Afghanistan, at least for the moment, and take the opportunity to go straight to Baghdad: the Iraq fixation of this White House is detailed in Richard Clarke's memoir of his days as counter-terrorism czar, and supplemented by Bob Woodward's account in Plan of Attack.
Woodward further reports Colin Powell's complaint that the neoconservatives had effected a virtual coup d'etat, setting up "a separate government" that did an end-run around the State Department and the CIA and pushed us into war. Having seized power, however, this separate, or parallel, government, centered around "President" Dick Cheney, would naturally be reluctant to voluntarily give up its dominant position. In this context of internecine conflict, the otherwise inexplicable "outing" of Khan begins to make at least a modicum of twisted sense. Was a U.S. covert operation of vital importance shot down in the crossfire of an ongoing civil war within the Bush administration?
After all, it wouldn't be the first time. The neocons around the Vice President had no qualms about outing deep cover covert agent Valerie Plame, even though she was engaged in the vital work of tracking down "missing" nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Their motive was to wreak revenge on her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, whose visible and quite vocal opposition to the Iraq war the neocons found rankling.
The outing of Khan raises the stakes in a bigger game, however, and, at this point, we don't know who did it, or why. All we have to go on is the familiar modus operandi, and that's not enough.
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. "Bulldog" Fitzgerald has been appointed by the Justice Department to handle the Plame case, and his investigation is reportedly coming to some sort of conclusion: which means he may have time to take up a new task, one involving pretty much the same cast of characters and the same sort of crime. In the case of Plame, the Justice Department didn't get moving until the CIA had filed a formal complaint. What will it take to get them moving, this time – another terrorist attack?
Condoleezza Rice's now famous invocation of the nuclear danger posed by Iraq – "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" – certainly seems more applicable to the current threat posed by Al Qaeda's operations in the U.S. This time, there does indeed appear to be an imminent threat, and the question is: what are they doing about it, aside from sabotaging their own investigation?
Who outed Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan? This administration can't seriously claim to be fighting terrorism effectively until that question is answered. |
|
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
whoa, so you would not want him to have freedom of speech, and freedom to campaign as anyone else does.
Furthermore what he HAS to take his medicine? maybe he would like to point out how some people cannot afford mediciation. what is your point? that instead of looking for a real cure he should just take drugs?
EVEN YOU are not that sick in the head, Mike, listen to what you are saying.
FW |
Where did I say he shouldn't have freedom of speech?? But don't others who disagree and wish to point out his lie have that same freedom of speech???? Why do YOU begrudge those individuals THEIR freedom?? |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Wow. I had no idea you hated leaks so much... I'm sure you were seething when the Bush administration leaked the name of this al qaeda mole we had working for us, weren't you? |
Nice change of subject attempt...at least you didn't bring up the Plame affair. Care to share the link??? Let me guess.....thinkbackwards.com or TruthNOT.org ?? |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Where did I say he shouldn't have freedom of speech?? But don't others who disagree and wish to point out his lie have that same freedom of speech???? Why do YOU begrudge those individuals THEIR freedom?? |
LIEMASTER, you support a man who has shown that he has no regard for freedom of speech! Only censorship of speech!
under 2 weeks LIEMASTER, You might as well start spinning now! |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
maybe the "victims" support the left, because the right isnt concerned with anything but money, and war. The "victims" want help, and they know they are not getting it from the right.
Maybe your side should start paying more attention to what the people need, rather than making unneeded wars, and profiteering and fearmongering. The right is RUINING America, and the "victims" can see that.
FW |
Ohhh please with the stupid talking points already. Yeah....we just cant enough of that great economy and national security.
There is plenty of evidence that adult stem cell research is much more promising than embryonic.
Here is a piece by a doctor: (there are links in the column..click the link provided for access to those)
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5977
Quote: The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox
October 25th, 2006
The popular and appealing actor Michael J. Fox has taken to the airwaves in Senate battleground states Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey with a highly misleading ad urging defeat of Republican Senatorial candidates opposing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund new embryonic stem cell line research. He states,
“Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s…. But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research.”
Mr. Fox and his ads’ sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the GOP candidates and many Americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people’s diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research.
The only limits in question are on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines, requiring the sacrifice of new embryos. Private and state-funded research (California voters are spending six billion dollars borrowing money to fund this) is ongoing. The implicit claim that research based on new embryos is “the most promising” is absurd, completely unsupported by the scientific literature, and an insult to voters, based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue. Too stupid to tell the difference, is the elitist assumption underlying this campaign.
Flim-flam is a charitable description. Why would federally-funded research be more promising than state- and privately-funded research? And on what possible basis can the claim be made that embryonic stem cell research is more promising than adult stem cell research?
The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically-minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.
The fact is that adult stem cells have already produced remarkable cures, whereas embryonic stem cells have failed. This should come as no great surprise to anyone with a background in high school biology. When an embryo is created by the union of the sperm and egg, the cells begin to divide, creating embryonic stem cells from which all future tissues and organs are derived. Within days, the embryonic cells differentiate into three cell layers – ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm. Cells in these layers continue to differentiate into tissues and organs. As the embryo matures into a fetus, child, and adult, some undifferentiated cells of the three types remain in various tissues such as bone marrow, fat, skin and olfactory tissue.
These adult stem cells are multipotent: they have the ability to turn into a variety of types of tissues. Successful stem cell therapies cause the DNA in the adult stem cells to further differentiate into more specific types of cells. There is no point in getting the adult stem cell to turn into a less differentiated type of cell, or using the more primitive embryonic stem cells. This would be going backward, in the opposite direction of providing a clinically useful therapy. Difficulties abound with proposed embryonic stem cell therapies. The growth of the more primitive embryonic stem cells is more difficult to control and leads to tumor formation. Recent research suggests brain tumors may result. Additionally, the use of embryonic tissue foreign to the patient can potentially lead to problems with immune rejection of tissue, a problem not encountered in using a patient’s own adult stem cells.
America is the most formidable medical research center in the world, but it is far from alone in pursuing the potential of adult stem cells. The worldwide effort is impressive and growing. For non-adult stem cell research, a morally unquestionable alternative source exists: stem cells drawn from umbilical cord blood. Already a bank exists in Dubai collecting cord blood stem cells.
In short, the claims made in the Michael J. Fox political ads are false and reprehensible, an insult to the voters of Maryland, Missouri and New Jersey, and to all Americans.
Mary L. Davenport, MD is an obstetrician and gynecologist, and a Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. |
|
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Nice change of subject attempt...at least you didn't bring up the Plame affair. Care to share the link??? Let me guess.....thinkbackwards.com or TruthNOT.org ?? |
That's not a change of subject, asswipe. You started this thread whining about imaginary "leaks", so I provided you with a story about a real leak.
here's the link:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3271
I can't wait for your lengthy criticism of the Bush gang and their idiotic leaking of Khan's name to the media for political gain.... does that sound familiar? |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
That's not a change of subject, asswipe. You started this thread whining about imaginary "leaks", so I provided you with a story about a real leak.
here's the link:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=3271
I can't wait for your lengthy criticism of the Bush ganag and their idiotic leaking of Khan's name to the media for political gain.... does that sound familiar? |
How was the leak imaginary?? Lots of people didn't know the details. If everyone knew, why was it front page news? |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Trying to play the Old Semantics game again MIKEY? Your response is too vague, just like most of them so you can twist and spin when your LIE is caught!
Less than two weeks till NOVEMBER ELECTIONS! Bye Bye control! |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
How was the leak imaginary?? Lots of people didn't know the details. If everyone knew, why was it front page news? |
haha! Now you are trying to play editor...
I could just as easily ask you why the Khan leak was NOT front page news, Mikey.
And as I have already shown you more than once, SWIFT was no secret, and your boy Bush was out there bragging about how great they were doing...
You are just making a fool out of yourself. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| "HELL OF A LEAK, SCOOTER" I guess NCMORON06 and his acolyte SHITEYE are preparing their blame schedule for the day after the election. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
haha! Now you are trying to play editor...
I could just as easily ask you why the Khan leak was NOT front page news, Mikey.
And as I have already shown you more than once, SWIFT was no secret, and your boy Bush was out there bragging about how great they were doing...
You are just making a fool out of yourself. |
Apparently lots of terrorists and governments in Europe disagree……maybe you should call the terrorists who were captured on information from this program, and ask them why they werent aware of how we were tracking their money, since the details were such common knowledge. You can SAY it all you want…doesn't make it the truth. As in every other case, the FACTS prove you wrong. I do hope that nobody is a victim of a terrorist attack because of this leak. Blood then will surely be on the hands of the NYT, and on the hands of anti American scum like you. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Apparently lots of terrorists and governments in Europe disagree……maybe you should call the terrorists who were captured on information from this program, and ask them why they werent aware of how we were tracking their money, since the details were such common knowledge. You can SAY it all you want…doesn't make it the truth. As in every other case, the FACTS prove you wrong. I do hope that nobody is a victim of a terrorist attack because of this leak. Blood then will surely be on the hands of the NYT, and on the hands of anti American scum like you. |
Fine. Then you will agree that blood will be on YOUR hands, and that of the Bush cunts you defend everyday if we are the victim of another attack because they chose to leak the name of an al qaeda double agent, an undercover CIA operative working on WMD proliferation, or chose to invade a country that posed ZERO threat to the US, wasting our military resources.... You have been shown FACTS that the Iraq war has made terrorism WORSE, not better, yet you ignore those everyday.
You already have the blood of 20,000 US casualties and 655,000 Iraqis on your hands.....
Congrats. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| I believe that Congress authorized the ability to search fro WMDs and not to occupy the IRAQ for 4 years. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
I believe that Congress authorized the ability to search fro WMDs and not to occupy the IRAQ for 4 years. |
They authorized him to respond to those countries responsible for 9/11.... Iraq was NEVER on that list. |
|
|
|
|
|
