Urbin Report

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Guess who wrote this...

Back in late 2001, the following appeared in a major US Newspaper:

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.


That was the NY Times. Now their editorial policy appears to be aiding those terrorists is OK as long they get to take a cheap shot at the President.

HT to Cold Fury.

It is a tribute to the American government and its support of the 1st Amendment that the NY Times was able to publish the details of a major government anti-terrorist operation, which could lead to the deaths of American service personnel and civilians. The US Government knew of the story in advance, and while requested the story not be run (members of the government asking the story not be published included 9/11 Commission Chair Ben Hamilton, a liberal democrat Clintonite), it did not even stoop to the Clinton era tactic of threatening to cut off government access to try and stop the story.

The real question is why the NY Times chose to publish a story aiding the Islamofacist terrorists whose stated goal is to kill Americans and other proponents of basic Human Rights and freedom. The kindest theory is an advanced case of BDS.