After Spy Story, the Times Defends Its Patriotism

Editor's Note

This is posted from the Times Watch Tracker, an online publication which exposes the liberal agenda of the New York Times. See their website at www.timeswatch.org



Perhaps sensing that editor Bill Keller’s arrogant open letter didn't do the job, today’s masthead editorial in the print edition makes another defense of the paper’s latest terrorist-program wrecking scoop, mostly by accusing conservatives of attacking the paper’s patriotism.

The defensive “Patriotism and the Press” begins: “Over the last year, The New York Times has twice published reports about secret antiterrorism programs being run by the Bush administration. Both times, critics have claimed that the paper was being unpatriotic or even aiding the terrorists.”

The Times says publishing classified details on terrorist surveillance isn’t sedition: “The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals. Terrorist groups would have had to be fairly credulous not to suspect that they would be subject to scrutiny if they moved money around through international wire transfers. In fact, a United Nations group set up to monitor Al Qaeda and the Taliban after Sept. 11 recommended in 2002 that other countries should follow the United States' lead in monitoring suspicious transactions handled by Swift. The report is public and available on the United Nations Web site.”

So the Times defense is that it’s just repeating old news. Then why the front-page play?

“Our news colleagues work under the assumption that they should let the people know anything important that the reporters learn, unless there is some grave and overriding reason for withholding the information.”

Except for Mohammad cartoons, of course.

“They try hard not to base those decisions on political calculations, like whether a story would help or hurt the administration. It is certainly unlikely that anyone who wanted to hurt the Bush administration politically would try to do so by writing about the government's extensive efforts to make it difficult for terrorists to wire large sums of money.”

They have half a good point here – it would not surprise Times Watch if Bush’s support actually increased after the revelations of what his administration is trying to do to combat terrorist tactics.

The Times can’t seem to locate any actual civil liberties violations or illegalities in the SWIFT program itself, so it just portrays it as “part” of something that causes liberal vapors at editorial roundtables, which is apparently reason enough to put all the details out for anyone, including enemies, to read. It also sounds, as Michael Goodwin opines at the New York Daily News today, that the paper's long-standing anti-Bush animus played a role in the decision to publish -- if the "Bush administration" hadn't been involved (and note Keller's letter didn't use the generic term "federal government," but specifically the scary "Bush administration") the paper could well have held off.

“From our side of the news-opinion wall, the Swift story looks like part of an alarming pattern. Ever since Sept. 11, the Bush administration has taken the necessity of heightened vigilance against terrorism and turned it into a rationale for an extraordinarily powerful executive branch, exempt from the normal checks and balances of our system of government. It has created powerful new tools of surveillance and refused, almost as a matter of principle, to use normal procedures that would acknowledge that either Congress or the courts have an oversight role. The Swift program, like the wiretapping program, has been under way for years with no restrictions except those that the executive branch chooses to impose on itself -- or, in the case of Swift, that the banks themselves are able to demand. This seems to us very much the sort of thing the other branches of government, and the public, should be nervously aware of.”

Exactly what “public interest” is being served by making it that much harder to fight terrorism?

Notice there’s nothing said about concerns over SWIFT itself -- if revealing this program was so important, just what are the specific concerns of the paper? The only specific results from the program appear to be positive ones. As the Times itself reported, terrorists have been tracked and caught because of the SWIFT surveillance. Or perhaps we should say “had been tracked and caught,” given that the Times has likely scuttled the program’s effectiveness.

The editorial concludes with petulance over alleged attacks on the Times’ patriotism. “The free press has a central place in the Constitution because it can provide information the public needs to make things right again. Even if it runs the risk of being labeled unpatriotic in the process.”

The Times has yet to say what has gone “wrong” regarding this terrorist surveillance program.

Some more editorial spin from on high, courtesy of Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz (hat-tip Tim Graham):

“Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said in an interview yesterday that critics ‘are still angry at us’ for disclosing the government's domestic eavesdropping program in December, ‘and I guess in their view, this adds insult to injury….The Bush administration's reaction roused their base, but also roused the anti-Bush base as well,’ he said, noting an approximately even split in his e-mail.”

As if conservatives are automatons waiting for orders from White House central. In fact, the outrage was spontaneous with the paper’s online filing of the story Thursday night, long before Bush’s Monday comment that the Times’ behavior was “disgraceful.”

Tammy Bruce applauds GOP efforts for an investigation but feel they don’t go far enough, and concludes by knocking the Times’ obsession with investigating the Valerie Plame affair: “If the ‘exposure’ of non-spy Valerie Plame deserved a Special Prosecutor, doesn't the exposure and publication of secret war plans deserve an investigation?”

Parke Still in Race for Senate...Some Ask Why?

Editor's Note

Some time ago, WCV sent Greg Parke, a candidate of the U.S. Senate, an email asking a few questions concerning his candidacy for the U.S. Senate. He did not respond. WCV openly wondered about some of the same questions raised by James Dwinell in the Dwinell Political Report. Here's a re-run of Dwinell's story from three weeks ago.

We have put in bold the areas we think that candidate Parke should address publicly.





GREG PARKE, THE CANDIDATE

If you listen to Greg Parke, he is on the move, on the move to beating Rich Tarrant in the GOP primary, and then handing Bernie Sanders his pink slip.

He told us, "I am working hard at raising money. It is very telling that Tarrant has spent $2,000,000 and he is lower in polls by two percent today than he was in January. It is very disturbing that Tarrant is calling for increase in Medicare as a solution to the health care crisis. Medicare is responsible for getting us into this mess. It created a limited supply and an unlimited demand. Its cost was perceived as free. When the cost is nothing, demand is infinity.

"For me to beat Tarrant, people need to understand that Bernie can only be beaten on two issues: protecting families and national security. Bernie has a very poor record on each. When people learn about his record, they are shocked. Bernie has obstructed our national security and consistently voted in favor of criminals and against families."

LOOK TO THE COLONEL

"People are looking for experience in national security and I have that. We have one of lowest levels of ex-military ever in Congress and it shows. Tarrant is pushing issue health care but Sanders owns that issue. Bernie is not weak on health care; people perceive that he is doing lots for us on health care. Tarrant is pushing the wrong issue.

"Defense is my ace in the hole. Though I lost to Bernie in 2004, the run for a senate seat is a very different race. Many people say that having Bernie in Congress where he is one out of 435 is fine; but it is a very different thing with his being senator.

"Having grown up in Vermont and now having returned, I see a very different state. I have seen the extreme damage Vermont caused by the liberal agenda. I am working in whatever capacity I can to turn this state around, to restore the values that made Vermont great."

PARKE THE CANDIDATE

There is probably not one Vermonter in a hundred who can recall the details of Greg Parke's political career. A quick review: he ran in 2002 eager to take on Bernie Sanders but he lost the Republican nomination for Congress to Bill Mueb, garnering only 22.3 percent of the primary vote.

In 2004, Parke ran once again for the Republican nomination for Congress. This time he won and had his chance to take the evil doer Bernie Sanders; but Parke was trounced winning only 24.4 percent of the vote, a slight improvement.

In 2006, Parke declared his intentions once again to run against Bernie Sanders in the race to replace Jim Jeffords in the Senate. This year he has to beat Rich Tarrant in the GOP primary first however. At the Republican Convention on May 20th Parke received only 23.2 percent of the vote in the straw poll. As former Douglas campaign manager Neale Lunderville said, in this case of Mark Shepard but it would apply even more so to Parke, "If he can't win here, he can't win anywhere."

Three times at the plate, and three times he cannot break the twenty-five percent. Not good. So why does he run?

PARKE THE MONEY MACHINE

Greg Parke had set the record for spending on a primary election in Vermont. Of course Tarrant has caught up and is spending even more. Nonetheless the media ignores Parke. He barely receives a mention in the Sanders/Tarrant discussion. Amazing. He has raised over a $1,000,000 and nobody talks about him.

Parke says, "They do not think that we have traction because we do not have the $500,000 checks like Mr. Tarrant. Some in the media do not want me to get traction."

Yet for all of his fundraising prowess, after paying his fundraising costs, the Parke campaign had only $33,237 cash on hand after debts and loans on March 31, 2006. Maybe he has no media recognition because he has no money and he up against the very rich Rich Tarrant who has already spent over $2,500,000 in this election cycle.

HOW DOES HE DO IT?

"It is a lot of work for not much money that sticks. Building a donor base is expensive. It costs money to raise money. We are still doing mail, we are sending out a 600,000 person email Monday. We use lists, several conservative email lists, Eberly's GOPUSA list, Newsmax list, Conservative voice.com list, and so forth.

"It depends on the campaign Internet provider who takes care of the money. We receive a file of donors from the caging operation, they send us a check after they take their percentage for keeping things up and running and their credit card fees. We also have a direct mail house with caging operations, they send us money, a donor file and FEC record of the donation. All over the country people understand the true nature and threat of the so called independent Bernie Sanders."

THE MISREPRESENTATIONS

In the last sixty days, Greg Parke's money machine has asked for money more than ten times in emails alone, emailing to conservative donors around the country.

In the emails, Parke writes that Jim Jeffords quit his run for re-election because, "He saw the massive support I was getting from grassroots Republicans like you. He took a hard look at the rapid momentum my campaign was gaining and within just a couple of months he decided to call it quits."

And we thought that Jeffords decided to forgo re-election because of health issues.

Parke claims that Jeffords "handpicked the most far left, most radical, most liberal politician in America to run in his place, Bernie Sanders. Ultra liberal Bernie Sanders is a self-avowed 'socialist' who absolutely must be stopped from ever reaching the U.S. Senate."

Bernie declared his interest in Jeffords's senate seat a mere two days after Jeffords's retirement announcement. That was pretty quick work recruiting Bernie!

Parke urges the reader to send money quickly as we have "less then 6 months until Election Day." Parke's next Election Day is the second Tuesday of September, less than four months away. He fails to mention that he has a primary opponent.

His fund raising effort warns of the radical agenda of socialist Sanders, and his fellow traveler Hillary Clinton. "In fact, Hillary Clinton has just contributed $10,000 to Bernie Sanders," trumpets a recent fund raising email. "Do you want Hillary Clinton putting avowed socialist Bernie Sanders in the United States Senate?"

Parke extols his political organization in Vermont, which is all but invisible to the naked eye. "I have spent most of this past year putting the infrastructure in place to run a top notch campaign. I think we've done a great job building a team that can beat Sanders and get this Senate seat back in Republican hands."

There is no evidence that, other than his wife Sharon and treasurer Wayne Carlson of Rutland who does Parke's books for a cool $13,000, that there is any paid organization in Vermont. There is no evidence that he has county chairs, town chairs, state coordinators, etc. On the other hand, the Tarrant campaign has recently announced 470 local and county campaign chairs.

THE MONEY ROLLS IN

His March 31st FEC filing shows that he has received contributions of over $250 from donors in forty states, including three from Vermont.

Parke's expenditures are nearly all for mail and Internet expense. Hardly a dime has been spent for voter contact: radio television, phone banks, or persuasion mail. It is all about the money.

Like Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Parke receives money from the campaign, a small salary instead of the mega commissions for Mrs. Sanders. A visit to the Parke for Senate website section "About Greg" states, "His wife Sharon of 32 years works for a non-profit organization." According to Parke, her only job is with the campaign, a non-profit no less!

POLITICAL SPEECH

The Constitution of the United States gives wide berth to political speech. Parke's misrepresentations, explicit and implied, probably slide into that constitutional "wide berth."

DRAFT LETTER FOR FRIENDS OF PARKE DONOR

Dear Friends,

"Stopped into a church as I passed along the way, I got down on my knees" and I began to pray. I heard the message: reveal your truth. Here it is folks.

Actually, in spite of thousands of words to the contrary, I am not running against Bernie Sanders. I am running against a very successful health care entrepreneur, Rich Tarrant, for the Republican nomination to have a chance to run against Bernie.

I have really no chance to beat Mr. Tarrant. He has just sold his business, IDX and has over $100,000,000 in his pocket, and he is a longtime generous supporter of the Republican Party and its candidates in Vermont. He has put together a statewide organization, is very committed, and is well liked in the Party. At the recent Vermont GOP convention, he beat me in a straw poll, 76 percent to just 24 percent for me.

I did run against Bernie in 2004 and received only 24 percent of the vote. I also ran in 2002 for the GOP nomination for Congress and received only 23 percent of the vote.

Did I mention that my dear wife Sharon works for a non-profit? Well, that non-profit is actually my campaign committee, Friends of Parke.

Unfortunately though, I must continue to ask you for money. Fundraising is expensive, the Internet consultants I employ are paid tens of thousands of dollars. Though you have generously given my campaign over $1,000,000, virtually all of that money has gone to the consultants, the printers, and towards raising more money. I only have $33,000 available to begin my campaign. This is hardly enough to take on Mr. Tarrant.

Because Mr. Tarrant is a millionaire and I am not, I am now able to accept $12,000 from you. So please be generous, and maybe a bit Quixotic, and support Friends of Parke so that I can once again take on that dangerous liberal socialist Bernie Sanders in the unlikely event that I first beat Mr. Tarrant.

Thanks.

Respectfully,
Your friend, Greg