Carol Platt Liebau: The Iniquity of The Times

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The Iniquity of The Times

9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean mourns the loss of the program exposed by the New York Times.

What's most interesting is that he noted that Treasury officials were "'very agitated and very concerned' about possible exposure of the program." This, once again, suggests that either John Snow or Bill Keller is a liar . . . and the liar isn't John Snow.

11 Comments:

Blogger Dittohead said...

Trust Snow? Don't make us laugh.

The gatekeeper to the Dubai seaport deal was John Snow, Secretary of the US Treasury, who replaced Paul O’Neill. Remember, O’Neill was fired because he refused to give in to pressure from the Bush people to support the invasion of Iraq.

Until he was tapped to serve our government, John Snow was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CSX Corporation. CSX, was bought out one year ago this week by Dubai Ports World for $1.4 billion, a U.A.E. state owned company.

The FBI found that the U.A.E.’s banking systems were used to transfer funds for the 9/11 attacks, the U.A.E. had recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan and that the Treasury Department criticized the U.A.E. for a “lack of cooperation” in tracking down Osama bin Laden’s bank accounts.

11:17 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

The real iniquity of our time is the blatant hypocrisy, greed, and a contempt for those less fortunate demonstrated by the current administration and its blind followers.

11:17 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Carol, why do you toggle between disregarding Kean as all but a RINO one minute (as co-leader of the 9/11 commission) and then hang on his every word the next?

Which is he? Friend or foe? Gotta know, gotta know now.

11:27 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

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.”

11:34 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Ditto:

I've asked you this before, Ditto. But you failed to respond. So I'll ask again.


You've made a huge effort to point out - multiple times - that it has been public knowledge for a long time that the President has been targeting financial assets of the terrorists and their supporters since the beginning of the war on terror.

This is absolutely true.

But I ask you: Is there a difference between blocking known assets and tracking transactions to see if they are related to terrorism?

My point?

Once all the known terror supporting financial assets have been "frozen", the next logical thing to do would be to find the UNKNOWN financial supports for terrorism.

But a shrewd - and serious - administration wouldn't simply find them and "freeze" them. Instead, they would track them to find out where the money is coming from and where it's going.

It's this kind of effort - this effort exactly - that has exposed terrorist activities and captured terrorists.

So your repeated attempts to claim that the program exposed by the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal is simply old news already known to the public is false.

Once assets were frozen, the terrorists and their supporters had to find alternate means to finance their operations. This program is - was - secretly tracking as many of these transactions as possible.

Now, of course, the terrorists have once again been dutifully alerted by the American media. And, once again, the job of protecting Americans and capturing terrorists has been made more difficult.

I don't expect any of this to change your mind, however. And I'm not going to go as far as to say you actually want America to lose. But it's blatantly obvious that you want George Bush to lose. The sad irony is that George Bush, as much as you hate it, is the person responsible for making sure America wins.

Can you put aside your Bush hatred long enough to actually root for America once in a while?

11:57 AM  
Blogger COPioneer said...

They are just quick to comment their left wing pinko commie drivel here because we are such a fun group of conservatives to chat with. Their ideas about where America should be headed have nothing to do with individual freedoms or responsibility. They're all victims of democracy and capitalism.

12:44 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

greg,

Your answer is in my comment right before yours.

12:48 PM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

Everytime I check any post of Carol's, Dittohead has already made one, if not several posts.

What's the deal? Is Dittohead retired? Does Carol have a cyberstalker?

2:01 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Coyote,

I thought you were stalking me. You never say anything on topic rather talk about me. Are you in love with me? Don't be shy now.

2:26 PM  
Blogger wile e coyote said...

1. You didn't answer MY questions.

2. I hate to break it to you, but my comments about your comments are not about you. They are about what you have written, which is invariably so illogical and so often downright silly, as to provide ample opportunity for rebuttal.

3. Let's not descend from silly to crazy.

4. I am off the market (and happily so). You might want to try another type of blog if that is what you are looking for (although you and duke-stir seem to have a lot in common).

3:01 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Coyote,

Yawn!

4:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google