# I pit the short-sighted self serving twits at the New York Times **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 27, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359 "2006-06-27T17:01:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/241 "2006-06-29T15:52:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Do you think that Clinton’s plan had the same degree of justification as Bush did? If you like, I can find some links to pictures of the bombed Oklahoma City Federal Building. That way, the argument then will more closely resemble the argument you are advancing now. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/242 "2006-06-29T15:52:49Z")
Allow me to keep score: The NYTimes, the WSJ, and the LA Times all report on a program that the gist of which PRESIDENT HAD ALREADY PUBLICALLY ANNOUNCED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. For instance, here is Bush committing what you more exictable loons term as “high treason” in 2001: “”[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… We have built an international coalition to deny terrorists access to the world financial system.“” Oh Noes: the secret is out! But it gets worse. Some evil traitor has conspired to broadcast the existence of SWIFT to the world: [http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item\_id=6149](http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=6149) Holy crap: the terrorists now have control of [SWIFT.COM](http://SWIFT.COM)!!! They know! What is the only new information the papers ACTUALLY broke? That, lo and behold, it turns out that the President might be breaking the law yet again in the course of this “secret” program. Information not particularly useful to terrorists. And of course, despite the fact that WSJ went with the story, all the right wing loon focus is on the NYT. So, is it clear what happened here now, or what? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/243 "2006-06-29T16:07:52Z")
The intent of the outrage on the right is to rile their half-witted base. It appears to be working. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/244 "2006-06-29T16:11:17Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Really? So people in this thread, having failed to be convinced by your prior words, are now in total agreement after you posted the pictures? You’ll have to aske them. But I would think that they realize that I will not kowtow to their wishes to sweep it under the rug. > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Here’s what’s offensive; instead of using those pictures, you could simply have just said “9/11 shows the extremes rabid Muslim fundamentalists will go to in order to hurt us. That tragedy should be more in our minds as we discuss the lengths we should, or are willing to, go to in order to stop it from happening again”. The same point would have been made. Well, I didn’t know those were the magic words. And neither do you. As I said, I explained why the mention was fair a couple of times. People still whined. I posted the pictures and the tenor of the argument has now shifted to “mentioning 9/11 is okay, but the pictures, heavens no”. I think that’s progress. Now you still haven’t explained why the use of the pictures is so out of bounds. If you agree that it’s okay to use words describing it, why not the pictures themselves? Why is the one medium taboo? > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > So where the offensiveness comes from is that you didn’t need to post those pictures at all, yet you did; it’s clear (at least, to me) that you only used those pictures to lend an extra emotional cachet to your argument, and it is the use of them in that way, to attempt to tap into the emotional resonance of that event and so influence others to think only in terms of that emotion, and not the actual logic and reasonability of your particular argument, that makes what you did so offensive. I don’t think it is offensive. I think the act they portray is offensive. I think the pictures do just what you described. They bring us back to that day in a way that words can’t. I think that’s a good thing. And any extra emotional cache they add to my argument is thanks to the assholes who did it. It is a good thing to use the horror of their own action to build support to fight them. > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > 9/11 is certainly relevant; i’m in agreement with you that it’s a topic that should never be banned from an honest debate. What you did here, though, was an attempt to divert an honest debate, and to use the tragedy of 9/11 to do that is as bad as attempting to ignore it altogether. Nonsense. The only dishonesty in this debate are the claims that the mention of 9/11 was out of bounds. Keeping in mind why we are taking steps that may encroach on our liberties is important. There were repeated attempts to eliminate 9/11 from the debate. I refuse to allow that to be done. Keep in mind, the original debate questions to whether we should be okay with a oprogram that may tread on our privacy rights. I take that seriously, and therefore think it is vital that we keep in mind exactly why we might want to do that. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/245 "2006-06-29T16:20:17Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > If you like, I can find some links to pictures of the bombed Oklahoma City Federal Building. That way, the argument then will more closely resemble the argument you are advancing now. I notice that you didn’t answer the question. Wonder why… Anyway, if there was a program that was instigated the act you mention to prevent another OCFB bombing, and we had reason to believe that they’re were throngs more who would like to repeat the event, and we were in a discussion where you were advocating a program that tread on our liberties and you said you thought it was worth it due to the horror of the instigating act, and I and others said “How dare you bring that up?”, I think you would be perfectly justified in saying that “the event in question is critical to the debate. Yes, we’re sacrificing some liberty, but we’re trying to prevent another horror. A horror like this (shows picture).” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/246 "2006-06-29T16:22:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Nonsense. The only dishonesty in this debate are the claims that the mention of 9/11 was out of bounds. How ironic that you should refer to “dishonesty” in asserting a dishonest representation of the comments about your appeals to emotion. Oh, you never did get back to me on whether or not I should demonstrate that Clinton had an argument for “Know Your Customer” that was equivalent to your argument on this thread. (Lessee… Open Google in another browser tab, click on “images”, type in “Oklahoma City”, “Murrah Building”, “Timothy McVeigh”…) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/247 "2006-06-29T16:25:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Anyway, if there was a program that was instigated the act you mention to prevent another OCFB bombing, and we had reason to believe that they’re were throngs more who would like to repeat the event, and we were in a discussion where you were advocating a program that tread on our liberties and you said you thought it was worth it due to the horror of the instigating act, and I and others said “How dare you bring that up?”, I think you would be perfectly justified in saying that “the event in question is critical to the debate. Yes, we’re sacrificing some liberty, but we’re trying to prevent another horror. A horror like this (shows picture).” You’re pretty much on your own, then. Both principled conservatives and anti-Clinton opportunists united in denoucing Clinton’s cynical exploitation of the Oklahoma City victims. (The two can be distinguished by the fact that the former did not flip-flop on this principle once a new administration came to power.) ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/248 "2006-06-29T16:26:17Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You’ll have to aske them. But I would think that they realize that I will not kowtow to their wishes to sweep it under the rug. I don’t believe that’s the argument, but rather than disagree with you, i’d like to point out again that the pictures _have had no added effect_. They haven’t been any better at getting your argument across except to make people angry at you; in that regard, they’ve been detrimental to your argument. > [@](#): > > Well, I didn’t know those were the magic words. And neither do you. As I said, I explained why the mention was fair a couple of times. People still whined. I posted the pictures and the tenor of the argument has now shifted to “mentioning 9/11 is okay, but the pictures, heavens no”. That’s actually just \*my \* stance on the matter. As much as i’m enjoying your attempt to lump everyone disagreeing with you in together, my stance has always been that. As regarding other people, I believe the only shift is one from “using 9/11 as an excuse in this context is wrong” to “using 9/11 as an excuse in this context is wrong, and using pictures to try and influence people emotionally is even more wrong”. Of course, I can’t speak for anyone but me. > [@](#): > > I think that’s progress. Now you still haven’t explained why the use of the pictures is so out of bounds. If you agree that it’s okay to use words describing it, why not the pictures themselves? Why is the one medium taboo? Because you’re correct in one aspect; those pictures do have significant emotional power. It seems as though you’re trying to use that emotional power to influence others, rather than through reasoned debate. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it is offensive. I think the act they portray is offensive. I think the pictures do just what you described. They bring us back to that day in a way that words can’t. I think that’s a good thing. And any extra emotional cache they add to my argument is thanks to the assholes who did it. It is a good thing to use the horror of their own action to build support to fight them. So you admit you’re attempting to influence people emotionally rather than through reasoned debate? Just as the perpetrators on that day hoped to cause a fear in Americans that would cut through all their rationality and make them huddle in terror, you would use the horror of those events to bypass the rationality of Americans into agreeing with you? > [@](#): > > Nonsense. The only dishonesty in this debate are the claims that the mention of 9/11 was out of bounds. Keeping in mind why we are taking steps that may encroach on our liberties is important. There were repeated attempts to eliminate 9/11 from the debate. I refuse to allow that to be done. Good for you. I’m in total agreement with that. Seriously. But you used a wrong tactic to counter that wrong tactic. > [@](#): > > Keep in mind, the original debate questions to whether we should be okay with a oprogram that may tread on our privacy rights. I take that seriously, and therefore think it is vital that we keep in mind exactly why we might want to do that. I think many people in this thread take that seriously (I won’t say all, since there have been a good many drive-throughs) but honestly, people do remember 9/11. It’s not been forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/249 "2006-06-29T16:26:23Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The intent of the outrage on the right is to rile their half-witted base. It appears to be working. There’s a benefit to you not addressing the arguments and resorting to the demonizing ad hominem: the stupidity of your position stays inside your own warped brain. I think you’ve found the debating technique that’s perfect for you. Congratulations. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/250 "2006-06-29T16:31:49Z")
Not so much aimed at you, magellan. At least you’re here attempting to discuss things rationally. It’s all the dittoheads out there that get 100% of their news from Rash Limpballs and the like. Bush knows there was no big secret leaked, Cheney knows there was no big secret leaked, but they both know that their base is starting to desert them. So they feign outrage over something quite innocuous. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/251 "2006-06-29T16:55:12Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > I don’t believe that’s the argument, but rather than disagree with you, i’d like to point out again that the pictures _have had no added effect_. They haven’t been any better at getting your argument across except to make people angry at you; in that regard, they’ve been detrimental to your argument. I will admit that I didn’t expect the posting of them to get quite the response it did. But some good as come of it. You are now on record stating that you believe that metioniing 9/11 in a debate like this is valid. So has **tomndebb**. It is now impossible for those with any honesty whatsoever to whine “You can’t mention 9/11. Only Bush lock-steppers bring up 9/11.” > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > As regarding other people, I believe the only shift is one from “using 9/11 as an excuse in this context is wrong” to “using 9/11 as an excuse in this context is wrong, and using pictures to try and influence people emotionally is even more wrong”. Of course, I can’t speak for anyone but me. Possibly. But as I said, those of them with an ounce of honesty will no longer trot out the whining mantra I mentioned above. > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Because you’re correct in one aspect; those pictures do have significant emotional power. It seems as though you’re trying to use that emotional power to influence others, rather than through reasoned debate. If that was all I had done in the debate, you would be correct, but it wasn’t. > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > So you admit you’re attempting to influence people emotionally rather than through reasoned debate? Just as the perpetrators on that day hoped to cause a fear in Americans that would cut through all their rationality and make them huddle in terror, you would use the horror of those events to bypass the rationality of Americans into agreeing with you? See previous answer. Plus, I do not deny that 9/11 has an emotional component. It brings back the fear, sadness, and (for the sane), anger. That is part of what we are trying to prevent again. Again, if that was the extent of my argument I would be guilty of what you say. But it wasn’t. > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Good for you. I’m in total agreement with that. Seriously. I appreciate the vote for sanity. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/252 "2006-06-29T17:01:31Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Not so much aimed at you, magellan. At least you’re here attempting to discuss things rationally. It’s all the dittoheads out there that get 100% of their news from Rash Limpballs and the like. Bush knows there was no big secret leaked, Cheney knows there was no big secret leaked, but they both know that their base is starting to desert them. So they feign outrage over something quite innocuous. I’m sure there is some truth in what you say. On the other hand, there is a legitimate debate to be had on this issue. While Bush said he was going to go after finances, he did not divulge the means by which he would do it. It is very likely that the terrorists thought that he would simply take only those actions that many on these would be comfortable with. John Gotti knew the Feds were listening in. But if there was an article divulging that there was a bug in that upstairs apartment, their efforts would not have been so fruitful. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/253 "2006-06-29T17:03:41Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I will admit that I didn’t expect the posting of them to get quite the response it did. But some good as come of it. You are now on record stating that you believe that metioniing 9/11 in a debate like this is valid. So has **tomndebb**. It is now impossible for those with any honesty whatsoever to whine “You can’t mention 9/11. Only Bush lock-steppers bring up 9/11.” Did you expect that response, though? (mine and tomndebb’s). Was that a point you were trying to achieve? > [@](#): > > If that was all I had done in the debate, you would be correct, but it wasn’t. Yes, but as you admit, your argument previously to this wasn’t working. You were failing to convince people using words and reasoned debate, so you resorted to an emotional plea on people’s sensibilities. > [@](#): > > See previous answer. Plus, I do not deny that 9/11 has an emotional component. It brings back the fear, sadness, and (for the sane), anger. That is part of what we are trying to prevent again. Again, if that was the extent of my argument I would be guilty of what you say. But it wasn’t. No, I agree. But you did use it; you may not be guilty of putting forth no reasoned argument at all, but you are by your own admission guilty of trying to tap into that emotional reserve to bypass reasoned debate when words were failing you. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/254 "2006-06-29T17:06:14Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > How ironic that you should refer to “dishonesty” in asserting a dishonest representation of the comments about your appeals to emotion. Read my latest comments to Revenant Threshold on the subject. > [@Steve MB](#): > > Oh, you never did get back to me on whether or not I should demonstrate that Clinton had an argument… My repsonse came in 28 mnutes, within which time I had resposnded to another poster. Ease the fuck up on the caffeine. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/255 "2006-06-29T17:27:16Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Did you expect that response, though? (mine and tomndebb’s). Was that a point you were trying to achieve? Actuallly, my primary objective was to send a clear signal that those 3,000 lives were part of the discussion. I wanted to bring the issue to a head. People kept whing about it even after I had explained its fairness and appropriateness. Still, I was surprised at the quick number of vitriolic posts. > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Yes, but as you admit, your argument previously to this wasn’t working. You were failing to convince people using words and reasoned debate, so you resorted to an emotional plea on people’s sensibilities. My argument as to whether 9/11 evidently wasn’t working. That was a debate within the debate. Different people kept bringing it up. I was tired of it and decided to briing the issue to a head by bringing it up in earnest via those links. I am not of the opinion that people on this board are incapable of asknowledging an emotional component, which is inseperable from the arguement in some debates, and not confusing that with reason. Maybe I was wrong. It looks that way. > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > No, I agree. But you did use it; you may not be guilty of putting forth no reasoned argument at all, but you are by your own admission guilty of trying to tap into that emotional reserve to bypass reasoned debate when words were failing you. Not to bypass, but to be taken into account. You say you agree that mentioniing the 3,000 people who were killed on 9/11 is in bounds. Good. But that has an emotional component, as well. Are the pictures stronger in that regard? Yes. But if one thinks, as I do, that the emotional component should be part of the debate, then it makes sense to include them. Especially, if I one feels that time has softened the recollection of the horrors of that day. If it makes you feel better to couch this in an accusatory tone and associate me with being “guilty” of something, so be it. Be careful though, some readers might be swayed by emotion by such language. Byt the way, I find it interestinig that you’ve spent all this time arguing with me about where you differ, but you have not chosen to comment to any of the others who you disagree with about a position you eveidently take very seriously. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/256 "2006-06-29T18:05:18Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Actuallly, my primary objective was to send a clear signal that those 3,000 lives were part of the discussion. I wanted to bring the issue to a head. People kept whing about it even after I had explained its fairness and appropriateness. Still, I was surprised at the quick number of vitriolic posts. Bringing the issue to a head is all well and good, but if you’re using hoping to access an emotional response to that most important statement of the issue, that doesn’t suggest that your reasoned arguments have much worth. After all, if you needed to resort to emotions in order to get your point across, surely that suggests your arguments aren’t that good? > [@](#): > > I am not of the opinion that people on this board are incapable of asknowledging an emotional component, which is inseperable from the arguement in some debates, and not confusing that with reason. Maybe I was wrong. It looks that way. But here’s the difference; pointing out that 9/11 has a lot to say about this situation is both reasoned and (inevitably) emotional. But showing pictures of the WTC alongside that argument _only_ have an emotional component, and are unnecessary. > [@](#): > > Not to bypass, but to be taken into account. You say you agree that mentioniing the 3,000 people who were killed on 9/11 is in bounds. Good. But that has an emotional component, as well. Are the pictures stronger in that regard? Yes. But if one thinks, as I do, that the emotional component should be part of the debate, then it makes sense to include them. Especially, if I one feels that time has softened the recollection of the horrors of that day. There’s a big difference, though, between _recognising_ the emotional component and actively using it to take the place of reasoned debate. Your arguments were failing, and you tried to prop them up with the extra emotional hit of the pictures. If that emotional context is there anyway, why didn’t you refer to those pictures in your first post on the issue? > [@](#): > > If it makes you feel better to couch this in an accusatory tone and associate me with being “guilty” of something, so be it. Be careful though, some readers might be swayed by emotion by such language. I don’t deny there’s an emotional context to this issue. I’m using accusatory language because, well, i’m accusing you; it’s not something I can avoid. If, though, I had called you a Bush apologist or a traitor (something I don’t believe, by the way), that would have been an unnecessary addition to the emotional component of my argument. Sure, it would likely get more people on my side; but it would be disrescpectful of people’s right to make up their own minds, and it would dishonourable. > [@](#): > > Byt the way, I find it interestinig that you’ve spent all this time arguing with me about where you differ, but you have not chosen to comment to any of the others who you disagree with about a position you eveidently take very seriously. Why is that? For starters, i’m not going to reply to every drive-through post on either side of this issue; there really isn’t any point, to which I’d hope you agree. As for the more reasoned arguments; I don’t believe i’m able to change anyone’s mind on this issue. As much as i’d like to be, I am not as good a debater as some in this thread, and i’d rather leave the convincing to them, who know more about this issue, than to attempt to do so myself. In my argument with you, however, I _do_ feel that I know what i’m talking about, so I feel comfortable in addressing your posts. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/257 "2006-06-29T18:11:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m sure there is some truth in what you say. On the other hand, there is a legitimate debate to be had on this issue. While Bush said he was going to go after finances, he did not divulge the means by which he would do it. It is very likely that the terrorists thought that he would simply take only those actions that many on these would be comfortable with. John Gotti knew the Feds were listening in. But if there was an article divulging that there was a bug in that upstairs apartment, their efforts would not have been so fruitful. But that’s not even slightly comparable. Again: the only actual new public information that was released was that this program may have been violating the finance laws of several foriegn nations and raises major privacy concerns. I don’t see how that helps terrorists in the slightest. It matters to them that the President didn’t use Form 1235 but used Form 4456 instead? And on top of that, it seems that this program was considered basically obsolete in 2004: the terrorists had ALREADY caught onto what was going on and had stopped using the channels that this watches. The source of actionable intelligence had basically dried up. Apparently, the American people are always the last to know. And as it further turns out: attempts to quash this story have been described as “half-hearted” on behalf of the actual intelligence community. To me, that pretty much says in screaming red letters that the sole purpose of the secrecy at this point was yet again simply political ass-covering. As study after study has found, large portions of the classification seem devoted to covering up embarrasing facts rather than any legitimate national security concern. It looks like that is the case here. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/258 "2006-06-29T18:25:08Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > that pretty much says in screaming red letters that the sole purpose of the secrecy at this point was yet again simply political ass-covering. As study after study has found, large portions of the classification seem devoted to covering up embarrasing facts rather than any legitimate national security concern. It looks like that is the case here. This abuse of the classification system weakens the protection of legitimate national security secrets for obvious reasons, and engaging in the former should be punished as severely as exposing the latter. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/259 "2006-06-29T19:49:40Z")
Admist all the noise with **magellan01’s** latest bone-headed accusations, did I miss the post where **Evil One** apologized for his misguided OP, given that the White House and the WSJ already yapped about SWIFT years ago? ---
**Author:** ![KJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b2d939/32.png) [@KJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KJ)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2006, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359/260 "2006-06-29T19:49:54Z")
I agree that 9/11 is relevant to the discussion. If you’re trying to get people to understand why someone would start a program like this, I fully understand _why_ they might do it. But you lose me when you make the jump from “We should be doing whatever we can to stop future terrorist attacks” to “We should be doing whatever we can to stop future terrorist attacks, including spying on our citizens and possibly violating the constitution.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-short-sighted-self-serving-twits-at-the-new-york-times/362359.md?page=14)