One Laptop found, but theories remain

To follow up on an earlier post.....

The Washington Post writes how the Veterans Affairs laptop was found.

All the information was there, untouched. However, in this modern computer era, things can be copied.

This information coupled with the ING missing Laptop equals a simple cross referencing. Who would they find?

My theory is this, to find one piece of information, hide it among the many, cross reference with financial information(interesting how the US government was trying to do the same thing with the terrorists....) and the person they are looking for is on Rumsfeld's staff.

I hope I'm wrong.

I am Palpatine!

Yes, it's true, I like Star Wars. Of course, I would turn out to like The Emperor. I liked Darth Vader growing up. He had the coolest theme music. Find out your character, take this test.

Living in Cloud cuckoo Land, Pt 2

Did you read all that? Good.

We have a war going on between two parts of the Constitution. The President and Treasury Department represent Article Two, and The New York Times represents the First Amendment. By all rights, there shouldn't be a fight, but when has the NYT ever supported anything the Bush Administration does?

I want to pose a theory for all the defenders of the NYT like the Kossites and James Wolcott. These haters all believe something must be done for the Global War on Terror [GWOT]. OK, let's go over what they have stopped:

1. No listening devices for international calls.
2. No protecting the Border
3. No "watchlist" of the people who plan to attack us (Have you ever seen a Jewish terrorist attack American cities? No. Then why can't we check for Arab terrorists. Leon Klinghoffer must be turning in his grave.).
4. And now, we cannot track the monetary transactions.

What Keller, Wolcott, and the Kossites believe is: If Bush does it, it must be evil. The President have the right and the power to protect us from another attack, how many troops do the Kossites have?

What bothers me that this war between the Amendment and the Article is that both sides are Americans and the Amendment people are willing to sacrifice Americans on that alter. Will James Wolcott defend an American from Alabama to defend his Amendment Two rights? The answer is no, he doesn't care about the person if they support Bush.

We are now blind and defenseless against the next terrorist attack in the United States or in Iraq. I lay the blood of the next attack at the feet of Bill Keller, the Kossites and James Wolcott. I hope they can sleep at night knowing they turned America into 1990 Tel Aviv.

Living in Cloud Cuckoo Land, pt. 1

First read Instapundit, then Hugh Hewitt, Patterico and Michelle Malkin.

Here is Bill Keller's explanation.

This is the John Snow's reply:

Full letter:
Mr. Bill Keller, Managing EditorThe New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036

Dear Mr. Keller:
The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.
Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.
Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror.
Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.
You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.
Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.
What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.
Sincerely,
[signed]
John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

Irony, thy name is ACLU

Read this.

Too close for coincidence

First, Veteran's Affairs and now, ING.

Both Laptops stolen in DC metro reigon. Who is next and what is being looked for?

Anyone have any ideas?

Stay tuned

The lack of posting is due to a few a few reasons:

A) Writing the Seven Chapter Essay (The prologue will be posted on the second Tuesday in July) on the trends for the 2006 and 2008 elections. Remember, when you win your bets on both elections, just send me 10% of your winnings.

B) Also in July, there will be a new roll-out for the blog. The Valley of the Shadow will be back stronger then before (with more Delacroix posts!).

C) It's spring!

The bellweather

The last special election before a general (in November) election is always known as a Bellweather. This would always be used by the prognosticator and pundits like Michael Barone to determine how the tide will go later that year. Back in 1994, it was Kentucky Congressional District 2 [CD]. William Natcher had just died and his election brought forth the first Republican of the 104th Congress.

So, what does that have to do with today? Everywhere you looked in California, the talk was about California CD-50. A little history, Randy "Duke" Cunningham had stepped down because of personal corruption this year. Yesterdays primary election decided whether the seat will fall to the Dems or remain Republican. If this is the Bellweather, then the Republican Congress has no worry.

I am building the case as to why. Watch this space.

Shhh.....

I am at the UCLA Library right now. It is very peaceful on campus and the information is here to be tapped. However, try going through files over 12 years old (I am studying elections from 1988 - 1998 to prove my theory). There are many haystacks and fewer needles. Wish me luck.....