As you very likely know by now, the New York Times published an article exposing a legally-questionable bank record
collection program conducted by the Bush Administration. The right-wing is in a
fury at the Times piece.
Assuming that Bush is only interested in fighting terrorism and not conducing propaganda or squelching political opposition with this program, which we can't confirm because the bank records are not collected under judicial oversight, the right-wing is lashing out at the times for exposing anti-terror strategy. (I highly recommend James Wolcott's hilarious piece about their hyperbole and ad hominem attacks). Bush and the cabal have all but accused the Times of treason.
However, if George Bush, Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez want to scream at the New York Times until vessels pop in their heads, they may want to first think about what attention to this topic will expose about their credibility and anti-terror track record with financial information. Bush's record shows he chose his pal's profits over national security.
Indeed, financial surveillance in the name of fighting terror is a well-known practice. It is absurd to argue that the article published by the Times is exposing anti-terror methods and that terrorist organizations were oblivious to financial surveillance when these methods in a general sense have been public knowledge since (at least) the Clinton Administration. I suppose the argument remains that terrorist groups did not know that the particular bank records mentioned by the Times are being watched because they are private records of U.S. banks. But after Bush admitted to breaking the law in order to listen to our phone conversations without a warrant, I don't find that argument very convincing.
Of course those that question the utility and legality of this program will be accused of having a "pre-911 mindset," but what was the right-wing's Dear Leader doing before 9/11 to protect us? Apparently, helping his buddies profit was more important than protecting us from terrorism.
Bush Halted Clinton's Momentum to Track Terrorist Bank Records Until After 9/11
Time Magazine reported that in October of 2000, with the cooperation of Congress, Bill Clinton added a special new division to the Department of the Treasury called the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center. The Center was devoted to protecting Americans from potential violence by following the money of organizations that wished to do the U.S. harm. Clinton created the center under his last budget. But after Bush took office, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gutted the Center by refusing to allocate funds. The refusal was motivated by pressure from the banking lobby along with think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation. These organizations were devoted to de-regulating offshore banking, apparently without concern with protecting citizens from terrorist acts.
Deregulation of offshore banking, a keystone in avoiding tax liability for the wealthy, was more important than terrorist surveillance.
In a tacit admission of mistaken policy, the Bush Administration "suddenly got religion" for tracking terrorist financing immediately after the towers fell.
Bush Halted Clinton's Momentum to Stop Bin Laden Funding With Money Laundering Laws
In addition to failing to fund the terrorist tracking program, Bush opposed money laundering laws that were in place to stop Bin Laden from gaining financial resources.
Anti-terror badass Richard Clarke, the man holding the reins as the 9/11 attacks unfolded, discussed in his book Against All Enemies how, in contrast to Clinton's proactive approach to strangling bin Laden, George Bush was concerned with other things. From www.cooperativeresearch.org:
Counterterrorism "tsar" Richard Clarke will later claim that efforts to track al-Qaeda's finances began to make significant headway in 2000, after Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin stepped down and was replaced by Larry Summers. But, Clarke will claim, "When the Bush administration came into office, I wanted to raise the profile of our efforts to combat terrorist financing, but found little interest. The new President's economic advisor, Larry Lindsey, had long argued for weakening US anti-money laundering laws in a way that would undercut international standards. The new Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, was lukewarm at best toward the multilateral effort to 'name and shame' foreign money laundering havens, and allowed the process to shut down before the status of Saudi Arabian cooperation was ever assessed." [Clarke, 2004, pp. 195-196]
The esteemed Center for American Progress (scroll down to the "Bush-Riggs Connection") provides a potential corrupt motive for rejecting money laundering laws as a means to break Osama bin Laden: family profit. Jonathan Bush, W's uncle, received a new appointment as CEO of Riggs Bank's investment operation shortly after his nephew was elected President. Essentially, as the Center for American Progress explains, with astonishing ambivalence to the anti-terror utility of money laundering laws, Bush wanted to re-open those financial channels because they were a severe impediment to Riggs, and other banks, from profiting from overseas transactions that fell into the money laundering umbrella.
When you consider Bush disregarding the security briefing entitled ""Bin Laden determined to strike in US"," it appears that on 9/11 Bush went from depraved ambivalence to terrorism to immediately enacting a host of illegal and potentially illegal programs that shattered the notion of citizen privacy. Or, to get more cynical, he enacted a host of programs that (arguably) searched for terrorists while simultaneously allowing him to enact policies that funnel money to his uncle and coddle his "interests" by de-regulating offshore banking.
Perhaps the Bush Administration would be better off following the law to fight terrorism. How well this program comports with privacy laws is still up in the air because bank records are treated differently than wiretaps. Nonetheless, there would be no story if there was no potential for illegality. Thus, had the President kept his nose out of American citizen's private affairs, there would be no New York Times article, there would be no boy-cried-wolf outrage, and we wouldn't be compelled to examine Bush's past scorecard on anti-terror policies.