New York Times
posted in General |NEW YORK TIMES
The big question in Washington DC nowadays is whether the New York Times should be punished for divulging highly classified information – even after having been requested by the President (and others) not to publish their story. The Times, of course, stiff-armed the President et al and published the story on their front page.
Several aspects of this story are not in dispute. The voluminous information published by the NYT concerned the US Governmet tracking financial transactions all over the world to get a handle on those who finance the bloody rampages of Al Qaeda, the “home base” of the Islamin terrorists. There is no question that the data gathered has been very helpful in our war against terrorism. By the same token, there is no doubt that the disclosed data is of significant value to the terrorists who are trying to kill all Americans and defeat our efforts in Iraq. There is also no question that the NYT (especially front page and Op-Ed pages) are left wingers opposed to the Iraq war, George Bush and anyone who stands with him, the Republicans, and the entire Bush administration. Translation, anything that is opposed to George Bush is good, and there are no holds barred in disclosing information that is damaging to George Bush.
With ultra left wing writers such as Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd (wonder where she parks her broom?), it doesn't take a genius long to confirm the radical left ideology of the Times. And their unctuous grey haired leader, Bill Keller, comes on TV to support their publication of the story based on the flimsy “right to know” premise — totally ignoring that Americans are being killed by the very people they are helping. When I see the notion of free speech carried that far I am filled with both contempt and shame. As you might suspect, I do not subscribe to the NYT and probably will not subscribe until well after the Pope gets married.
If indeed Al Qaeda benefits from the contemptible actions of the Times, what should be the remedy ? Treason? Seems to me that the very definition might fit. It would be a real battle in Congress – CSpan might even get a top rating for a few months. I sure would watch. But maybe a better solution would be to deny NYT press passes to attend White House briefings or Presidential Press Conferences. Let's say that the ban would not go beyong the end of the Iraqi War(whenever that might be) — barring any other underhanded stunts by the Times. And if they don't like it, tough! More than anything, I hope and pray that we will not just pass over the indiscretions of the NYT as being “just another bump in the road”. With Congressional elections coming up in November, I hope that the good guys will regularly beat the NYT drum so that all Americans will know where the Times and their so-called “unbiased” word merchants stand. Since the NYT is so openly hostile to George Bush, is there some reason that we cannot convey our view of the Times and its editorial bias in no uncretain terms?
Zinging Republicans is one thing: giving aid and comfort to the enemy is something else.