New York Times: Aiding and Abetting the Terrorists
Are you bothered by the fact that our Liberal media not only roots for our enemies, but also takes every opportunity to help them whenever possible? Think back to the first Gulf War and the frequent press conferences where the reporters would ask such stupid questions as "Where will the troops be operating today?" Remember the outcry from the parents of enlisted men and women to get the reporters to shut up? SNL even produced a skit about these stupid questions.
This is a new War on Terrorism, but some members of the Liberal media are still asking stupid questions. Others have taken their anti-American agenda underground. Case in point: A recent New York Times report describes the methods used by our intelligence agencies to trace financial transactions to the source.
It is a known fact that terrorists use the international banking system to finance terror efforts. It's much easier and lower profile than toting suitcases of cash. You might remember the Vin Diesel movie XXX in which Samuel L. Jackson orders Diesel's character to investigate the financial transactions of the suspected terrorists. The Nicolas Cage movie Lord of War also uses this as a central theme ... but Hollywood leaves out the details of how all the tracing is accomplished. Not so with the Liberal media.
The Washington Post and the New York Times are the two most notorious co-conspirators for the terrorists. There are other newspapers named in the investigation. I will not reprint the Times report here. Some lawmakers are calling the disclosure of the tracing methods treasonous. One thing is clear: The Liberal media will do whatever it takes to undermine the effort in Iraq - even if it means more casualties. Okay - I have a stupid question: When will the Liberal media realize it is fooling no one?
posted by David @ 5:45 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Nicholas Kristof:
With President Bush leading a charge against this "disgraceful" newspaper, and a conservative talk show host, Melanie Morgan, suggesting that maybe The Times's executive editor should be executed for treason, we face a fundamental dispute about the role of the news media in America.
At stake is the administration's campaign to recast the relationship between government and press.
...
Take Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Senator Roberts has criticized The Times, but he himself is responsible for an egregious disclosure of classified intelligence. As National Journal reported in April, it was Senator Roberts who stated as the Iraq war began that the U.S. had "human intelligence that indicated the location of Saddam Hussein."
That statement horrified some in our intelligence community by revealing that we had an agent close to Saddam.
No responsible newspaper would risk an agent's life so blithely. And The Times would never have been as cavalier about Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as the White House was. The fact is, journalists regularly hold back information for national security reasons; I recently withheld information at the request of the intelligence community about secret terrorist communications.
...
More broadly, the one thing worse than a press that is "out of control" is one that is under control. Anybody who has lived in a Communist country knows that. Just consider what would happen if the news media as a whole were as docile to the administration as Fox News or The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
When I was covering the war in Iraq, we reporters would sometimes tune to Fox News and watch, mystified, as it purported to describe how Iraqis loved Americans. Such coverage (backed by delusional Journal editorials baffling to anyone who was actually in Iraq) misled conservatives about Iraq from the beginning. In retrospect, the real victims of Fox News weren't the liberals it attacked but the conservatives who believed it.
Historically, we in the press have done more damage to our nation by withholding secret information than by publishing it. One example was this newspaper's withholding details of the plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion. President Kennedy himself suggested that the U.S. would have been better served if The Times had published the full story and derailed the invasion.
Then there were the C.I.A. abuses that journalists kept mum about until they spilled over and prompted the Church Committee investigation in the 1970's. And there are secrets we should have found, but didn't: in the run-up to the Iraq war, the press — particularly this newspaper — was too credulous about claims that Iraq possessed large amounts of W.M.D.
No, [Anonymous], I'm not in Kansas anymore! My Conservative friends, the comment above was obviously posted by a believer in the Hit and Run Liberal Media. It is a copy and paste job from a Nicholas Kristof editorial (that's opinion, for those of you educated in the public skrewl). Kristof works at the New York Times. Of course, the Times is going to attempt to squirm out of this - but the tide has turned. And real people no longer pay attention to the Liberal Media - well, unless your name is [Anonymous].
Most of Kristof's editorial has to do with Pat Roberts (R-Kansas). This is just more Liberal misdirection and twisting of the truth. I feel sorry for Nicholas Kristof and his short-sightedness. File Kristof's backstory about Pat Roberts under Big Liberal Lie.
First, Roberts did not reveal anything. Roberts said what he said in public to a bunch of newspaper editors. How does that compare with [Anonymous] sources tipping off the New York Times in secret about a program that no one knows about? It doesn’t.
Second, what Roberts said was common sense, and was in fact not what Murray Waas (another Liberal NYTimes liar ... er, reporter) makes it out to be. Dana Priest (a Washington Post reporter) wrote an article stating that the tip on Saddam’s location came from sources in close proximity to Saddam’s whereabouts, not from within Saddam’s inner circle. Eventually, these sources turned out to be incorrect.
None of those human sources were in any danger, since none of them were from within Saddam’s inner circle. If they were from Saddam’s inner circle, obviously we would have known exactly where he was. Murray Waas has since been discredited in his accusations against Pat Roberts.
Last, Roberts made his comments AFTER the event in which the intelligence he was talking about had been used. There was no reason to keep withholding that information because it had served its purpose, and absolutely no one was put in jeopardy by releasing it.
As for Kristof's mention of the Valerie Plame leak, the information is obviously dated. Since the editorial, Scooter Libby has been acquitted of all charges and no other Bush Administration officials have been accused. After all the Liberal whining and lying, there is no scandal here. In hindsight, Kristof's editorial is laughable at best. I'm sure he wishes he'd never written it.
Post a Comment
<< Home