« Freed German Moonbat Praises Her Terrorist Captors | Main | Democrats Stampeding Off Cliff? »

December 28, 2005

NY Times Toys With Treason

It's common knowledge now that the erstwhile "paper of record" — the New York Times — has become so devoted to its sophomoric ideology that it can no longer be considered a reliable source of news. Its obsession with race at the expense of ability gave us Jayson Blair; its obsession with dragging down the President at the expense of our country is giving us something much worse. An editorial in yesterday's New York Post notes that the Gray Lady is approaching the line between partisan propaganda and treason.

There seems to be no regard for the collateral damage caused by irresponsible attempts to embarrass the Bush Administration. The much-hyped wiretapping "scandal" — whereby the Times strategically revealed that the NSA has been listening in to phone calls to terrorists overseas — involved publishing classified information that will impede efforts to defend against the next 9/11.

But our safety is hardly a concern of the Times; it's happy to supply ammo to far-left Democrats and media allies like CNN and CBS, who are now screeching for the President to be impeached for taking common sense (and hardly unprecedented) steps to block the next big terror attack. By highly dubious coincidence, the Times released this story (after sitting on it for a year) on the day the Senate was to vote to overcome a Democratic filibuster against renewing the Patriot Act, which pretty much all grownups and even a lot of Democrats agree is a crucial tool in our defense against Islamic terrorism. According to the Post, "[a]t least two previously undecided senators said they voted against the act precisely because of the Times piece."

Aiming a blunderbuss at the Bush Administration and shooting the head off our national security is getting to be standard procedure at the Times. Its highly detailed accounts of the CIA running its own airline service disguised as a private charter company so that it could come and go without terrorists being the wiser was another unnecessary barricade thrown in the path of those trying to protect the pampered little left-wing elitists at the Times — as well as the rest of us — from getting blown to bits in the next al Qaeda attack.

Even at the local level, the Times can be counted on to undermine the defense of public order, as when it announced last week that the NYPD uses plainclothes officers to make sure protest demonstrations don't get out of hand, even publishing pictures of undercover officers, with no effort made to protect their identities. This not only makes it more difficult to prevent the next moonbat rally from degenerating into Seattle in 1999 — it also impedes the ability of undercover NYPD officers to defend against terrorism.

After touching on all of these stories, the Post sums up:

Does The New York Times consider itself a law unto itself — free to subversively undercut basic efforts by any government to protect and defend its citizens?
The Times, it appears, is less concerned with promoting its dubious views on civil liberties than with undercutting the Bush administration. The end result of the paper's flagrant irresponsibility: Lives have been put in danger on the international, national and local levels.
The ability of the nation to perform the most fundamental mission of any government — protection of its citizens — has been pointlessly compromised.
The Jayson Blair and Judith Miller fiascoes were high-profile embarrassments for The Times, but at the end of the day mostly damaged the newspaper alone.
The NSA, CIA and NYPD stories are of a different order of magnitude — they place in unnecessary danger the lives of U.S. citizens.
The New York Times — a once-great and still-powerful institution — is badly in need of adult supervision.

Hat tip: Varla

Posted by Van Helsing at December 28, 2005 8:53 AM


Odd how the left went apoplectic because of the "leak" of the name of a non-covert CIA bureaucrat... but when it comes to a leak that actually helps terrorists, dead silence.

I guess the left only cares about National Security when it gives them cover to bash Bush.

Posted by: V the K at December 28, 2005 11:33 AM

During WWII, people were warned that "loose lips sink ships."

Nowadays, the Left has decided "loose lips are our constitutional right."

At this point, I'd say the Left is hoping and praying for a new 9/11, just so their conspiracy theories and lies can be the truth. The ashes will still be smoldering as they yell "SEE! We told you Bush made us less safe!"

Posted by: Targetpractice at December 28, 2005 12:11 PM

It is a sad state of affairs when you use The Post as your justification. It is the responsibility of the media to provide us with the goings on of our government. "Loose Lips sink ships" was never an issue of the media, although I like how people try and make it fit.

Of course during World War II, we had men of honor that told Congress what they were doing, and followed the letter of the law. They did NOT go about spying on Americans Illegally (you had to wait for McCarthy for that to start).

The "Secret Courts" have rarely (if ever) denied a warrant request, and are there for this SPECIFIC REASON. So why did the White House circumvent it? Because they think they "know better." I am not totally against what they did (despite what you may be thinking), but HOW they went about it. If they had gotten the proper warrants, this is a non-issue.

And how exactly did the reporting of the fact that the President believes he is above the law "help" the terrorists? Do you think Osama bin Laden is getting the New York Times delivered to his cave?

(You can be SURE he isn't reading a rag like The New York Post... yellow journalism one step above "The Inquirer")

Posted by: JayMonster at December 28, 2005 12:37 PM

Do you think Osama bin Laden is getting the New York Times delivered to his cave?

It must be not be coming to your cave too.

You are an imbecile if you think a printed newspaper is the only way information is disseminated in this world.

You just lost every single argument you will ever put forth by this display of sheer ignorance.

Posted by: Doug at December 28, 2005 1:33 PM

How has the NYT story hurt national security?

Only an idiot would believe his calls were not being tapped if he was a terrorist.

Who has really hurt our national security and put American lives at risk is George W. Bush.

He wasted time and manpower spying on American citizens instead of real terrorists.

And now, suspected terrorists are suing to have their cases thrown out because Bush ordered illegal wiretaps.

Way to go W.

All he had to do was follow the law. But that's too hard for the frat boy.

Posted by: Ronald Reagan at December 28, 2005 2:59 PM

He wasted time and manpower spying on American citizens instead of real terrorists.


And as usual, no proof whatsoever. Just lots of tin foil.

Posted by: Doug at December 28, 2005 3:14 PM

The NYT "toys with treason" -

No, it's more like they sat on the floor and shook out the entire treason-toy BOX, selecting the brightest and shiniest sharp objects from the pile with evil gleams in their little eyes and a trickle of drool on their chins.

WHEN is the Times going to be held fully accountable? When?

Posted by: Laura at December 29, 2005 9:54 AM

--He wasted time and manpower spying on American citizens instead of real terrorists.


And as usual, no proof whatsoever. Just lots of tin foil.--

Excuse me. Have you not followed this issue at all?

That's what liberals are upset about. That's what the NSA is upset about. Bush wasn't spying on real terrorists -- at least 4,000 wiretaps and not a single arrest?

DoD and FBI documents show the government has been spying on Catholic high schools and Quaker meeting houses -- not exactly al Qaeda hangouts.

That's a lot of manpower taken away from the real war on terror.

Meanwhile, we and our Iraqi allies capture and set free the number one terrorist in Iraq.

Maybe if we'd devoted resources to putting his picture up in Iraqi police stations instead of chasing teenage girls in hot little school uniforms Bush would have protected America AND our Constitution.

Again. How did telling the world about warrantless wiretaps hurt national security?

Do you really believe terrorists don't expect their phones to be tapped?

Posted by: Ronald Reagan at December 29, 2005 11:16 AM

When will you stop besmirching the name Ronald Reagan with your foolishness?

One name, asswipe- Ayman Faris. He was stopped by NSA wiretaps, and he's not the only one.

Suck it, moron.

Posted by: LC Triplenecksteel at December 29, 2005 3:20 PM