Enough Already!
In the tradition of the late propagandist Walter Duranty, the New York Times simply cannot help but provide support for anyone but the United States. Sometimes, though enough is enough. There is a point where you cross the line into the absurd.
In the past, I've refrained from commenting on the Times blatant Secrets for Pulitzer campaign Bill Keller seems determined to run. Many of the stories have been about partisan politics, so you're just batting for one side or the other. The NSA eavesdropping story was questionable, but so were the methods around the program's development. It really depended on which side of the political fence you fell on how that stood. Then there was the call records issue where several major phone companies had cooperated to provide records so that the NSA could run trends and monitor overall patterns of calls to find out who was calling where. That was even less spooky than the eavesdropping, but again it depended on who you asked. With partisan calls for and against it with feigned outrage by Congress persons who already knew about it, the whole issue seemed very paper and fake from the start.
Then there was the banking issue that the Times and others just recently ran. Even the New York and LA Times admitted there was nothing illegal about it. They just didn't trust the government to run a classified program that might help in the War on Terror, so they published pertinent and classified details about it. At this point, many are asking, exactly who's side are you on? Does this explain behaviors like why you won't return Duranty's Pulitzer, or are you just so consumed with hatred for the current administration, you don't care how many Americans you get killed? I suppose, as long as they don't live in the trendy circles that attend the same cocktail parties, "Hear No Evil, See No Evil", right?
Well, now comes the worst of it. The New York Times is publishing troop strength reports for US detachments in the war zone.
The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007...
...General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.
One wonders how we didn't see a Times headline in May of '44 saying "Calais a Feint, Normandy the Real Landing Site, Sources Say." You don't broadcast troop strengths deployments during a time of war, especially from a classified document. That's sort of one of the basics of common sense. If it's a classified briefing, it should have never seen the light of the New York Times' office, much less print. The individual or individuals divulging this information to the Times needs to be found and brought up on charges. At best, they are leaking classified information and at worst it is called treason.
There is no excuse for this one. There's not the "questionable legality" excuse as with the eavesdropping or the "inappropriate cooperation" excuse with the phone records. There's not even the bogus "public interest" excuse they used with the banking story. This is flat out inexcusable. I can't find the words to describe such a wanton disregard for national security. Is national security an overused term? Yes. In sixty years, I believe it's been used more to cover up things the public needed to know about than any other abuse the government has foisted upon us. Thus, I don't think anything should be done to the Times or its staff other than for people to stop subscribing to their rag. They're just opportunist partisans taking advantage of what juicy material they can get their hands on. The real leakers, the government employees, trusted at clearance levels to view these reports who leaked them to an organization that was guaranteed to run with them need to be flushed out and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There are rather stiff penalties for violating your security clearance, and it's about time these individuals were made to pay that price.
But to divulge classified military information, is wanton disregard for the soldiers on the line and their families and supporters here at home. How do you call yourself an American and still attack your own like that? I'm waiting next for the Times to start posting troop strengths and locations of forward bases. Perhaps they could publish maps of perimeter defenses at U.S. bases and maybe even our future ship deployments in the Pacific so that the Chinese and North Koreans could better target them. Where's the Theodore Roosevelt this week, Bill Keller? Beijing demands an update!
As a final comment, I would ask just to peruse some of the rather fitting graphics that have been made and posted on Michelle Malkin's site. I think they fit the "picture's worth 1000 words" saying quite well.
Hat tips to Michelle Malkin and LGF for the heads up on this story.
In the tradition of the late propagandist Walter Duranty, the New York Times simply cannot help but provide support for anyone but the United States. Sometimes, though enough is enough. There is a point where you cross the line into the absurd.
In the past, I've refrained from commenting on the Times blatant Secrets for Pulitzer campaign Bill Keller seems determined to run. Many of the stories have been about partisan politics, so you're just batting for one side or the other. The NSA eavesdropping story was questionable, but so were the methods around the program's development. It really depended on which side of the political fence you fell on how that stood. Then there was the call records issue where several major phone companies had cooperated to provide records so that the NSA could run trends and monitor overall patterns of calls to find out who was calling where. That was even less spooky than the eavesdropping, but again it depended on who you asked. With partisan calls for and against it with feigned outrage by Congress persons who already knew about it, the whole issue seemed very paper and fake from the start.
Then there was the banking issue that the Times and others just recently ran. Even the New York and LA Times admitted there was nothing illegal about it. They just didn't trust the government to run a classified program that might help in the War on Terror, so they published pertinent and classified details about it. At this point, many are asking, exactly who's side are you on? Does this explain behaviors like why you won't return Duranty's Pulitzer, or are you just so consumed with hatred for the current administration, you don't care how many Americans you get killed? I suppose, as long as they don't live in the trendy circles that attend the same cocktail parties, "Hear No Evil, See No Evil", right?
Well, now comes the worst of it. The New York Times is publishing troop strength reports for US detachments in the war zone.
The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007...
...General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.
One wonders how we didn't see a Times headline in May of '44 saying "Calais a Feint, Normandy the Real Landing Site, Sources Say." You don't broadcast troop strengths deployments during a time of war, especially from a classified document. That's sort of one of the basics of common sense. If it's a classified briefing, it should have never seen the light of the New York Times' office, much less print. The individual or individuals divulging this information to the Times needs to be found and brought up on charges. At best, they are leaking classified information and at worst it is called treason.
There is no excuse for this one. There's not the "questionable legality" excuse as with the eavesdropping or the "inappropriate cooperation" excuse with the phone records. There's not even the bogus "public interest" excuse they used with the banking story. This is flat out inexcusable. I can't find the words to describe such a wanton disregard for national security. Is national security an overused term? Yes. In sixty years, I believe it's been used more to cover up things the public needed to know about than any other abuse the government has foisted upon us. Thus, I don't think anything should be done to the Times or its staff other than for people to stop subscribing to their rag. They're just opportunist partisans taking advantage of what juicy material they can get their hands on. The real leakers, the government employees, trusted at clearance levels to view these reports who leaked them to an organization that was guaranteed to run with them need to be flushed out and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There are rather stiff penalties for violating your security clearance, and it's about time these individuals were made to pay that price.
But to divulge classified military information, is wanton disregard for the soldiers on the line and their families and supporters here at home. How do you call yourself an American and still attack your own like that? I'm waiting next for the Times to start posting troop strengths and locations of forward bases. Perhaps they could publish maps of perimeter defenses at U.S. bases and maybe even our future ship deployments in the Pacific so that the Chinese and North Koreans could better target them. Where's the Theodore Roosevelt this week, Bill Keller? Beijing demands an update!
As a final comment, I would ask just to peruse some of the rather fitting graphics that have been made and posted on Michelle Malkin's site. I think they fit the "picture's worth 1000 words" saying quite well.
Hat tips to Michelle Malkin and LGF for the heads up on this story.
posted by Rob Beck | 9:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home