Posted on 02/27/2006 8:56:30 AM PST by areafiftyone
In a startling breach of international etiquette, the New York Times today warned foreign intelligence services not to assist the United States. The warning was backed by public disclosure of highly secretive assistance provided to the U.S. military on the eve of the Iraq War.
"German intelligence services helped the United States invade Baghdad, and will now pay the price," the Times effectively told intelligence services worldwide. As it has in the past, the Times published classified information to bolster its latest attack on U.S. interests.
Foreign intelligence services are now on notice that the so-called "newspaper of record" intends to publicize their interactions with counterparts in the United States, despite any assurances of secrecy.
The Times also warned Middle Eastern leaders that it will disclose any surreptitious help they might provide.
"[Egyptian President] Mubarak quietly allowed United States aerial refueling tankers to be based at an Egyptian airfield," the Times revealed. Such assistance is often a delicate matter for leaders in the region, who in the past have relied on U.S. assurances of secrecy when undertaking actions which might expose them to domestic embarrassment and possible assassination.
The government of Saudi Arabia was another "silent partner," the Times revealed, allowing Delta Force and other American Special Operations Forces to mount attacks in Iraq from a secret base at Arar. Saudi leaders have so far remained silent on the Times' disclosure of their involvement.
I'm all for freedom of the press, but the NYT apparently needs to be reminded that with freedom comes responsibility.
The irresponsible editors and reporters of the NYT need to be held responsible for their actions.
Legally, criminally responsible.
In a startling breach of international etiquette, the New York Times today warned foreign intelligence services not to assist the United States. The warning was backed by public disclosure of highly secretive assistance provided to the U.S. military on the eve of the Iraq War."German intelligence services helped the United States invade Baghdad, and will now pay the price," the Times effectively told intelligence services worldwide. As it has in the past, the Times published classified information to bolster its latest attack on U.S. interests.
If Germany believed that Saddam posed no threat then why did they have intelligence agents in Iraq?
And for the record, the NY Times appears to be recycling old Michael Moore rants:
Michael Moore: Iraqi terrorists are "minutemen", American troops must shed blood (4/14/04)
I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end.
This also sounds like a security leak. A disclosure that could put agents lives in jeopardy.
But the NYTimes only believes that charge exists in the Plame case.
Jesus H. Christ.
This is nothing more or less than total collaboration with the enemy. This is the definition of treason.
""German intelligence services helped the United States invade Baghdad, and will now pay the price," the Times effectively told intelligence services worldwide. As it has in the past, the Times published classified information to bolster its latest attack on U.S. interests."
- Sounds like a threat to me. Sounds like treason. Why is nothing being done about this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.