NY Times 'Stonewalling' on NSA Leak (Why am I not surprised?)

NewsMax ^ | January 2, 2006 | Carl Limbacher

[Kaslin]

New York Times executives are "stonewalling" on questions about the paper's decision to publish top secret information about the Bush administration's use of the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance operations against terrorists, the paper's public editor charged on Sunday.

"The New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate," public editor Byron Calame wrote in a New Years Day column.

In its initial report on Dec. 16, Times said that editors held the story at the request of the White House, then edited out some - but not all - of the information that Bush administration officials warned would compromise national security.

But a frustrated-sounding Calame said that explanation wasn't good enough, adding: "I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency."

"For the first time since I became public editor, the executive editor and the publisher have declined to respond to my requests for information about news-related decision-making," he lamented.

Three days after the Times began publishing the national security secrets, Calame says he emailed a list of 28 questions to executive editor Bill Keller, who "promptly declined to respond to them."

He then sent the same questions to Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who also declined to respond. "They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future," Calame said.

He accused the two top Times officials of "stonewalling," adding, "The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts."

[jbp1]

What is ironic is that they will not provide reasons for their decision to publish, while attacking/subverting their own government for its decision to not provide an explanation for its intelligence gathering.

The difference is that the government (we hope and trust) has our national security interests to consider before blabbing, whereas the hacks at NYT only are covering their butts and their left-leaning friends in DC.

The NYT AND the leaker(s) are traitors, aren't they?

[jwalsh07]

No problem.

Where do I send the bill? :-}

[daler]

Respectfully, I'm old enough to remember when Watergate was a "third-rate burglary" of little or no concern or consequence to anyone but George McGovern.

The Slimes and the Dems worked overtime to change all that.

Incidentally, ask any middle-schooler about Watergate and they'll tell you it was Nixon the Crook ordering a burglary (he didn't).

Revising history is so easy when you control the media and the schools.

[randog]

If you don't wanna get mad, don't go here!

Nothing to get mad about over there--just juvenile logic. Pathetic more than anything else.

[randog]

I say, "Bring it on!". If the left wants Nixon Redux then let's do it. There's a marked difference between spying on your political enemies and spying on the nation's confessed enemies who have repeatedly attacked us, once with great effect on our own soil.

The entire nation is behind the President on this because it's so simple a child can understand it. The left is so blinded by their hatred that all they see is a chance to "Get Bush". I think this is going to hurt them, and hurt them badly, if they continue to push it. The NYT is already in bunker mode--they know they went too far, like a petulant teenager that finally pushes too hard.

[ThirstyMan]

Calame was pissed the Times didn't do more to politically damage Bush.

Yes that is true. His cause for alarm was certainly not rooted in the issues that we conservatives are concerned about!

And Calame also complained that perhaps the NYT was afraid that it was soon to be scooped by the guy with his upcoming (Jan release) "tell-all" book.

[Kaslin]

Yes

[Kaslin]

A coincidence? Very doubtful. They knew exactly what they were doing

[lapsus calami]

 

 

I am absolutely livid about this sort of activity. It assists no one but the enemy, period.

 

I want them hung, shot, guillotined, burned at the stake, drawn and quartered, impaled, wrapped in wet cow leather and left in the desert on top of an ant bed. Not necessarily in that order.

 

In their reckless pursuit to trash and bring down one man, they are endangering my family, my friends, my neighbors, and heightened the length and lethality of the missions of all our troops around the world.

 

They constantly seek to incite punishment and even death upon the very people who work hard to oppose and stop those who mean us harm.

 

It's high time that crowd received a just and binding punishment of their own, just for them.

 

 

 

[Kaslin]

My prediction is the left will end up with eggs in their faces. Life is sweet

[bayliving]

which it had.

Looks to me like they are still there.

[doug from upland]

first six stories in the NEW YORK TIMES TREASON SERIES

[conservative physics]

what !?! it is freaking so illegal to be a communist spy, actively seeking the overthrow of the US government, it's called treason.

[Mia T]

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES

by Mia T, December 29, 2005

 

 

COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH FOOTNOTES

[Kaslin]

How dare President Bush protect the country from another 9/11 or even worse. We can't have that. The terrorists must be allowed to attack this country again

< /sarcasm>

[Mia T]

It's incredible how the left cannot understand the political or psychological dynamic.

[lawnguy]

The Republicans had better develop some cajones, or the libs will make this another Watergate.

Also a good test for the AG and the FBI director. Let's see how serious THEY are.

[beyond the sea]

I see this differently. For me, however, the most obvious question is still this: If no one at The Times was aware of the eavesdropping prior to the election, why wouldn't the paper have been eager to make that clear to readers in the original explanation and avoid that politically charged issue? The paper's silence leaves me with uncomfortable doubts.

Now it looks like this editor is going to try to pretend to anyone who is stupid enough to read this (me) that the NYT was perhaps trying to help G.W. before the election by not printing this story.

These people are so Effin bizarrely foolish! What a plan!!

LOL

[Kaslin]

Well I've come to the decision. If the lunatics on the left want the terrorists to come in and kill them it's their privilege. I however refuse to let the terrorist kill me and my family. And I thank God for President Bush who wants to protect the country

[Kaslin]

Thank you for the links, they will come in very handy in my fight against the lunatics in Boston Tea Party chat