AIM Report - New York Times Aids Al Qaeda

Accuracy In Media (AIM) ^ | Feb. 4, 2006 | Wes Vernon

[FairOpinion]

The media double standard on the stories of two leak investigations is striking.

On the one hand, Washington newshounds demanded to know who leaked the name of desk-bound CIA bureaucrat Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak.

Contrast that with the way the media handled news the Justice Department is investigating to determine those who leaked information to the New York Times that the National Security Agency (NSA) monitored phone calls from al-Qaeda terrorists to persons in the U.S. Suddenly, these same media mavens reacted in horror that anyone would think of harassing "whistleblowers."

A 22-year veteran of the Air Force contacted AIM with a different opinion. He noted that top secret information is defined as material whose release could cause grave damage to the United States. He asked, "What would you call information that allows Osama bin Laden to avoid capture or allow his plans to proceed?"

He added, "Somebody blabbed some secrets that were way above anything I ever had access to. If there is Justice, those same bodies will get to do some hard time in North East Kansas—meaning Leavenworth."

[FairOpinion]

Long, but very interesting article.

[STARWISE]

Words that reverberate and SCREAM the truth:

Author Richard Miniter told CBN that "I think the news judgment of the news directors and editors at major broadcast outlets and newspapers is profoundly blinkered by politics. They think of this war on terror as Bush's war, not America's war."

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Bumps

[CMS]

very interesting article

New York Times Aids Al Qaeda
In other news water is wet and the sun is hot

[patj]

So, do you think if we are ever attacked again we can bring a lawsuit against the NYT et al, for the part they played in that attack?

[pookie18]

[Ed_in_NJ]

We should certainly pursue that avenue, to see if the NYT did violate the law -- they don't get a free pass on treason, just 'cause they're "media."

[libertylover]

They think of this war on terror as Bush's war, not America's war."

I think they see it as an opportunity for their war on Bush instead of America's war on terror.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I will go a little further over the precipice. I think they want the terrorists to win so they can use it to beat Bush. They can't seem to see past their political noses as to the meaning of that.

[Fedora]

Thanks for the ping! Besides the NYT stuff, the info on Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson in that article is very interesting.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!