Posted on 06/28/2006 10:07:01 PM PDT by suspects
Forget the warplanes in the skies of Iraq or the Special Forces in the Afghan mountains. Our entire national security strategy — your security from getting gassed in a subway or bombed in an office building — has been reduced to this: begging.
The Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, had to go to the New York Times and literally beg for your life. The Times had found out about yet another successful and legal spy program, and they were planning on letting Al Qaeda know about it, too, by putting it on the front page.
Secretary Snow begged the Times to do the right thing. Two members of the 9/11 Commission — one Republican, one Democrat — pressed the Times not to destroy a terror surveillance program that had already snagged several terrorists. Even John Murtha, Bush-basher extraordinaire, talked to the Times about publishing, though it's not known if he was for or against.
I could have told them: save your breath, guys. When confronted with the opportunity to either a) protect Americans from being blown to smithereens by Islamist whackjobs, or b) take a cheap shot at President Bush, well, for the mainstream media, that's a no-brainer.
"We'll take 'More Dead Americans' for $500, Alec."
You think I exaggerate. You think that the New York Times tipping off Al Qaeda that we're monitoring their international phone calls, their e-mails, and now their formerly anonymous wire transfer activities, that none of this matters?
The 9/11 Commission disagrees with you.
According to their report, any one of these three programs might have prevented the 2001 attack, if only we'd been connecting these dots. Thanks to the New York Times, when the next attack comes, we won't have any dots to connect.
What the New York Times has done is more than just a dispute over journalistic ethics. It's sick. It's reprehensible. If the folks at the Times were in their right mind, they never would have done it.
Once again, you think I exaggerate? "Michael, it's news! And it's their job to publish the news, period." OK, then imagine this scenario: It's one month after 9/11, the Bush administration has just started the Terrorist Funding Tracking Program to prevent the next attack, and an angry Bush-hater in the CIA leaks it to the Times. Do they run this story then? On the front page, along with photos of the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center?
Of course not. If they had, angry, crowbar-carrying New Yorkers would have turned the Times building into an urban renewal project.
My question is "What has changed?" The same people who wanted to kill us five years ago are plotting the next attack right now. The New York Times just made their job easier. Again.
If I could interview the irresponsible editor of the Times, my question would be, "OK, so you're obviously not going to let us spy on Al Qaeda — not their phone calls, e-mails, or finances. Could you tell me then, Captain Genius, exactly how we are supposed to prevent the next attack?"
I predict his answer would be "no comment."
This is not a rhetorical question. The fifth anniversary of 9/11 is fast approaching — the kind of significant date that appeals to Al Qaeda. Homeland security insiders say they'll be stunned if we make it through the year without another attack. In just the past month, two terror cells have been uncovered as they plotted bombing attacks in the US and Canada. It is almost certain that there are Islamists on American soil looking for the chance to kill thousands of us right now.
The New York Times knows about this danger. As they reported themselves, the financial surveillance program they just destroyed caught an Al Qaeda ally laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars for terrorists ... in New York City.
And still, the Times insists "Al Qaeda must know."
Why? According to their own reporting, the program isn't illegal and no American's rights are at risk. So with the odds of aiding Al Qaeda at 100 percent and the probability of preventing constitutional abuses at 0 percent, why the hell run this story?
Hate. Pure, unadulterated, irrational hate. Hating Bush has become such a high, such a narcissistic satisfaction that the Times simply cannot help itself. Hating Bush is like crack for the angry Left, and to get over it the staff of the New York Times would have to enter a 12-step program.
I hope the terrorists don't use the Times information to make their next plot a success. And I hope the gang at the New York Times gets help. Please.
I'm begging you.
There is no political will to stop the Times. The editor-in-chief is a radical leftist. Read his speeches.
Thanks, Michael. Brilliant and insightful as always.
Good to see you here, Michael.
Good to see you here, Michael.
oops...late for me too.
The Times will shortly report the names of it's employee's children which it will committ to slaughter, right? Might as well. ( Sorry folks, ya ain't got rights.)(Oh, not sorry?) How come the Unions ain't all over this? Ain't the chillins worth it to them?
I have always suspected that Felix Dsherzinsky (KGB) made the Sulzbergers an offer that they could not refuse, a Faustian bargain of the highest magnitude. In any event, you can be absolutely certain that JOB #1 at the NY Slimes is the destruction of the United States and our way of life. Their own words convict themselves everyday.
Bump.
Call me crazy, but I've often wondered if some of the wire transfers asked for on (insert the HUGE auction website here) and (innocent buyers are still falling for) are being used to fund terrorism.
I hope Pinchy's life insurance is paid up....his family is likely to need it if his @$$wipe of a paper keeps this up....some people are likely not to be as merciful as me
Why not just boycott the the Times... hurt them where it hurts most for hypocritical rich leftists.
For the first time, I am beginning to fear for our country. My fear is of the power of a man in the NYT's ivory tower who has just possibly passed a death sentence on Americans. Think this man who wishes to be king cares? I never thought I could despise any American as much as I do osama bin laden but I think I do.
As has been quoted in the last couple of days, the NYT in fact demanded tracking of potential terrorist finances etc immediately after 9/11 but now apparently delight in exposing just what they wanted back then. Pitiful.
bttt
It's a nice read, but I have to say that thoughts like this are meaningless in the real world, if your and my leaders aren't going to do anything about treasonous sellout backstabbers. The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, our public servants, anyone with an axe to grind can sell out this nation, or betray it (and most important, the people you know and love) for political gain.
Our public officials are failing U.S. Citizens across the board. They are scared to death to offend foreign nationals, and yet they couldn't seem to care less when it comes to selling us out.
Our nation hangs in the balance, and they couch their words and act as if we held 1/3rd of Congress, the opposition held the White House and most state capitals were held by democrats.
It's a major scandle what is going on. One party sells us out and the other acts as timid as a 13 year old boy on his first date.
This is disgusting to the max. Is there not one backbone in Washington that calls itself conservative. Is there not one person who will make sure the NY Times is forced to face the music for what it has done?
This is a time of war, and we are being betrayed. I for one demand justice.
Quit whimpering Republican leaders. Show some gaul and get the friggen job done!
Here's how to kill two birds with one stone. The Justice Dept. should, as part of its investigation into who leaked the information to the Slimes, demand that the paper provide the names of its sources. When this demand is not met (as is inevitable), then clap the reporter and his editors can be sent to jail to rot. Since national security is involved, reduce family visitation to near nothing. That'll fix their traitorous butts.
I don't think hating Bush is that powerful.
I think the editors think that - they, unelected publishers of a newspaper, are the top security monitors in this country. Such utter gall and power-grabbing.
Who elected them to anything. We did not and they will not be in control of our security. They are on the side of the traitors.
How do we know? Look at the decision they made. When confronted with a choice of helping us locate more terrorists or publishing a leak they had found, of course they chose to publish a leak. To heck with our safety - the New York Times decided - not to worry, we know that all this is merely hype.
Or, and a mighty big "or"..........they are being bribed, bought, or sold out to the terrorists for their access to the American public to turn the tide on the war effort and to let slip any top secret information they can buy, bribe, steal.
I tend to think they are getting monetary gain from this action.
So, of course, they are traitors. They are known by their fruits and just look at their fruits - they sold us out for a leaked story.
All the greedy Washingtonites will sell the secrets they learn in their jobs to the highest bidders - the country be damned, our safety be damned. That is the caliber of the "elites of the east coast"
I am ashamed that the world sees the New York Times as the terrorist rag sheet. I am ashamed that the New York Times is even in America.
Guess they will enjoy their new name - The New York Terrorist News.
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.