Power of the Press Begging For Our Lives At The New York Times

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.

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?

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?"

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.

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.

Best article I have read yet.

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.

Liberalism is a mental illness. It's one of the most virulent forms of fanaticism. Far more dangerous than Fundamentalist Islam and not just because they're indigenous.

The cause of fanaticism and why it's dangerous.
The fanatic has an elitist view of himself. He holds a firm belief that he is in some way special and has something that others, not like him, do not. Because of this basic self-view any disagreement with the elitist or any resistance to their actions causes anger. This "supreme" view of himself is an excuse for justifying his anger and thus justifying any act from deception to murder against those who disagree or refuse to comply with it. He is comfortable with hatred, revenge, lying or any gross deception in defense of his special "superior" position acted out against those (the "others") who do resist or refuse to validate his view.
It is impossible to reason or negotiate with someone who holds the POV that they are morally and/or ethically superior by virtue of a superior self-image. Everything you do to accommodate their "concerns" (demands), short of complete capitulation, will be discounted due to your "inherent" inferiority. Any resistance to this, anything other than complete submission, becomes self-evident proof of their "superiority." The elitist POV presupposes the rationale of rightness and righteousness as inherent to themselves by virtue of their self-superior self-image not as a measure of the quality of their actions or their resulting consequences. That becomes the basis of their personal beliefs and can be supported by an ideology or philosophy they choose to identify with but the doctrine itself may or may not, loosely or strictly, support their view. That is of secondary or even tertiary importance. Of course the opposite is true for the "non-elites" in the fanatic's mindset. You can never be right if you're not one of the "righteous."
It should be obvious why a fanatic is dangerous. Any and all negative or evil acts can be justified on the basis of any disassociation with the personal identity of the fanatic. The intent and motivations of an "outsider" are irrelevant no matter how positive. The results of an outsider's actions are irrelevant no matter how accommodating or constructive. The non-elites are always wrong because they won't submit to the fanatic's view.
The world is full of fanatics of every kind and they can base their superior self-view on any pretext that they feel works for them. Some belong to large groups of "like-minded" fanatics, some belong to a group that is not in itself fanatical but lends itself to the fanatics needs and some are individuals who cling to the delusion that they alone are special.
In today's world the United States in particular and western civilization in general is under a concerted assault from two separate groups of fanatic elitists. Fundamentalist Muslims and leftists. The Islamo-nazis and the Marxists. Both leftists and Islamo-fascists hold a firm belief that they are special and have something that "rednecks" and infidels don't have. With leftists it is "intellect" and "social sophistication" and with Islamo-nazis it's a "call from Allah," a "holy annointing."
Both groups are manifestations of a mass psychological disorder of fanatic elitism. Both are extremely unstable and are neither founded upon nor affected by sound logic or reason. Convinced of their own "inherent" superiority they will both press their respective agendas as far as they can without regard for the consequences to themselves or to others. In both cases the blame for all of their actions will "logically" fall on the shoulders of "the others," the outsider. Negative consequences of their actions simply become another tool for self-vindication.
The fanatic elitist mindset is the same as the mindset of the rabid dog. It is the mindset of "us-and-them" on an absolute scale. Nothing else has a valid existence for them except for their personal perception of things. Nothing else can; their POV cannot be affected by outside influence by it's design. It is a paradigm that holds that anything contrary to it is self-negated. Change can only occur from within and this means a change in the "prime directive." Change requires the abdication of their most basic self-view, the view that they are special and unique in a superior way. A view that all reasonable people must either completely reject or submit to. Those are the only choices the fanatic leaves to "the others."
TigersEye - 7/27/05

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.

New York Times

June 5,1944

ALLIES TO ATTACK NORMANDY TOMORROW AM