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.
Serves as both payback and a warning to other reporters.
But the first bomb to go off is going to be in New York. The Times' staff and management will be among the first to get hit. What they're doing is suicidal.
See, there is a silver lining in every cloud. :>)
And NO, I don't really believe that - and wouldn't even if I didn't have family in NYC.
Love it!
The only question is ...who has the balls to go after the Times? Are we going to just let this story fade away ? It's up to us to REALLY push this one. They CANNOT get away with blatant treason. The MSM has glossed over it here in NY , thats for sure. No big deal around here. What can we do ? Suggestions? How can we force our lame , on vacation soon , politicians to hound the Times and hold them responsible ?
The one who got canned for his on-air comments about Islam being the enemy?
Nonsense, IMO.
There are too many ignorant American voters who would buy into the 24/7 visual headlines comparing this administration to 1930's Germany.
Just stop buying the dad-gummed paper and/or supporting its advertisers.
Just stop buying the dad-gummed paper and/or supporting its advertisers.
I did the first more than 10 years ago. Identifying all of the advertisers is a bit more difficult, especially since I won't buy the paper. Nonetheless, it is the best policy in the long term for all of us to follow. Hit 'em where it hurts the most - in their traitorous pockets.
OK, so you've got the proper header - now what's the headline?
Oh, and maybe you want to date it on 9/12.
Well let me take a stab at it. What has changed? Simple. The cowards are coming out of the woodwork. On September 11th, 2001 they hid behind the skirts of their mommies and wives, chanting such slogans as "United We Stand" etc. and acting with faux patriotism. The sixties hippie trash in this country are prone to do that when threatened. Unfortunately most now have worked their way into positions of power, such as educators and representatives of the media.
Now, we flash to June 30th, 2006. Almost five years have passed. Not another attack has occurred. We are (relatively) safe on our home soil. So the cowards feel it's safe to come out from hiding and start shooting their mouths off again. While better men and women who understand the situation and work to keep what we have both at home and abroad, they revert to their sixties mindset of "we're gonna save the world (according to us)".
While I always hesitate to use the phrase in a free country, these people are nothing but traitors. God help us.
The New York Times never would have been able to print this story in the first place if either a seditious government employee or politician hadn't violated his oath to America and broken the law by leaking the information to begin with.
The necessary first step to fixing our problems is to identify who the betrayers are within our government, and sending them to Ft. Leavenworth for life.
"Just stop buying the dad-gummed paper and/or supporting its advertisers."
I did the first more than 10 years ago. Identifying all of the advertisers is a bit more difficult, especially since I won't buy the paper. Nonetheless, it is the best policy in the long term for all of us to follow. Hit 'em where it hurts the most - in their traitorous pockets.
Here's the solution:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1658482/posts
Those are my concerns as well. The NYT is just the irresponsible messanger. The leakers are the root cause of what now is a less secure homeland.
Revolution, anyone?
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.