Replies

"Anyone who gives any money to the NYT is helping those who want to blow up more buildings."

Ah, yes, the old Orwellian Dialectic: If you're not anti-Nazi then you are, objectively, pro-Nazi.

Doesn't apply here.

I don't believe I'm about to do this, but, in defense of the Times (and there is very precious little to defend them with, granted) I don't believe the decision to publish the story in question was made in the belief that the Times would be helping terrorists, as much as it was made in the (smug) knowledge that it would hurt Bush.

The animus is not the multi-culti-kumbayah cult, it is a hatred of anything Bush. Short of verifiable stories (with photos) of Bush raping children, burning Jews, lynching blacks, and kicking puppies, the best the Times can do is to present everything that crosses it's editor's desks in a way in which George W. Bush is presented as the second coming of Josef Stalin.

Which is really strange, since the Times seems to have actually LIKED Josef Stalin. I guess they liked the faux communism and conveniently overlooked the real totalitarianism. Anyway, the fact that this objectively helped the Islamonazis was probably never even considered, since most people who read or work for the NY Times can be counted upon to not have the same sense that God gave to your typical Irish Setter --- with a brain tumor. Their "thinking" is so shallow, and so tainted by emotion (not logic) that for most, an original thought and cold glass of water might be enough to put them in a coma.

Anyway, be that as it may, one thing to always remember when it comes to the "Our civil liberties are in danger" crowd is this: they don't really object to NSA wiretapping, nor the Patriot Act, nor the government cracking open international banking records. What they object to is that George W. Bush (and John Ashcroft, et. al.) got to do it first, and with legal sanction. Secretly, the "other side" salivates over the prospect of controlling the government and having access to the same authority, only they will use the power fop "good ends" (defined as advancing socialism or eliminating their political enemies).

The Left has a history in this regard.

When a Leftist starts harranguing you about the "Bush Police State" and launching into hypotheticals about abuse, he's not concerned about your liberties; he's warning you about what he would do if armed with the same power.