Who died and left you president of the United States? (NYT)

Remember me? We met in the elevator here at The Oregonian recently. Your decision to expose a secret program to track terrorist funding got me to thinking I had better write and apologize. I don't think I was sufficiently deferential on our brief ride together. I treated you like the executive editor of The New York Times who used to work for The Oregonian. I had no idea I was riding with the man who decides what classified programs will be made public during a war on terror. I had no idea the American people had elected you president and commander in chief.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. What's that they say -- sarcasm is anger's ugly cousin? I'm angry, Bill.

I get angry when a few unauthorized individuals take it upon themselves to undermine an anti-terror program that even your own paper deems legal and successful. I get angry when the same people decide to blow the lid on a secret program designed to keep Islamic terrorists from killing Americans en masse.

Your decision was contemptible, but your Sunday letter explaining the Times' decision only undermined your case for disclosure.

"It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our founders gave to the press . . .," you wrote. "[T]he people who invented this country saw an aggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse of power in a democracy. . . . They rejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take the President at his word, or to surrender to the government important decisions about what to publish."

Too true, but the issue here is your judgment. It would be one thing if you ran this story because the program was illegal, abusive or feckless. Yet your paper established nothing of the kind. In the end, your patronizing and lame letter offered only press-convention bromides ("a matter of public interest").

"Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff -- but it's the kind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strong disagreements," you write, after providing a tutorial on how the government only wants the press to publish the official line and the press believes "citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicated news."

But this is a false and self-serving choice. The issue is your decision to publish classified information that can only aid our enemies. The founders didn't give the media or unnamed sources a license to expose secret national security operations in wartime. They set up a Congress to pass laws against disclosing state secrets and an executive branch to conduct secret operations so the new nation could actually defend itself from enemies, foreign and domestic.

Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff -- but it's the kind of elementary stuff that can get lost in the heat of strong disagreements. And get more people killed in the United States or Iraq.

Not to worry, you tell us, terrorists already know we track their funding, and disclosure won't undercut the program. (Contradictory claims, but what the heck.) You at the Times know better. You know better than government officials who said disclosing the program's methods and means would jeopardize a successful enterprise. You know better than the 9/11 Commission chairmen who urged you not to run the story. Better than Republican and Democratic lawmakers who were briefed on the program. Better than the Supreme Court, which has held since 1976 that bank records are not constitutionally protected. Better than Congress, which established the administrative subpoenas used in this program.

Maybe you do. But whether you do or not, there's no accountability. If you're wrong and we fail to stop a terror plot and people die because of your story, who's going to know, much less hold you accountable? No, the government will be blamed -- oh, happy day, maybe Bush's White House! -- for not connecting dots or crippling terror networks. The Times might even run the kind of editorial it ran on Sept. 24, 2001. Remember? The one that said "much more is needed" to track terror loot, including "greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities"?

She also has this:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005466.htm> PROTEST THE NEW YORK TIMES
By Michelle Malkin · June 29, 2006 11:39 PM

**********************************************

PROTEST THE NEW YORK TIMES

By Michelle Malkin · June 29, 2006 11:39 PM

***scroll for updates...university library cancels its NYT subscription!...and the WSJ explains the circumstances that led the newspaper to publish its SWIFT story...read the whole thing...the NYTimes covers the House resolution condemning the paper...***

I mentioned the other day that I'd been hearing buzz about a protest at the New York Times building.

It's coming together and there are details posted now at FR.

Protest the New York Times Revealing of U.S. Secrets, Monday, July 10, 5 p.m.
We have a sound permit, and we will be across the street from the New York Times. They are at 229 West 43rd Street.
The groups on board so far are Free Republic, Caucus for America, the Congress for Racial Equality, and Protest Warrior, NYC Chapter. We have reached out to several other groups as well, and are waiting to hear back from them.
Some high-visibility media people are interested in speaking at the protest. More information will be coming on this as we gather groups and speakers.
So hold the date! If you have been as sick about the Times's unconscionable blabbing of our classified information as the rest of those who care about the nation, now is your chance to do something to make your outrage heard.

Mark the date on your calendar now.

Looking for sign and banner ideas? How about printing up some of the best anti-blabbermouth posters from the Army of Photoshoppers?

T-shirts with the NYTimes stock chart would be fun:

Investor's Business Daily weighs in with "All the US Secrets Fit to Print:"

We are at war, and if the government doesn't move decisively to find and stop the leaks, they will only continue.
Times columnist Frank Rich once whined: "Since 9-11, our government has asked no sacrifice of civilians other than longer waits at airline security."
Well, Messrs.. Rich and Keller, your government asked you to forego your next Pulitzer to protect you, your subscribers and the rest of us. You refused. Walk a few blocks, gentlemen, and see where the World Trade Center used to be. It could have been the Times.

The House resolution condemning the blabbermouths passed earlier tonight 227-183. Allah has the lowdown.

Haven't heard yet of any plans to protest the LA Times. Patterico has plenty of reasons to organize one.

Update: Check this out...a university library cancels its NYTimes subscription (hat tip - Lucianne.com):

The Dean of Library Services at University of the Incarnate Word canceled the library's subscription to the New York Times Wednesday to protest recent stories exposing a secret government program that monitors international financial transactions in the hunt for terrorists.
"Since no one elected the New York Times to determine national security policy, the only action I know to register protest for their irresponsible action (treason?) is to withdraw support of their operations by canceling our subscription as many others are doing," Mendell D. Morgan, Jr. wrote in a June 28 email to library staff. "If enough do, perhaps they will get the point."

Hear, hear.

***
Previous:

How about a nice big glass of...
More blabbermouth posters
Messages for the blabbermouths
Backlash against the blabbermouths
NYTimes blabbermouths strike again

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.