Posted on 07/03/2006 6:45:51 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
July 3, 2006 -- Sen. John McCain yesterday joined the chorus of critics who say The New York Times was wrong to out a top-secret terror money-tracking program, and he called for prosecuting the leakers.
"Tracking the money is always a vital tool, and members of Congress were kept informed and agreed to this program," McCain (R-Ariz.) told ABC's "This Week."
"So, no, I don't think [the Times] should have published it."
McCain also challenged the Times' claim that it didn't reveal any real secrets, saying, "If The New York Times thinks the story was inconsequential, the legitimate question is: Why was it on the front page?"
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
McCain knows a US Senator was the source. He's getting out ahead of the pack on this one ~
I agree. All we are hearing is a bunch of barking and no biting.
That's just it. If even the wishy-washy moderates attack The NY Times, then it is losing the respect of large segments of the public, not just hard-core conservatives.
and you know this how?
I think about these things ~ even have a candidate although it might have been one of his staffers, or even his stock broker, who notified the NYT.
The leaker need not be a career employee of the government, nor even a Democrat.
NYT is dying a Dan Rather death... credibility and respect have gone out the window
McVain could have been a lot stronger on this, but at least he said it - hope some of his colleagues start showing some spine. As for Bill Keller, I just heard an amazing tape on Hugh Hewitt's radio show a little while ago - Keller was on one of the Sunday talking head shows, I think it was "Face the Nation" and he was asked if he wanted to say anything to the US public as the July 4 Independence Day arrives (obvious invitation to convince people "No, we don't really hate America, we are patriotic Americans too"). Keller's answer was hilarious, he couldn't manage one word of affirmation of pride in his country..... all he could say was something like "People think we are neutral in this, but we have friends and colleagues die in Iraq and we are not neutral." That's not an exact quote, but it's the gist - invited to affirm his patriotism and his sincere opposition to the terrorists, etc. and all he could mutter was "We're not neutral" (that part IS an exact quote). OK, maybe he's not neutral, BUT HE DIDN'T SPECIFY WHICH SIDE HE IS ON!!
He's pandering. Took him several days to figure out that it was good politics, though.
Lugar, for example, is the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
He has outside, non-governmental cultural, social and business links with individuals closely associated with NYT, including more than one member of the NYT board of directors.
I don't really need to know his staff members personally to understand that there's gotta' be a couple of them with "extra knowledge" about Lugar's relationships with the NYT ownership class (essentially the Sulzburger family and its cousins).
The "path" from what the Senator knows from his committee chairmanship to "Punch" Sulzburger s pretty clear.
So, the only question is about if that was the route the information took, or was it something more obscure.
For Senator McCain, given his previous dealings with Lugar, it'd be in his best interest to get out front in condemning the NYT and backing away from his previous entanglements with Lugar.
That's the lowest energy cost pathway I was able to find that would explain both the story and McCain's statement.
Maybe you can do better.
I smell a Durbin...
Why Durbin? Is he in tight enough with the Sulzburger family that they'd trust information coming from his office?
Has he had lunch with Patrick Leahy?
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/patrick_j_leahy/?inline=nyt-per
"News about Patrick J. Leahy, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times."
I saw that. I think it was even more disturbing than you assume. He actually said "We are not agnostic on the war..." Which even sounds condescending and a little unclear.
Anyway, he left Bob Schiefer hanging. Bob thought he was going to say something patriotic about the country so there was this awkward moment of silence. Finally Bill raised his eyebrows as if to say "I am done here." Bob then went on and thanked him for being on the show. Yeah, that was weird.
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.