June 28, 2006
Patriotism and the Press
Excellent response from the Editorial department of the NYT:
Over the last year, The New York Times has twice published reports about secret antiterrorism programs being run by the Bush administration. Both times, critics have claimed that the paper was being unpatriotic or even aiding the terrorists. Some have even suggested that it should be indicted under the Espionage Act. There have been a handful of times in American history when the government has indeed tried to prosecute journalists for publishing things it preferred to keep quiet. None of them turned out well — from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the time when the government tried to enjoin The Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers.
I find it simply INCREDIBLE that a sitting President, no matter how bad, could attack the press the way Bush has in this case. It is clear that the Times was doing it's job of informing the American public. It is also clear that any terrorist of note, has got to know about the U.S. governments' banking probes. Hell I did and I am not a terrorist, nor am I as smart as most of them seem to be. What is VERY clear, are the continuing attempts by the administration and Right Wing fanatics to hide questionable tactics and attacks on the constitution. Bush's attacks on the NYT are just another shamefull attempt to bully the press...
This is simply an imperial presidency with no self restraint and no desire for oversight of any type.
Posted by David A at June 28, 2006 08:34 PM
Filed Under War on Terror | 794 Words
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Uh, weren't you one of the people- wait... Aren't you STILL one of the people up in arms over the leak of the sorta covert name of serial liar Joe Wilson's wife's name and yet you are not so concerned about the leaks of the specifics of the government's methods of tracking terrorists'?
Aren't you also one of those " failure to connect the dots" people?
The best quote I've heard on this goes something like this- Drug Dealers know that the Feds are watching them too. But it probably isn't a good idea for us to point out where the guys with the binoculars are hiding.
By the way- I don't suppose you've read the New York Times 2001 editorial calling for the Bush administration to do something that sounds remarkably like the Swift program.
Posted by: Marty at June 29, 2006 08:01 AM
You mean the NYT Article sent out by your talking points commitee to discredit the article. Yeah I read it on Captain Ed's site. As for the other, I think you know the difference, so I am not even going to bother responding.
No really. Tell me the difference.
Is the non-leak of 'Valerie Plames name and already well known CIA employment status in Washington circles because of her husbands name dropping' to debunk Wilson's proven false editorial in the NY Times in his attempt to discredit the President vs. leaks that are genuine war time national security secrets that have helped capture and imprison terrorists that if they WERE to attack the United States (or anywhere else) you would go back to the "connect the dots" stand-by- is that the difference you are talking about?
Please- feel free to respond. And while you're at it, rather than just acknowledging the "talking points committees" find in the New York Times change of position, how about some thoughtful discussion on it.
Really. Tell me why that is not hypocracy. (Something you usually hate. ) Should the New York Times be pointing out the "guys with the binoculars" after bitching that they weren't out there looking for dots to connect?
Posted by: Marty at June 29, 2006 01:17 PM
...so I am not even going to bother responding.
You acknowledge reading the article, but say no more about it, and on the drug dealer analogy, you imply that "this is different," but don't deign to tell us how, David.
One might suspect that your quiver was empty, Bro.
Posted by: Boyd at June 29, 2006 02:48 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
2005 Weblog Awards Finalist!
2004 Weblog Awards Finalist!
Get the Best for your Ad Dollar
Get the Best Bang for your Buck!