Home  |  About Us  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy policy  |  Site map

« Hillary Is A Hoot? | Main | The Immortal Words of 2LT Mark Daily »


January 19, 2007

Did they really say that?

Tim at Hyscience asks if a transparently honest New York Times article make it to press? Check it out:

Mostly, we have sided with America's enemies because we can. We remain grateful and mystified that, despite Mr. Chimpy McHitlerburton's creation of a fascist police state in America, in which civil rights have been trampled on and the open honest dissent of people like Cindy Sheehan and John Murtha has resulted in their imprisonment in the hated Crusader Gulag of Guantanamo, we, at the New York Times, have somehow remained at large, in open and treasonous support of the enemies of this nation.
Or is this the creative product of a conservative with perspicacious judgment?

Sadly, the answer is clear. As has been suggested at the American Thinker, the NYT has well-solidified standing as the go-to media source for terrorists seeking accurate assessments of US intelligence knowledge of their operations and the national paper of record for critical targeting tips for launching attacks against the US:

... the paper has a long history of such activity going back to the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War. But the pace of classified information being revealed in the pages of the Times has reached breakneck speed.

... articles by the New York Times relying exclusively on anonymous government sources have provided America's enemies with invaluable information about law enforcement and intelligence agency operations directed at terrorist networks. Following the lead of the Times, the national mainstream media has demonstrated time and again that the most fundamental concern is not for the safety of US citizens or the public interest, but the bottom line - newspaper sales and quarterly profit statements.

The American Thinker piece then posits a most pertinent set of questions: "Do Americans really want New York Times editors and reporters making decisions about which of our country's most sensitive secrets will be revealed to terrorists planning attacks against the US? And do we want partisan hacks and government bureaucrats acting with impunity while deciding on their own what information they choose leak in "the public interest"?" As both the American Thinker and the piece pointed to by Tim, "it is chilling to admit that this frightening scenario is precisely what we face today. It isn't just the lives of New York commuters that have been threatened by the actions of the New York Times and their anonymous government sources, but the safety and security of every American has been endangered."

But don't let these facts get in the way of enjoying Jules Crittenden's 'perspicacious' piece.



Posted by Richard at January 19, 2007 5:30 AM





Helpful Sites