Sunday, July 02, 2006

The Mixed-Up New York Times

When it comes to duplicity and lack of seriousness about our nation's security, The New York Times is the gift that keeps on giving.

As mentioned previously, the Times editors and writers now can't seem to quite make up their mind whether they have a scoop about a "secret," "classified" program or have a front page non-story which was "by no means a secret."

That's what happens when you lie, as the Times people have been doing to try to keep from being investigated -- you have a hard time keeping your stories straight. They wanted the scoop for the sake of headlines, selling papers, and winning Pulitzers; they want a no-big-deal non-secret in order to stay out of hearings, courtrooms, and jail.

Patterico has excellent analysis above and here; Post Watch has further commentary.

Expose the Left has video of Bill Keller's appearance on Face the Nation. (Why am I not surprised that Keller went to CBS for his only Sunday appearance?) Keller made some remarkable statements; I'm still trying to figure this one out: "If you’re under the impression that the press is neutral in this War on Terror, that we’re agnostic, and you could get that impression from some of the criticism, that couldn’t be more wrong."

Earlier this week Scott Johnson of Power Line theorized that although Keller was acting quite stupid, he probably really isn't.

After checking out his Face the Nation appearance I think we can safely say: Keller really is that stupid. And unfortunately this unelected, not-very-intelligent man is holding our national security in his hands due to a belief that the media has a special right to declassify and publish top secret information. Keller is under the delusion that somehow he and his paper are protecting our nation from a President he despises, but the reality is that due to Keller's publication of leaked information, everyone in the United States is now in increased danger.

4 Comments:

Blogger jau said...

Don't forget that Keller's wife is a former long-time paramour of John Kerry. It adds an interesting twist to everything, knowing that.

7:03 AM  
Blogger Laura said...

Had no idea. Thanks.

Best wishes, Laura

9:28 AM  
Blogger Robin B said...

Laura:
I've been pondering this situation for awhile now and wondering what I can do as a non-NYT subscriber. It has always irked me that every Starbucks sells the NYT. I'm seriously considering a movement to strongly request my local Starbucks (of which there are now 3 just in my little town) to remove it.
Robin

3:28 PM  
Blogger Laura said...

It's worth a try. Even if it doesn't work, perhaps calling attention to the actions of the NYT will do some good over the long term. TTYS! Laura

8:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older