PrintDecember 14, 2007
A real Whopper from the New York Times
Today's New York Time runs an editorial that defies belief and makes clear that the paper lives in a different moral universe where it remains blind to its own flaws. In "Notes from the Global War in Terror" the paper condemns President Bush for:
the damage President Bush has done to America’s intelligence-gathering capabilities in the name of fighting terrorism.
This comes from the paper that has led the way in eviscerating our intelligence capabilities to thwart terror. The paper has disclosed a secret program (the "SWIFT" program) to monitor financial transactions that may be used to fund terror (the Israelis have credited this program with preventing suicide attacks). Then, two of its "ace" reporters tipped off groups that they were being investigated by the FBI and that raids were imminent (allowing these groups to destroy evidence). The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald of Valerie Plame fame-directly blamed these two reporters for severely damaging his case. The failed prosecution was because Fitzgerald believed the reporters tipped off a Chicago-based group that it was being investigated by the FBI.
They have opposed techniques designed to elicit information regarding terror attacks-which it has labeled "torture" ("waterboarding" - one of the techniques condemned by the Times - has been used exactly THREE times and will unlikely ever to be used again despite evidence that it led to valuable information); disclosed and opposed the monitoring of electronic communication between foreign sources and US-based terror suspects; opposed the worldwide Echelon system-a very sophisticated network designed to sift the airwaves for evdience that might lead to the prevention of terrror attacks, though it supported the same program under the Clinton Administration; has opposed the expansion of the ability to use warrants to discover terror ties and prevent attacks; has disclosed methods used in interrogations that will help prepare terror suspects from resisting them in the future.
Should I go on? They supported Florida Professor Sami-Al Arian from accusations that he funneled funds to terror groups (a charge he pled guilty to with no apology from the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff for his never-ending support for Al-Arian); has advocated for the "legal rights' of terrorists imprisoned in Guantanomo Bay and has called for the closing of that prison despite its immense value in the war on terror; disclosed the rarely used but potentially vital practice of rendition where terror suspects are captured and sent to other nations for interrogation. They even dislcosed the charter air companies and schedules for these transfers of prisoners.
And the list can be easly extended and probably will be as the Bush Administration comes to a close and officials leak information to the paper for partisan purposes and to burnish their own reputations as a presumably Democratic Presidency takes office.
They have opposed techniques designed to elicit information regarding terror attacks-which it has labeled "torture" ("waterboarding" - one of the techniques condemned by the Times - has been used exactly THREE times and will unlikely ever to be used again despite evidence that it led to valuable information); disclosed and opposed the monitoring of electronic communication between foreign sources and US-based terror suspects; opposed the worldwide Echelon system-a very sophisticated network designed to sift the airwaves for evdience that might lead to the prevention of terrror attacks, though it supported the same program under the Clinton Administration; has opposed the expansion of the ability to use warrants to discover terror ties and prevent attacks; has disclosed methods used in interrogations that will help prepare terror suspects from resisting them in the future.
Should I go on? They supported Florida Professor Sami-Al Arian from accusations that he funneled funds to terror groups (a charge he pled guilty to with no apology from the New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff for his never-ending support for Al-Arian); has advocated for the "legal rights' of terrorists imprisoned in Guantanomo Bay and has called for the closing of that prison despite its immense value in the war on terror; disclosed the rarely used but potentially vital practice of rendition where terror suspects are captured and sent to other nations for interrogation. They even dislcosed the charter air companies and schedules for these transfers of prisoners.
And the list can be easly extended and probably will be as the Bush Administration comes to a close and officials leak information to the paper for partisan purposes and to burnish their own reputations as a presumably Democratic Presidency takes office.
The Times has been in the forefront of disclosing the means and methods used to investigate terrorists. The paper is a conduit for those in the intelligence community to "leak" sensitive information that has ahd the effect of harming our ability to investigate terror groups. The paper is blind (or worse apathetic) to the damage it has caused to America's ability to investigate terror groups. The level of hypocrisy and gall that it shows in today's paper for condemning the Bush Administration for damagaing our nations's intelligence gathering capabilities is simply astounding.
