New York Times Sells Out the United States ~ Again

So imagine for one second that you are running a Major U.S. Newspaper. You come into possession of highly classified (leaked) information proving electronic eavesdropping against international al Qaeda communications with those within our borders.

After confronting the White House with this information, they convince you that it is legal and ask that you not run the story as it would compromise the intelligence, aid the enemy and possibly cause harm to your fellow citizens. You agree to not run the story.

So far so good, right? Well, if you are the liberal bastion called New York Times, what you do is to hold onto such a story until the timing is juuuuuuuuuuust right. Say, a full YEAR later, when no less than three things are happening simultaneously that may be influenced by your "scoop":

1. The Iraqi parliamentary election is a resounding success, boosting Support for President Bush and the War in Iraq (with whom your paper has a real beef)


2. The Patriot Act, controversial for its perceived assault on civil liberties, is up for renewal (and after all, it's a Bush idea - which you simply cannot abide)


3. Your star reporter on this story (James Risen) also happens to be releasing a Left-leaning book entitled "State of WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration"

Hmmmmm!? Well, suddenly three things happen: The headlines shifted AWAY from the huge success in Iraq, the Patriot Act renewal is filibustered (many senators citing this "controversy" as the reason), and Mr. Risen's book should sell very nicely now.

If that doesn't convince you of funny business afoot, even the Washington Post (that other Major Liberal U.S. Rag) took issue with this sudden release and the upcoming book:

"The paper (NYT) offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster."

As expected, most Americans don't understand the issue and the "sudden allegation" has resonated amongst many of the blissfully ignorant masses (through the liberally arrogant media). They don't know that, for instance, this intelligence practice does NOT affect American citizens who do not converse over the phone with al-Qaeda operatives overseas. Domestic calls are not in question. And the oversite applied to this, from the NSA to the Congress, is extraordinary.

On Saturday, President Bush admitted to having authorized these actions and was understandably upset:

"Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result (of this story being released), our enemies have learned information they should not have," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "The unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."

Here is a reality check for all of you lovers of irony:

• Wasn't it the NYT (and other liberal media) who cried foul over the "outing of covert CIA operative" Valerie Plame? Where is their outrage over this leak? The Able Danger cover-up?


• Following the 9-11 Commission Report, wasn't it the NYT (and other liberal media) who accused President Bush of not doing enough to protect us? And now they are ANGRY because he is protecting us TOO MUCH!?

As the President said in his radio address, and again today during his candid press conference, his job is to protect us to his best ability and within the bounds of law. It would seem to me that he is doing just that.

The job of the New York Times, and other newspapers, is supposed to be bringing new information to the masses - hence the word NEWS. And there is nothing new about this year old story being used as a political grenade - that may in fact ultimately harm those who pay to read it.