I am delighted to see the New York Times has become so concerned over the security of the nation. Friday, it published a front-page story about a U.S. Web archive that may be revealing nuclear secrets to our potential enemies. Hopefully this new concern for the nation’s safety is genuine.
This is the same ”news” organization that had no problem reporting on the classified NSA surveillance program that tracked calls in and out of the country from suspected terrorists. The newspaper that felt compelled to print articles about the financial tracking of terrorist money after being asked by the White House not to do so. The paper that ran ”news” stories about alleged abuses at Abu-Ghraib prison complete with photos which incited violence against our troops in harm’s way. Either the Times viewed these stories as no risk to our country or they are the biggest bunch of phonies the world has ever seen.
I want to assume the best of the Times but forgive me if I’m not the first at the table to accept their new-found concern as sincere. The Times has been the main purveyor of leaks when it comes to anything that would embarrass the current administration regardless of its potential to threaten our security. They seem to always publish articles that are sympathetic to terrorists and anti-American groups.
I can only hope that this new attitude of protecting America will stay with Pinch Sulzberger and company. Of course that would mean losing a few terrorist subscribers around the world that depend on the Times as an accurate and reliable source of what we are doing in the U.S. to disrupt their plans. It will mean being responsible enough to think through the consequences of printing secrets on the front page of the paper. I hope this is a new day at the Times.
Are you kidding me?
Make no mistake about the motivation of the Times in running this story. It hoped to embarrass the Bush administration four short days before the mid-term elections. Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC said Friday morning, this is just another example of the ”gang who can’t shoot straight.” The article was run in hopes of getting the public to believe this administration is so inept that it was willing to post nuclear secrets so our enemies can build a bomb. Give me a break. Are you going to try and tell me that everyone in the intel community was stupid enough to go along with this? Even Oliver Stone can’t make that sale.
Look, the media can’t have it both ways. These articles explain a lot of the thinking that went into the decision of going into Iraq. These documents on the Web clearly show that Saddam was well on his way to acquiring nuclear weapons or at the very least had the desire to do so. If the documents don’t show that then they have little or no value to anyone wanting to make a bomb right? Because as we have been told Saddam was not a threat. But if they do show that Saddam had a desire and was in pursuit of nuclear weapons, which is why the Times is so concerned about their accessibility on the Net, then it proves Mr. Bush didn’t lie about the potential threat as the Times has been suggesting since the first company was deployed. Was the threat actually real? Uh oh, the Times may just have themselves a bit of a quagmire. The next step might just be a New York Times civil war!
Hopefully the public will see once and for all, during this election cycle, that the media are doing everything in their power to get Democrats elected. Sen. George Allen makes the famous ”macaca” remark and it runs for a month, non-stop on the front page. Even after an immediate apology. Sen. John Kerry insults every service man and woman in the country with an alleged lame attempt at a joke, refuses to apologize, and it is over in two days. Mr. Kerry eventually issued a written, tortured apology on the Internet, not in public, and all is forgiven. Oh the benefits of being a beloved Democrat! No matter how you slice Kerry’s remarks, be they aimed at the president or the troops; you don’t make jokes about certain issues.
Newsweek, Time, and U.S. News and World Report have all recently featured cover stories on Democrats like Barack Obama, Harold Ford Jr. and others with glowing reports of how wonderful they are. The only covers on which Republicans appeared were pictures of elephants’ rear ends, Mark Foley or how bad the Democrats are going to beat them.
We need to get it through our thick heads. The media are not fair. They hate this country and its president and will do whatever it takes to hand the Democrats the Congress. They never talk about the five-plus years of safety since 9/11. They don’t talk about lower gas prices. They don’t mention the threat of higher taxes and the inherent risks if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House or how a pull-out from Iraq without victory will embolden terrorists. By the way, where has Nancy been? Is she hiding?
I hope Americans who are concerned with America and her future will go out and vote tomorrow and send a strong signal to the media. The media should report the news, not attempt to affect the outcome of elections. They are there to report the news not shape public policy. Then and only then will they prove to this writer that they truly care about America. Until that happens I will view this recent article, which was allegedly run out of concern for our safety, as nothing more than another editorial run on the front page by a paper that hates this country.
Related special offer:
“Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite”
