ORIGINAL COMPOSE DATE: 27 June, 2006
Before I go any further I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not read the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, or Wall Street Journal. I wanted to clear up any misconception that I might be partial toward the New York Times.
Where is the outrage at the Los Angeles Times? Where is the outrage at the Wall Street Journal?
Could it be that all the outrage at the New York Times is politically motivated? Is it perhaps that the New York Times is the “big boy” when it comes to liberal-leaning newspapers and the Republicans are just sucking up to their base?
No, surely politicians are above that.
Perhaps the outrage is just smoke and mirrors to cover up the fact that the USS King George has a leak? Everyone is blasting the New York Times, and yet none of the Bushians are talking about the leak.
I think we will be seeing another Judith Miller trial coming up in about a year and $270,000 later. There is nothing like a cool quarter of a million spent on a grand jury or independent investigation to settle a score with a “liberal rag.”
The nagging question, of course, is whether or not the New York Times should have run the article.
I can see the validity of some of the points on both sides of this argument. The media has a responsibility to make sure the public is aware of what the government is doing. However, that responsibility is a double-edged sword. Issues of national security (a gray area) and issues that involve risking the lives of soldiers (that is why Geraldo was kicked out of Iraq) make an editor think twice.
So, with all the rhetoric being tossed around by the King’s High Court about soldiers dying, is this article actually going to do that? Cheney practically said that if another terrorist attack occurred it would be The New York Times’ fault. Oh good grief…
I fail to see how this leak is anything new to the terrorists. The terrorists already knew we were tracking their bank accounts. After all, there have been numerous politicians, including King George himself, that have touted this fact during several speeches. I can remember at least two times that Bush has said in a speech that he will do everything to stop the terrorists, including going after their financial backers and tracking their bank accounts.
So what did the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal print that is so outrageous? Oh yeah, they hinted that the activity may be illegal. Oh… now I understand where the outrage is coming from.
