Can We Get Serious?
(I updated the second paragraph after J-Dogg pointed out that the first quote was actually from an administration official defending the program, not an unnamed official as I'd asserted. Sorry.)
Is it just me, or does The New York Times actually want America to be defeated? This pumped-up story on the administration tracking financial records has to be the worst example of "gotcha" war journalism the Times has dreamed up yet.
After exposing a secret program that everyone knew was already a reality in concept (we said right after 9/11 we'd be going after terrorist finances, a fact the report acknowledges), they try to pass themselves off as objective by admitting that the program actually has a lot of safeguards, and quoting an administration official who defends it. But they quickly cast the program in a scary light, with the second quote being from an "unnamed intelligence official" who informs us ominously that "the potential for abuse is enormous".
Seriously, this is just offensive. This is the same paper that cited national security to call for a special investigator to look into who "leaked" the name of Valerie Plame, despite the fact that she hadn't been covert for nearly 6 years and also tried to manipulate a diplomatic process by nominating her husband for the job. Now the same paper exposes details of an operation that is being used to catch, you know, actual terrorists? Nice to know that the unelected New York Times editors are now in charge of national security.
Seriously, what is wrong with these people? These are also same folk who have urged the U.S. to employ more legal and police-style tactics rather than brute military force to fight terrorism. Here is a perfect example of those kind of non-military tactics being used responsibly and effectively, and the Times goes and lobs an tactical nuke at the operation.
Is it just me, or does The New York Times actually want America to be defeated? This pumped-up story on the administration tracking financial records has to be the worst example of "gotcha" war journalism the Times has dreamed up yet.
After exposing a secret program that everyone knew was already a reality in concept (we said right after 9/11 we'd be going after terrorist finances, a fact the report acknowledges), they try to pass themselves off as objective by admitting that the program actually has a lot of safeguards, and quoting an administration official who defends it. But they quickly cast the program in a scary light, with the second quote being from an "unnamed intelligence official" who informs us ominously that "the potential for abuse is enormous".
Seriously, this is just offensive. This is the same paper that cited national security to call for a special investigator to look into who "leaked" the name of Valerie Plame, despite the fact that she hadn't been covert for nearly 6 years and also tried to manipulate a diplomatic process by nominating her husband for the job. Now the same paper exposes details of an operation that is being used to catch, you know, actual terrorists? Nice to know that the unelected New York Times editors are now in charge of national security.
Seriously, what is wrong with these people? These are also same folk who have urged the U.S. to employ more legal and police-style tactics rather than brute military force to fight terrorism. Here is a perfect example of those kind of non-military tactics being used responsibly and effectively, and the Times goes and lobs an tactical nuke at the operation.
Administration officials, however, asked The New York Times not to publish this article, saying that disclosure of the Swift program could jeopardize its effectiveness. They also enlisted several current and former officials, both Democrat and Republican, to vouch for its value.Seriously? They just don't get it.
Bill Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, said: "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration. We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."
<< Home