Hold the Mayo

June 24, 2006

And For an Encore

When you have just published details on a secret program designed to catch terrorists by tracking their finances, what do you do for an encore?

If you are the New York Times, you publish details of a classified Pentagon briefing from the commander of our troops in Iraq. If you are the New York Times you certainly don't stop to consider the impact of publishing details of future troop level plans either.

There is probably no much that can be done to the treasonous slime of the Times, but the anonymous scum that leaked this can and should be dealt with. They should be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

They can still shoot traitors, can't they?

UPDATE: Captain's Quarters Notes that the briefing and the report did not reveal anything we didn't already know and offers this caution:

I would caution my friends on the Right from getting too far ahead on comparisons between this story and the Lichtblau/Rosen series. No intel methods got blown in this story, and apart from the fact of the briefing itself, Michael Gordon's reporting does little but confirm the strategy that the White House and DoD have stated from the time Saddam Hussein got chased out of Baghdad. It doesn't even note specific dates or deadlines, apart from an educated guess that the provinces will turn over in time for the four-brigade drop by the end of this year, and the halving of the force by the end of next year. It looks like the kind of leak that serves to build confidence in the effort rather than undermine it.

I think the problem is that such subtleties wouldn't have entered into the Times' thinking. It could have been a classified briefing on an upcoming operation and the Times would have published dates, times and names.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 02:17 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment

1 General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.
Not only the New York Times need to be held to account, but these "officials" with diahrea [sp?] of the mouth. WTF?!

What the @#$% are they doing? Trying to impress a frickin' reporter with how much they're "in-the-know" or something? Benedict Arnolds, every one of 'em. String 'em up! NOW!!!

Posted by: Tuning Spork at June 24, 2006 04:38 PM (i0pwT)

2 I think they need a spanking.

Posted by: Trevor at July 01, 2006 11:01 PM (STtFZ)

3 Limiting the press is the first move of a totalitarian regime, either of the left or right. The fact that the NYT is here to publish in a manner with which you disagree is proof that the system works.

Posted by: Eric at July 04, 2006 02:49 AM (Y+kPZ)

4 Eric,

I agree whole heartedly with a free press. My disagreement is with the judgement of the Times editors in the exercise of that freedom, and with the people who were charges with maintain national security secrets who chose not to.

The editors of the Times need to remember that just because you can publish something, doesn't mean you should.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at July 04, 2006 05:25 AM (DdRjH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment