"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.

Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.
Choose your language: Francais/French Deutsch/German Italiano/Italian Portugues/Portuguese Espanol/Spanish 日本語/Japanese 한국어/Korean 中文(简体)/Chinese Simplified

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

There's a word for that

Once again, the NY Times, followed by several other papers, has revealed information that has damaged our war on terror. They've claimed that the public's right to know outweighs the administrations desire to keep such programs secret. Never mind that this conveniently malleable "the public" or "the people" actually seem rather ineffective at the polling booths and a President who has vowed to go after terrorism was reelected. Never mind that the programs are legal and effective. The editors have decided, and justify their action with completed disregard for such facts. 

The NY Post says it well with Aid and Comfort

June 27, 2006 -- 'The disclosure of this program is disgraceful," says President Bush.

That's one word.

Here's another: Dangerous.

The New York Times has again put its institutional arrogance and contempt for the duly elected current administration ahead of the security of the nation.


So let's be clear: Such stories give aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.

There is a word for that.


Yes and the word is:


The article concludes:

No more so than willfully destroying the utility of initiatives that might prevent another 9/11.

Or something even worse.

There are many ways to abuse the First Amendment. Using it as a machete to undercut secret presidential policies opposed by newspaper executives is bad enough.

To do so in time of war is despicable

I'm not going to bother with linking to the rationalizations that these despicable creatures are flinging around like druken chimpanzees suffering from diaherria. You can find them yourself easily enough, I don't care to improve their site visit stats. It's as if they're spoiled children, knowing they can just about commit murder, and hardly have to worry about getting even a time out.

Just listening to the NY Times and others make excuses for the latest act is worse than fingernails on a chalk board. Their justification for revealing these legal programs would have us lose the beach at Normandy and the Battle at Midway if they had applied such criteria back then. Hopefully, their self-serving grasp for a Pulitzer prize will not result in more American deaths, as it so obviously would have during previous wars. Not that they would care if it did.


Filed under: Terrorism -- MSM

Blogs with open posts: Blue Star Chronicles -- Planck's Constant -- third world county -- The Dumb Ox -- Freedom Watch -- Adam's Blog -- Jo's Cafe -- Stingray

 Technorati Tags: Terrorism -- --  --

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on! width=                     View blog reactions
<< Home

Click for Latest Posts

Creative Commons License

As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.

Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile

Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya

Recent Comments: