The Following Speaks For Itself....
...Despite the fact that I have plenty to say about it.
Although I am not certain the New York Times outed anything secret with this piece-- I remember seeing this story on the web a few days ago, but honestly can't remember where --their continued penchant for trumpeting the disposition of our and our allies assets is nontheless deplorable.
Still, even if the news wasn't classified, one would think that the New York Times could tell the difference between telling the news based on fact and telling the news liberally peppered with personal opinion. I'm not going to post any of the article here, for that you can follow the link above, but I do want to take this time to set down my own impressions of its source, namely, the New York Times' article that spawned it.
Dr. Politico at PartisanTimes, says, "...the Times does not concern itself with the consequences of reporting sensitive information," as has been demonstrated all too often in recent months. They operate under the auspices of the First Amendment, yet they cavalierly, and with reckless abandon, play with the lives of people-- innocent people more often than not --they claim to support, ie; our troops, innocent Iraqis, those poor muslims at Guantanamo, and now the brave Hezbollah freedom fighters. They obviously don't care about the innocent Lebanese who suffer because the U.N. can't enforce its resolutions. Hezbollah was to have been disarmed, but Lebanon, weakened by Syria, is not powerful enough to do the job. But this is of little concern to the New York Times. At the top of their 'Gotcha' list is George W. Bush, and they don't care who they have to hurt to get him.
Again, as to whether or not the Times has disclosed secret information is up for debate; the deal, after all, was made and approved last year. But the fact that the New York Times has informants within the government who will only talk unless given anonymity speaks to the information being, at the very least, sensitive. So sensitive, in my estimation, that these sources fear repercussion for disclosing the details...
"Long provided..." So where's the beef in this story? "Long Provided" implies a lot longer than the 5 years Bush has been in office, so why is the article strangely silent about the misdeeds of previous administrations that fall within this vague measure inherent in the writers choice of wording? More importantly, how does their disclosure help Hezbollah?
By offering hope to the terrorists; that if they can but hold out long enough, Israel may very well exhaust all conventional means of obliterating her terrorist-tormentors. The same measure of hope was given to the North Vietnamese in no small part by our own media...
And that appears to be the goal of left-wing media... of the New York Times... to break the will of the American government, and American people, to continue in a war we cannot afford to lose. And in the case presently before us, the war Israel cannot afford to lose. The New York Times, for all they'd shout to the contrary, seem only to care about losing this war for the Country that provides them with the very same amendment they hide behind.
The freedom of the press is not without limit-- they seem to have forgotten this. Indeed, all of America seems to have forgotten that every nation has, in time, crumbled beneath the weight of its own hubris. To say nothing of moral decay and the treason it inevitably breeds.
Although I am not certain the New York Times outed anything secret with this piece-- I remember seeing this story on the web a few days ago, but honestly can't remember where --their continued penchant for trumpeting the disposition of our and our allies assets is nontheless deplorable.
Still, even if the news wasn't classified, one would think that the New York Times could tell the difference between telling the news based on fact and telling the news liberally peppered with personal opinion. I'm not going to post any of the article here, for that you can follow the link above, but I do want to take this time to set down my own impressions of its source, namely, the New York Times' article that spawned it.
Dr. Politico at PartisanTimes, says, "...the Times does not concern itself with the consequences of reporting sensitive information," as has been demonstrated all too often in recent months. They operate under the auspices of the First Amendment, yet they cavalierly, and with reckless abandon, play with the lives of people-- innocent people more often than not --they claim to support, ie; our troops, innocent Iraqis, those poor muslims at Guantanamo, and now the brave Hezbollah freedom fighters. They obviously don't care about the innocent Lebanese who suffer because the U.N. can't enforce its resolutions. Hezbollah was to have been disarmed, but Lebanon, weakened by Syria, is not powerful enough to do the job. But this is of little concern to the New York Times. At the top of their 'Gotcha' list is George W. Bush, and they don't care who they have to hurt to get him.
Again, as to whether or not the Times has disclosed secret information is up for debate; the deal, after all, was made and approved last year. But the fact that the New York Times has informants within the government who will only talk unless given anonymity speaks to the information being, at the very least, sensitive. So sensitive, in my estimation, that these sources fear repercussion for disclosing the details...
"The new American arms shipment to Israel has not been announced publicly, and the officials who described the administration’s decision to rush the munitions to Israel would discuss it only after being promised anonymity. The officials included employees of two government agencies, and one described the shipment as just one example of a broad array of armaments that the United States has long provided Israel."
"Long provided..." So where's the beef in this story? "Long Provided" implies a lot longer than the 5 years Bush has been in office, so why is the article strangely silent about the misdeeds of previous administrations that fall within this vague measure inherent in the writers choice of wording? More importantly, how does their disclosure help Hezbollah?
"Although Israel had some precision guided bombs in its stockpile when the campaign in Lebanon began, the Israelis may not have taken delivery of all the weapons they were entitled to under the 2005 sale."
By offering hope to the terrorists; that if they can but hold out long enough, Israel may very well exhaust all conventional means of obliterating her terrorist-tormentors. The same measure of hope was given to the North Vietnamese in no small part by our own media...
"We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."
--North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, 1990
And that appears to be the goal of left-wing media... of the New York Times... to break the will of the American government, and American people, to continue in a war we cannot afford to lose. And in the case presently before us, the war Israel cannot afford to lose. The New York Times, for all they'd shout to the contrary, seem only to care about losing this war for the Country that provides them with the very same amendment they hide behind.
The freedom of the press is not without limit-- they seem to have forgotten this. Indeed, all of America seems to have forgotten that every nation has, in time, crumbled beneath the weight of its own hubris. To say nothing of moral decay and the treason it inevitably breeds.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself."
--Cicero
from the mind of... Eric | 9:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home