"I don't think the threshold test of whether you write about how the government is waging the war on terror is whether they've done something that's blatantly illegal or outrageous," Keller said. "I think you probably would like to know what they're doing that's successful as well."Thanks for clearing that up, Mr. Keller. For an outrageous second, I thought that publication of the details of a program that was helping the US track the financial backers of terrorists might be unwise, at the least. But you've made it clear that it's simply your delightful way of supporting the war effort.
Jeb Babbin takes a different slant on the situation:
Since 9-11, none but a few of our former allies have given us more than lip service to help fight terrorism. And among them, fewer still have been willing to do so openly. When those who cooperate in secret are exposed, the damage is enormous, whether someone dies the next day or not. The NYT and WaPo bloody well knew, before the stories ran, that their publication of the CIA prisons and the SWIFT program would make it impossible for some nations to continue cooperating with us. By using their power to interrupt nations' cooperation with us, the New York Times and the Washington Post have done more damage to our nation's security than Usama bin Laden has been able to since 9-11. They have become a weapon in the terrorist arsenal. Their claims to still be guardians of our freedom are laughable, and tragically so.Well, perhaps Mr. Babbin just isn't - what's the word - NUANCED enough.
Thank heaven for that.
Tags = News & Politics