"Our job, especially in times like these, is to bring our readers information that will enable them to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf, and at what price."

Using that logic, they would have supported the Chicago Tribune's choice to announce that the US had broken the Japanese Navy fleet code on their front page a couple days after the Battle of Midway because it would have been a great example of the effectiveness of our war effort and the actions of our government!

Lorie, sad to say, your below statement is a GROSS UNDERSTATEMENT:

"Instead, the NYT, and many other mainstream media outlets, have often treated the Bush administration as a greater threat to America than that posed by jihadist terrorists."

Lorie, not "often treated" but "consistently" treated. And, the Bush administration IS their enemey; the "jihadist terrorists" ARE their ally, that is, their ally to defeat their enemy Bush!!!

Nothing more, nothing less.

Does the NYT's still exist? Isn't there someone crazy enough out there to follow Ann Coulter's suggestion and remove the building from the skyline of NY? They don't have to worry if they attack, the antique MSM always sides with terrorists. If there are any survivors from the NYT they will help build you an alibi, like, "Bush did it".

Death to traitors.

Amazing that they made it all the way through that without actually acknowledging that there is such a thing as the "War on Terror. With or without scare quotes.

How long will it be before law abiding, America loving, peace loving people in this country and around the world,wake up to the agenda of people like keller.They think their superior intellect(imagined) gives them the right to act unilaterly to bring down this President and America as we know it.The only result of their actions is to draw out this war and give lagitamcy to Islamofacist propaganda.I say treason trials are over due.

Lenin had a term for folks like Bill Keller

"useful idiots"

Even the NYT/LAT cabal realizes they crossed the line this time. They don't care about crossing the line because of the damage it has and will do to this country...just the damage it might do to their already abysmal circulation.

Anybody who BUYS either paper, and any company that ADVERTISES in either paper is aiding and abetting the enemies of this country. PERIOD. I will boycott any and all companies that do advertise! again, PERIOD.

Ironman,
And Stalin called them comrades. Just ask Durante's ghost, when Satan is taking a break from ramming white hot pokers up his rear.

It would appear that the Times's editors believe that "information that will enable [readers] to judge how well their elected leaders are fighting on their behalf" includes information that would allow lunatics of every stripe to terrorize or kill those leaders.

There's no excuse for this. There cannot be, when Americans have been slaughtered by the thousands, and continue to die in handfuls, in the name of the values the Times's disingenuous apologia claims its betrayals have upheld.

It appears that Bill Keller has decided that if the NYT is going down, it might as well go down in flames.

NYT: Spin, Crash, Burn and Die. (Please)!

If you folks would read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, you would know what you are talking about.

I don't even know what to say to people who think that you should kill those who disagree with you. Is it possible for political "discourse" to fall any further?

The New York Times did no harm to this country by discussing (what operational details?) a "secret" program that the administration had clearly indicated was going on. The terrorists were aware of it; most of the American public was not. The administration doesn't want it discussed because it might hurt the political position of the administration.

It's like Nixon--anything that might hurt his political standing is a national security issue. The is administration joins the Johnson and Nixon administrations in creating a credibility gap that can never be repaired.

BTW -

If there needs to by any additional proof that this is political, explain why nobody's calling for the death of the editors of the Wall Street Journal. And don't give that transparant nonsense that the WSJ is honorable because they only published it because they knew the Times was going to. They published it the SAME day...

I think both the Times and the Journal do their jobs as journalists; I don't always agree with them...but that doesn't matter. We have a free press and a first amendment.

Publicus,

If you folks would read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, you would know what you are talking about.

Don't assume that someone posting a call for death of the NYT editors to a blog in anyway represents the consensus of conservatives or any official position by the administration. There have been cases where liberal trolls post over the top comments only to give conservatives a bad name. Please address such comments directly rather than with the overly inclusive "you folks". The well educated should know better.

If there needs to by any additional proof that this is political, explain why nobody's calling for the death of the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

The NYT was the first news organization that indicated to the administration that it was going to publish this story. The LAT and WSJ got wind of the story from the NYT and began their own independent investigations. The administration concentrated on turning the NYT even sending John Snow to meet with the NYT editors. Had the administration succeeded, the other papers would likely have followed. Not having succeeded with the NYT, what the LAT and WSJ did wouldn't matter. The NYT was first with the story and that's why the calls to prosecute.

The New York Times did no harm to this country by discussing (what operational details?) a "secret" program that the administration had clearly indicated was going on.

If the terrorists all knew about the program then why was it successful in several cases? Obviously, not all the terrorists knew enough about the program to avoid it successfully and neither Dean Baquet or Bill Keller deny that. The argument that no damage was done just doesn't square with the facts.

Publicus...there's not much left of your post, or you, after Mac Lorry's fisking of it, but one last comment.

The Left (your homeboys) has consistently maintained that of course America could defend itself against its enemies as long as:
- actions by the Government were judged LEGAL by reputable judicial opinions (Right AND Left leaning judges ascribed these to be so)
- supported in a bi-Partisan manner (Republicans AND Democrats went to the NYT to plead with them not to print this)
- shown to be EFFECTIVE (Sec. Treasury and others showed them evidence of the effectiveness)

ALL of these supposed "legitimacy" criteria were met...and then some. Yet the NYT indicated they were going ahead full speed. They WERE the impetus behind this. They DO bear the responsibility for weakening our ability to fight global terrorism. They ARE traitors, and the Government should shut them down!

We would still have a free press (they're not the only game in town). But maybe we would have a WISER press.

Mac Lorry - Thank you for your post.

I was thinking about those who called for the death of Bill Keller; my words--"you folks"--was meant to refer to people who agree with that opinion.

I have never heard which operational details in the Times would have aided the terrorist. Was their anything of more value than was on, say, the Swift web page? If so, I didn't see it in the article.

Justrand - I plead guilty to believing that the terrorists can be fought and defeated within the confines of the law. I accept that we disagree about what is and what isn't legal. Americans often disagree and debate. That's great. Your side might win. That's fine. My only concern is that, while fighting the terrorists, we don't throw away our Republic.

There are so many things fundamentally wrong with that latest statement I don't even know where to begin. MacRanger's point was the first to come to mind. Is Keller really that obtuse? My God. No wonder the NYT is considered to be the "once venerable" paper.

I'm always a little antsy about taking the press to court though. That's a slippery slope I don't thing any of us want to start on. However, the leakers are another story. They should be searched out and stand trial for treason and sedition.

er ... think. Not "thing".

Oyster - I am happy to hear that, while you strongly disagree with Mr. Keller's position, you don't want to prosecute him.

I'd also like to note that the Left has been severely critical of Keller over his handling of actions the Judith Miller matter. First, the left didn't like her stories in the Times that supported the administrations claims about Iraq and the original case for war. Second. the Left were angry that Judith Miller was protecting a source within the Bush administration.

I disagree with the Left on both these matters; if she got a story wrong about Iraq, she's made a mistake which is regrettable but not a crime. And I think she did the right thing protecting her source--that's what journalists MUST do to do their jobs. Even if the source is not a nice guy.

That said, I'd like to think that Left and Right, which both have gripes with Mr. Keller, don't want to prosecute the press and endanger the first amendment.

"If there needs to by any additional proof that this is political, explain why nobody's calling for the death of the editors of the Wall Street Journal."

That's easy homeboy...

The Times Two (NYT & LAT) published their stories against the Governement's wishes... The WSJ published theirs after being told about the program during a Treasury briefing triggered by the Times Two telling the Administration to "pucker up, here it comes!"

The Times Two developed their stories during lengthy investigations that used anonymous sources in off-the-record interviews... The WSJ wrote the story using named officials, who knew the Times Two stories were about to break, at on-the-record interviews.

The Times Two were asked by the Administration to not blow their covert, legal, and effective program... The Administration, having been told "Sorry, Charlie... we're blowing the program!" by the Times Two, told the WSJ to run the story in an effort to set the record straight in their eyes.

I think an average person would find those differences less than trivial.

Pukicious, or whoever neglects to mention someone profounding disinterested in damage control for the White House, Rep. John Murtha, urged the NYT NOT to print the SWIFT story.

So much for the "political" angle.

As for the constitutional argument I defer to former Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson who opined "The constitution is not a suicide pact"

I suspect Mr. Keller thinks that it is

Hi, again!

Gizmo -

So, the Times is bad because they used unnamed sources and published things that the administration didn't want published. And the WSJ published only what the administration were okay with being published. But, what actual INFORMATION was published that revealed details useful to terrorists. I GET the Times, and didn't see much info like that; it seemed to concentrate on the controversy's surrounding the secret access to people who were not terrorist suspects...

Also, just curious--what's this "homeboy" thing? I'm probably too uncool because I don't get it. I assume it's intended to be derogatory (that's okay, this is a pretty heated argument), but I don't really get it...

I find it amazing that Publicus doesn't see that it is more important that the secrets of this country are better kept by elected oficials and those employed by them, than by self serving members of the press. I fail to see how you justify determining where or not damage is done when these secrets are revealed. I don't know how much damage is done, and honestly can't see how you can have the arrogance(sp) to make such a judgment yourself. The only real threat to our way of life is from the terrorist, not from an over zelouse(sp) administration. They are trying to defeat the terrorist, not the republic. Any true damage to the constitution will be readily recognized and delt with. The rest of this is just so much political crap.

Publicus, a "homeboy" is someone you hang with beyond reason...like you with the Left. ok?

The NYT, et al, rely on someone somewhere with a TINY PIECE OF THE PUZZLE being just disgruntled enough to "leak" something. Then they, the NYT, publish it and just don't give one good damn what damage it does.

well F**K 'EM. If they frog-marched the entire editorial staff of the NYT off to Gitmo for an "in-depth story" that would be fine with me. 4,5,6 years from now we can let tell their tale of "Life at Gitmo". A sure Best-Seller!

did I mention F**K 'EM?

USMC Pilot -

I haven't made a judgement on whether or not damage was done; I ASKED what in the NYT article revealed information that was previously unknown and damaged the program. This allegation is going around--the article damaged the country. So, I have asked, specifically, how?

In the past, administrations have kept things secret and declared them issues of national security--falsely. As far as I can tell, the Times raised this controversy with respect to the Swift program surveillance. (BTW - the public website of Swift has long acknowledged that they work with governments to uncover illegal and terrorist activity...this wasn't first revealed by the Times.)

I understand that, because you believe the President is an honorable man, that he wouldn't do anything to harm the Republic. I don't know what his intent is. But whatever his motives, I'm concerned that he is doing things that DO threaten the Republic. And, even if he IS completely wonderful, a future president with enhanced powers (grown during this administration) could threaten our freedoms and destroy them.

Justrand -

Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a homeboy. I frequently talk politics with a friend of mine who says I'm way too liberal. We argue all the time about politics, but enjoy the conversation and buy each other drinks. I do have liberal friends, too, but we don't talk politics because it's boring when there's not much disagreement.

As far as the Republic is concerned, I've long been fascinated by the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. So, that's why issues that impinge on them get me going...

Publicus: "I haven't made a judgement on whether or not damage was done;"

that's ok, the editors of the NYT and LAT have already done so. they would NOT be offering daily justifications of their treasonous actions if they didn't realize they WERE treasonous. PERIOD.

The NYT and LAT know for a FACT that they went our of their way to screw the President...and, oh by the way, America just HAPPENED to be in the freaking way!

Publicus, wise up to the FACT that those media outlets (at least) will do ANYTHING to bring down this President...and they don't care if they kill YOU and your FAMILY in the process. again...PERIOD!

wise up, Sport.

Publicus:

You seem to wonder what damage was done, while I wonder what good was done. I fail to see any threat to the Republic by anything done by the current administration. Philosophy is nice, but it all to often gets in the way of common sense.

The Republicans control the Executive and Legislative branches of government; they have appointed the majority of the members of the Supreme Court. They are in power.

So, why are they so fearful of opposition, or flag-burning, or gay unions, or newspapers, or court rulings they don't like. Do they expect TOTAL control? Are they unhappy with nothing less? It should be pretty gratifying to politicians to have that much power concentrated in one party; this is very rare. Hey, enjoy it! And relax; once in awhile, you won't get your way. But most times, these last few years, you did get your way.

Publicus: "Hey, enjoy it! And relax; once in awhile, you won't get your way. But most times, these last few years, you did get your way."

Absolutely perfect depiction of the Clinton philospohy! 1993 World Trade Center bombing..a blip...relax.
Cobart towers...no worries.
Ebassies in Africa get blown up...be happy, man.

We are truly at WAR, numb nuts. 9/11 changed the "don't worry...be happy" philosophy. So put down the damn bong and get as conerned with fighting and WINNING this war as the rest of us!

Geez.

Well, it's nice to see a reasonable liberal around here. You may be more polite than I am, and why you bother to respond to the irrational commenters is beyond me, but it's nice to see someone here from the left who is thinking and interested in a little more than partisan bickering.

Anyway, on with the partisan bickering! ;)

The administration concentrated on turning the NYT even sending John Snow to meet with the NYT editors. Had the administration succeeded, the other papers would likely have followed. Not having succeeded with the NYT, what the LAT and WSJ did wouldn't matter. The NYT was first with the story and that's why the calls to prosecute.

Mac, in the eyes of the law wouldn't all be treasonous or none? Does it really matter, in a legal sense, who knew about it first? If publishing such information is treasonous, aren't all who did so culpable?

I find it amazing that Publicus doesn't see that it is more important that the secrets of this country are better kept by elected oficials and those employed by them, than by self serving members of the press.

USMC, who do you think were the unnamed sources in this story if not our government employees, possibly elected, whom you think are better suited to guard this information? Do you wish to prosecute the press, even though they are protected by arguably the most fundamental basis of our society, and not those who swear to protect the secrets of government, or both? If both, by the same justification?

that's ok, the editors of the NYT and LAT have already done so. they would NOT be offering daily justifications of their treasonous actions if they didn't realize they WERE treasonous.

Ok, I guess I can't blame Publicus for responding to irrational commenters now. Justrand, does it enter into your thinking that the editors of those newspapers might be worrying about their readers, advertisers and subscription rates, instead of legal ramifications? If what they did was treasonous, no amount of op-eds would abrogate their crimes.

So put down the damn bong and get as conerned with fighting and WINNING this war as the rest of us!

Ooh, I hope you win the war soon so we can have our Bill of Rights back. Is your basement clear of terrorists? Good work!

Mantis:

To put the record straight, I would gladly pull the switch on whoever leaked the information to the NYT. I have not called for the prosecution of the editors of the NYT, since as near as I can tell they have not broken any laws. However, I would like to see laws preventing their actions passed.

My point is that they were asked not to publish the information and did it anyway, for no appearant reason other than to stir the pot. I don't feel any more informed now than I did before, and if someone else does they need to get a life.

It appears that to the apponents of the Bush administration, every action taken is somehow a threat to the Constitution. It is the same tactic which is used by blacks, when some one dissagrees with them, he/she is a racist. Accuse someone of something, then let them waste time trying to disprove it.