The Treasonous Times Befriends Hezbollah

The New York Times has again published sensitive information that undermines Israel’s efforts to eradicate the Hezbollah threat on its northern border while simultaneously attacking the policies of President Bush. It’s no wonder that the Times is the preferred news-source among terrorists.

The New York Times is reporting that the Bush Administration has approved a "rush delivery" of precision-guided bombs, or Bunker Busters, to Israel.

As the Times notes, disclosure of the Administration's decision to expedite the shipment "threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign." Of course, the Times does not concern itself with the consequences of reporting sensitive information, even when that information "has not [yet] been announced publicly."

Richard at Hyscience writes of the Times piece that, "as we have come to expect from the NYT, they dedicate most of their text to bashing the Bush administration and attempt to cast the [war] effort in negatives."

Richard's point is dead-on. In fact, the Times not only casts Israel's efforts under the shadows of evil, but it further substitutes opinion in the place of fact on more than one occasion. For example, the Times writes that the expedited shipment of weapons to Israel "could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah." I would argue, on the other hand, that no, it cannot.

Iran is arming a terrorist organization that uses its weapons to purposefully target civilians. The United States, by contrast, is shipping precision-guided weapons to a DEMOCRACY, so as to avoid civilian casualties. Moreover, it was Iran's weapons that began this war, not those of the United States.

The Times goes on to implicitly condemn the Bush Administration's strategy in dealing with the Israel-Lebanon conflict:

The decision to stay away from Arab countries for now is a markedly different strategy from the shuttle diplomacy that previous administrations used to mediate in the Middle East.

What the Times fails to point out is that the "shuttle diplomacy" of previous administrations is largely responsible for the state of the Middle East today. Israel has long been handicapped by the arm-twisting of the international community, which has forced Israeli leaders to sit opposite to tyrants at the negotiating table. As anyone with an IQ over 36 knows, tyrants generally renege on their promises. By ignoring this truth time and again, previous administrations have imperiled the life of every Israeli citizen and the state of Israel itself.

The Times then briefly turns its attention to the Yom Kippur War:

One American official said the shipment should not be compared to the kind of an “emergency resupply” of dwindling Israeli stockpiles that was provided during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, when an American military airlift helped Israel recover from early Arab victories.

With all the relevant information omitted, the above text amounts to nothing more than fuel for the enemy. The "early Arab victories" were secured by the Soviet Union, which was actively supplying and re-supplying the Arab armies throughout the war effort -- and by "war effort" I mean surprise attack on Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar.

The Yom Kippur War also gave rise to an important, diplomatic lesson for Israel -- namely, that Israel is a pariah nation that the majority of the world would prefer to rid itself of. The "early Arab victories" that the Times alludes to, nearly destroyed the Jewish state. Yet the United Nations was more than willing to stand on the sidelines while Israel fought for its very existence.

Of course, the moment that the United States responded with an airlift of its own -- which President Nixon agreed to out of spite for the Soviet Union -- and the war began shifting toward Israel's favor, the United Nations ran to the rescue of Arab states, calling for an immediate cease-fire and a return to the negotiating tables.

Indeed, the "shuttle diplomacy" that the Times so reveres has been Israel's most formidable adversary in its 58-years of recognized existence -- and by "recognized existence" I mean constantly questioned, besmirched and undermined. Of course, the Times isn't concerned with that.

The Times has long-sided with America's enemies in the War on Terror, which makes this latest disclosure of sensitive information less than surprising. Still, one would hope that when aiding the enemy, the Times would at least offer a balanced account of the events on which it is reporting. Apparently, the recent downsizing at the Times had no effect on its treasonous wing, which is great news for the terrorists.

Posted by Dr Politico at July 22, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #169776

Dr. Politico-
I wouldn’t be surprised if this leak was authorized from the top. What’s the threat, that Hezbollah will come out of its bunkers and become easier targets?

Or maybe this just tips Bush hand here and abroad too much towards a support of Israel. Why should they deal with us if we’re only going to reflexively take Israel’s side.

In this case, I’d say this: you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. That’s not going to work. We have to be willing to make concession to the Arab nations and governments, and the Palestinians as well. I wouldn’t be unhappy with cutting out the terrorists, but when we start asking people to give something for nothing, that’s when we start getting less than nothing, period.

The time has come to recognize that Israel is not our only interest in the region, and that we have to balance the interest in Israel with the others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #169780


“The time has come to recognize that Israel is not our only interest in the region, and that we have to balance the interest in Israel with the others.”

You’re correct. Israel is not our only interest in the region, though they are our only friend.

“Balancing” will only harm US interests in the future. We’d basically be rewarding hostile governments/nations for the simple fact that they don’t like our foreign policy. THe United States should not take the path of concessions, as Israel has done in the past, until Islamist states make concessions of their own.

Apparently, you feel that the United States should concede first and hope that the Islamist regimes return the favor.

Do you trust tyrants, Stephen?

Posted by: Dr Politico at July 22, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #169783

“It’s no wonder that the Times is the preferred news-source among terrorists.”

Do you have statistics to back that up, or just a blind assertion?

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at July 22, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #169784


It appears this administration has a leakage problem.

Or do you think the Times is just making things up?

How can this be “sensitive” when it is already a well known fact America sells weapons to Israel, including the F-16s that deliver the “smart weapons?

Posted by: Rocky at July 22, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #169785


“It’s no wonder that the Times is the preferred news-source among terrorists.”

Do you have statistics to back that up, or just a blind assertion?

It was a facetious comment. I would think it obvious.

Posted by: Dr Politico at July 22, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #169786


The Israelis made a lot of concessions. The places where the bad guys’ rockets are comming from is a result.

We don’t need to make concessions at this point. We should/will look for a cease fire soon, but as Dr. Politico points out, let the Israelis get rid of more of Hezbollah first. Previous peace diplomacy freezes the action too soon.

The goal is to hurt Hezbollah really bad. Now you are thinking, “but we create more terrorists.” Maybe. But that price is paid already. Everybody who is apt to be made or moved is already. The price is paid in advance. Now get the benefit of killing or crippling Hezbollah.

A couple weeks more. Give it a chance. We are doing the right thing by acting to stop the fighting - but acting with slow deliberation.

Posted by: Jack at July 22, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #169787

It amazes me that the religious, right-wing of the GOP is more Pro-Israel than American Jews themselves. Shame on them.
It only shows how far left “Liberals” have become… Scoop Jackson, R.I.P.

Posted by: Gene at July 22, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #169792

Dammit, Dr Politico, your telling all the secrets!

America supplies arms to Israel!! Shocking!!

Can’t we find another word besides treasonous to criticize the left..I’m getting really bored with that one.

Posted by: gergle at July 22, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #169794

gergle …

but Treasonous Times has such a nice ring to it, wouldn’t you say?

BTW, where in my post did I write anything about the left? Elected Democrats have been nothing short of amazing in demonstrating their support for Israel over the past couple weeks.

As for leftist bloggers, there’s been a major split, but I’ll save that for another post.

Posted by: Dr Politico at July 22, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #169796

Ironic, is it not? Israel is our only friend in the region, and the only friend of Israel is the US. Funny how that works.

So why should the US identify its national interests and security with Israel? I do not understand why it is in our interest to support a Jewish state. It seems to me like just the opposite should be true; that the US should support governments which seperate church and state.

But if we must support a Jewish state, despite no apparent security benefits or benefits to our national interests, why then would we not support an equally democratic religious state such as Iran? They are very similar. Each forbids candidates which do not support the idea of a state dominated by religion, whether is it Judaism or Islam.

Dr Politico,
It seems a shame to slow down you down in your rush to surrender first amendment rights, but as Stephen already mentioned, has it occurred to you the US government wants Hezbollah to know Israel it being resupplied? The message is, Israel can keep bombing indefinitely, so knuckle under at the negotiating table.

Personally, I think supporting a campaign which has already killed hundreds of innocent civilians is wrong for American policy.

And one last irony: if there is one country which would be a great candidate for a long term, secular democracy, it is Lebanon.

Too bad the Bush administration supported bombing the crap out of them.

Posted by: phx8 at July 22, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #169800

Dr P
I respond in solidarity with my Jewish brothers and sisters. The Times are schlecht. Their bias is haloschesdik. Having no kowed, they lack the ruknbein to stand for freedom in the world or American values. Should anything happen to the US because of their rischus, their entire organization should stand before congress, before the American people, and apologize for their lign.
Sha alu Shalom Yerushalim
Psalm 122:6a Pray for the peace of Jerusalem

my yiddish translation:

Posted by: JR at July 22, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #169801


“Each forbids candidates which do not support the idea of a state dominated by religion, whether is it Judaism or Islam.”

You understand that baseless comments such as this actually hurt your case, right? Muslims hold office in the Knesset. Israel does not vet candidates like Iran. Also, to call the two states “very similar” demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge regarding Iranian governance.

Might I suggest that you read a bit more about sharia law in Iran as well as the role of the Guardian Council in the day-to-day operations in Iran.

Seriously, phx8, you don’t actually believe what you wrote, do you?

Posted by: Dr Politico at July 22, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #169804

It’s so easy to bandy the word “treason” about. I call it journalism. Try this on for size: democracy makes sense ONLY if citizens are informed about what their leaders are doing. The source for the story are government officials — how do YOU know it’s not a deliberate leak by the White House. Listen, if you want to be taken seriously, think carefully before you go off half-cocked with tired old accusations of treason. You don’t like a free press? Fine, there are many countries you may like better. God, I’m sick of people not understanding the principles on which this country is founded.

Posted by: Trent at July 22, 2006 7:04 PM
Comment #169806

What the N.Y. times did was considered journalism but sometimes in journalism reporters have to use some kind of common sence. Especially if that story may cause National Security problems with this or any other Country. The info may well have been leaked, but then again it may not have.

Posted by: KAP at July 22, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #169807

“Especially if that story may cause National Security problems with this or any other Country. The info may well have been leaked, but then again it may not have.”

You’ve gotta be joking, right?

Please, somebody tell me what a story about America selling weapons to Israel has to do with “National” security.


Have you got any “man bites dog” stories?

Posted by: Rocky at July 22, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #169808

The trouble with the Right’s excuse for allowing the continued violence is that there are any number of more moderate and likely more productive strategies that could have been used to defend Israel. Y’all are conflating the extremity of the response with it’s effectiveness. Well, It’s like saying that if you use a shotgun instead of a rolled up newspaper to swat a cockroach on the wall, The shotgun is more effective because of all the damage it inflicts, besides what it does to the roach. Me, I want to preserve the wall AS WELL as kill the Cockroach.

So far the Right-Wing government in this country has proven insufficient to handle the chaos they started in one country. What in hell convinces them they can handle the Chaos of an entire region, especially in our current shape of military readiness and financial debt? Even after three years of unrest they never anticipated from the Iraq, they think they can hit the breaks on this situation anytime they want. Get Real.

This isn’t about hating Israel, hating jews, loving Hezbollah, the Times being treasonous or the Democrats being backstabbers. This is about whether the cure in this case will cause more ill than the disease. It does no good to eradicate Hezbollah and leave a radical client state of Iran in place in the process.

It’s time for the Right to stop insisting that every strategy they endorse is the last chance for Israel and the civilized world, and that their opponents are terrorist sympathizers. That’s nothing better than adolescent self-importance. We need mature government that doesn’t need its butt kissed by everybody on its policies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #169812

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, a fair assumption can be made that it is a duck!

As I have said before, during World War Two some journalists stumbled onto the existance of the Manhattan Project and the plans for the D-Day invasion of Europe, but they kept it to themselves.

If the people who run the New York Times and other elite mainstream media today were around then, the development of the atomic bomb and the D-Day invasion plans would have been front page news long before the fact.

Who cares how they came into such information? So what if some treasonous scumbag in the administration told them?

They don’t have to print it! And, no, the public is not entitled to know everything the government is doing when American lives and America’s survival is at stake!

Israel and America are fighting the same enemy - terrorists. To NOT support Israel in this effort would be the real crime.

Posted by: ulysses at July 22, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #169814


How can you possibly compare the sale of “smart” weapons to the Manhattan project?

If you don’t think Israel hasn’t bought from us before I have some swampland here in Arizona I would be willing to part with.
For a reasonable fee of course.

This is a non story. Hyperbole, plain and simple. Yet another attempt to make the right look patriotic.


Posted by: Rocky at July 22, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #169816

As for the Al-Quida Times, if you are not a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.

Posted by: tomh at July 22, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #169818

We sell weapons to a lot of countries, which include bombs,planes, ships, rifles ,bullets and missles of all sorts. It’s not news. Why then would some news paper want to report that we were selling bombs to Israel if it’s already standered Knowledge. There was no report of it in my hometown newspaper. It just seems strange that the N.Y. times is reporting something that is common knowledge. What’s more strange is that the N.Y.Times said that the U.S was selling buncker busters to Israel. You think maybe they might be trying to warn someone??????

Posted by: KAP at July 22, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #169819

Stephen D

Let me guess, diplomacy? Multi-lateral UN peacekeepers? If that’s all you got, I’ll take self defense and destroying the germs before putting up with the inconvenience of a deadly disease any day. You cannot negociate with a mindset that says to negociate is sin. You cannot trust in a cease fire when the religion of the terrorist tells them to do so only until they are again able to inflict damage on the infidel. UN? When has that worked without major US participation. Would Hizbollah put up with US troops patroling Lebanon? You can’t live a life of any normalcy with the threat of rockets in your living room everyday until the end of time. Peace for the sake of war,guaranteeing a continuation of damage, or war for the sake of peace? I’ll choose, as has Israel, the latter. One more thing, why the outcry here and support from The house of Saud, Jodan and Eygpt? Shouldn’t they be aghast? Or do they see the forest & the trees?

Posted by: JR at July 22, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #169820


What does it matter?

The U.S. has used “Bunker Buster” bombs in the past. In fact we made a pretty big deal about it.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that someone would think it newsworthy that we sold them to a foreign country.

The idea that the Times report of this sale compromises “National Security” is just ridiculous.

Posted by: Rocky at July 22, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #169822

Rocky and phx8:

You both make the point that it’s is common knowledge that the US sells weapons to Israel. That is true; however you are oversimplifying the situation by not recognizing that the details regarding weapon sales are not common knowledge.

Now you can say “What details? There was no news there!” My response to the trivialization of publishing this sort of info is this:

Details like the type of munition and delivery schedules were not publically available.

Why do I presume to speak for you? Because this situation is identical to the recent debate over the publication of information about US monitoring of international financial transactions. For both incidents, the talking points from the Left are the same.


News outlet A get classified info about subject X.

News outlet releases info.

Government objects.

News outlet counters with
a) The Public’s Right to Know
b) Everyone Knew That Already
c) It’s Probably Illegal
and my favorite …
d) Make me stop you fascist.

This sort of logic lead the Times et al. to inform me that the window for reporting suspicious financial transactions was two weeks. Sure prior to the Times’ story I knew that our government monitored banking transactions, but I didn’t know that the window for detection started at 14 days. Frankly, I don’t see any reason for me to know that. Releasing that sort of information reduces the effectiveness of the program and inhibits our governments ability to carry out their objectives.

I didn’t elect these newspapers to decide what was good for America. If the editors of these august institutions wish to wield political power, I suggest that they run for office.

Well, I didn’tis

Posted by: goodkingned at July 22, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #169824


“News outlet A get classified info about subject X.”

Read the doc’s article. He specifically used the word “sensitive”, not classified.
The sale of F-16s to Pakistan comes immediately to mind.


Anyone that actually listened to the President’s speech after Sept, 11th, would have heard him say we were going after the bank accounts of terrorists, yet no one has yet accused Mr. Bush of treason on that revelation.
I myself heard that speech and read the news more than twice, whether or not there was 14 day window is immaterial to me.
We are not dealing with complete idiots. If lowly me had this information they would have had it as well.

Treason, oh please.

Sorry I just can’t give this type of baloney a pass.

Posted by: Rocky at July 22, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #169826


Can’t you see that it would be helpful to know that the government was blind to your suspicious transactions for two weeks. Can’t you see that knowledge like that would allow terrorists to act with less danger of being caught.

YES, everyone knew that there was some form of montitoring on financial transactions. We agree, that is not the point, the release of program details is the point. Newspapers do not have the right to decide what is harmful to our war efforts.

I say again, let editors run for office if they want a hand in governing.

Posted by: goodkingned at July 22, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #169837


The article is about the sale of munitions to Israel, and how lame it was for our former administrations to attempt to settle the issues of the region through diplomacy.

Personally, I believe both issues are bulls**t, but I only read the threads and comment.

Posted by: Rocky at July 22, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #169848

BTW, ned,

Stephen posted the link to online articles that showed the information to have been a year or two ago.

Just because you hadn’t read it or had never heard of it, doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

Posted by: Rocky at July 22, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #169854

Dr Politico,
We probably agree on the nature of Iranian democracy, or lack thereof.

The disagreement comes with the idea that Israel is a democracy.

You know it is not a liberal democracy, you just have not processed the facts which you have already heard.

For example, you know Israel is a Jewish state.

You know the rights of Arab citizens are severely curtailed.

You know Palestinians cannot serve in the military. A council of Rabbis is empowered to veto anyone of the wrong background who might volunteer.

You know only about the First Right of Return for Jews.

You know people of various minorities and religions can serve in the Knesset, but under one condition: they must acknowledge Israel is a Jewish state.

You know about the new roads which only Israelis are allowed to use. You may already know most land is held by two agencies closely affiliated with the Israeli government, which permit only Jews to own the desired property.

You have not suggested this, Dr Politico, but others have confused anti-semitism and oppostion to Zionism.

I do not believe we should aid or arm Hezbollah, or Islamic republics.

I also do not believe we are obligated to continue arming Israel.

If nations wish to pursue courses which are inconsistent with US concepts of freedom, liberty, and human rights for all citizens, well, so be it. In most cases we can still engage in respectful relations as necessary, trade, and so on.

But please, do not ask me to pony up tax dollars to protect such regimes, then turn around and help weapons manufacturers pocket the profits.

Posted by: phx8 at July 22, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #169874

You know, between Hitler and the “severely curtailed Arabs”, I figure the universe owes Israel several million souls. I don’t really care how they defend themselves, where they get their money or weapons from or whether they are a Jewish state. If the IRS had a box I could check off that sent money directly to Israel I would check it. In fact, I’m going to contact the Israel embassy to get the address for donations.

Posted by: Mike Selby at July 23, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #169877

Stephen wrote:

“We need mature government that doesn’t need its butt kissed by everybody on its policies.”

I have proof that one immature “government” (Clinton) wanted people to kiss another part of his anatomy. What proof do you have that this “government” (Bush) wants people to butt kiss him?

Posted by: Don at July 23, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #169878

Oh, wait!

I see.

You were just being crude…

Posted by: Don at July 23, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #169879

You know what finally broke my loyalty to the Republican party, when it happened? When I got the sense that I was functioning on a more mature level than the party I was in.

All this name-calling constitutes part of what I began to hate in the party of Reagan and Bush 41. For me, the party had represented Grandfatherly wisdom. I realized its politics had turned into adolescent/fratboy obnoxiousness. I had enough of that around me in school.

I grew up reading National Geographics, and studying science, so the arrogant isolationism and pride in anti-intellectualism also helped to sour me on things. How could I support a party that could push creationism and peddled halfwit conspiracy theories about the UN? I never thought of it as an ideal place, but what alternative did they ever offer?

And the relationship with the media just ticked me off. I saw enough reports bashing Democrats for corruption, and enough slavering whitewater cover to sink a cruise-liner. What the hell did they mean liberal bias? If that was liberal bias, a conservative bias would be a live broadcast of them burning at the stake!

This is why the Treasonous/ al Queada Times B.S. rubs me the wrong way. Why don’t we deserve to know just how much Bush is stirring the hornets nest?

Why don’t we deserve to know just how many rights have been trampled in the process of catching nearly nobody? We have not actually caught a cell in action since 9/11, which is disturbing because of the Mukhtabar case, where al-Qaeda was able to push forward and call off a case with us never knowing until later.

al-Quaeda has not failed to attack us again because it couldn’t attack us; the flypaper strategy B.S. as much as admits for the administration that it’s given up on protecting the homeland. No, it’s because they have a different approach now. We’ve seen it in action, all across the world. Madrid, London, Iraq, and Java. The plan? Cut off America from its allies and its relationships. Bush’s plan? turn American policy towards unilateral action even at the cost of alienating allies. Not the best coincidence of interests.

Bush is this gift that keeps on giving as far as unpleasant surprises for the American people go. He hasn’t built up the track record with either the press or the public on these matters, so people want to know more than otherwise would be necessary. The real question is whether Bush’s policy apparatus saves political lives more than actual ones, and things like Katrina and the Iraq War have cast doubt on that.

America’s survival is at stake. The real question is, when information is sensitive like that, can America afford to have a president who can sweep his abuses and errors under the rug of classification?

What’s news is the extent to which Bush is actually pushing this. I’m not sure how valuable a warning is when it encourages you to leave the safety of a bunker for more open positions.

Do you like sending our soldiers out to fight with one hand tied behind their back? I don’t care what neutral party patrols or ensures compliance.

Don’t dress up using the shotgun instead of the shoe on these Hezbollah roaches as “war for the sake of peace” Punishing the Lebanese for Hezbollah’s actions will only lead them eventually to support Hezbollah’s actions, or something along those lines.

One particularly disturbing passage in the book The One Percent Solution basically say that we are going blind as to al-Quaeda’s actions. They’re ditching the digital communications, the money transfers and the other electronic trails that have made it far easier to track them. Bush and his people know this. al-Qaeda has figured out the trails leading to its people and it’s doing the smart thing and burying its transactions and communications in the real world, where relationships and other human factors rule.

Exactly where Bush and Co. have been eroding things. Now we are once again one step behind those aliens Isn’t that great?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2006 1:15 AM
Comment #169882

Stephen -

“Why don’t we deserve to know just how much Bush is stirring the hornets nest?”

Conspiracy theory is based upon suppositions like this. The answer to your question above is: “NO” We don’t deserve to know everything. And we don’t have to know everything. We have in our government people in positions of power (called congress) with oversight rights. (don’t get your panties in a wad over them not having oversight) How many times in the past few years have those very people who KNEW what was going on DENY that they knew or leaked that they knew for political gain. Oversight doesn’t have to include YOU.

Oversight also doesn’t have to include the New York Times. Since when is the “freedom of the press” an excuse for sharing govenment secrets? The press can only be free if it is also free NOT to publish something that we don’t NEED to know. The press needs to begin to understand that they are not in the information business, but the news business. When they cross that line they become spies for foreign governments and interests.

Posted by: Don at July 23, 2006 1:46 AM
Comment #169886

Stephen D.

I like the fact that our President is, as you say, “pushing” creationism. I don’t have to believe in it, but I like the effect that a belief in a higher being has on MOST people (militant muslims excluded). So preach on, President Bush! I want my kids to believe in God and go to church. When they are adults they can decide for themselves. In the progressive world, they will have to work too hard to find God in the USA. I don’t want that. I definitely have a “conservative” point-of-view when it comes to my children and how I want them to get started in life.

If you think I seem to pick on your posts too often, it’s only because you are my favorite intellectual in here, and I read everything you write (although I find myself agreeing with Jack and Dr. Politico a lot).

Posted by: Bruce at July 23, 2006 2:06 AM
Comment #169889

Free speech = treason
Free press = treason
Free thought = treason

And you wonder why the Left (and the middle) keep using words like “fascist” and “nazi”.

viva la revolution!
Revolt! For your life and freedom depend on success!

Posted by: ChristianLeft at July 23, 2006 2:29 AM
Comment #169890

“As for the Al-Quida Times, if you are not a part of the solution you are a part of the problem.”

Posted by: tomh at July 22, 2006 08:07 PM

Are you a part of the solution? Is anyone in the Neocon Administration? Please say yes, I could use a laugh!

Posted by: ChristianLeft at July 23, 2006 2:33 AM
Comment #169896

Free speech?

Issue 1: Limitations. The New York Times cannot slander you or your family. The New York Times cannot intentionally cause panic by claiming a meteor is headed directly for your town when it is not. They are not allowed to share business trade secrets, such as the recipe for KFC chicken.

There are always limits on speech.

There is also a limit when it comes to National Security, and international security. The New York Times has been crossing that boundary regularly for some time now.

Issue 2: Reporting news vs Causing News. There is also a difference between reporting the news and causing news by reporting. Carjacking was unheard of until one case was blown out of proportion by the news in Detroit. Then carjacking became an epidemic there. This was one case of CAUSING NEWS by reporting. When the news sources began to ignore carjackings the carjacking numbers began to decline.

Issue 3: Stupid reporters and editors. Have you ever been interviewed by a reporter? I have. They usually don’t get the “facts” straight. They don’t research before interviewing people. They often don’t research after interviewing people. I own a pest control company. A reporter called and wanted to interview me about bedbugs. I asked her what she already knew. She had read a newspaper article about bedbugs being a problem in the area. That’s it! And she wanted to interview me for the evening news program.

Listening to other people (nationally known public figures) tell why they refuse to be interviewed showed me that my experiences are not unusual.

Issue 4: Motive. Reporters report what will make money. The New York Times is not in business for lofty ideals, its in business to make money. If it gets them a few more Muslem readers, they’ll print it. They aren’t interested in being good neighbors, good friends, or even decent people. Their interest is money, money, money. Doing the right thing with lofty ideals wouldn’t help their bottom line. “Freedom of the press” is just an excuse.

Posted by: Don at July 23, 2006 3:42 AM
Comment #169899


If the terrorists are being forced to “real world” financial transactions as you say, that is a good thing. Due to religious conventions against lending for interest, the arab world is forced to jury rig ancient rent to own schemes to transfer real property. This hinders their participation in a modern economy. If, as you say, the terrorist are financially going to ground that will inhibit their ability to conduct operations on a global scale.

However, it should not be the decision of the news outlets what sensitive info is acceptable for publication. They are working from an incomplete data base and can’t understand the full implications releasing secret info. Since they ignored the requests of bipartisan government officials to not publish the SWIFT info, the Times don’t care if they compromise national security programs. Anything for a buck must be their motto.

All the arguments mounted by supporters of the Times SWIFT program leak are in an unenvious position of having to argue that it’s immaterial that our national security has been compromised just a little bit. How much damage has to be done before the last Times supporters will quit bailing the boat and jump ship?

Posted by: goodkingned at July 23, 2006 5:07 AM
Comment #169912

Stephen D.
I to think you are a very intelligent person. But this one you blew it. No newspaper has the right to compromise security of this or any other nation. Selling of arms is not news. But when one nation is at war and a world wide news paper tell exactly what type of arms are being sold to it is a different matter.

Posted by: KAP at July 23, 2006 9:19 AM
Comment #169915

I did not say he himself is pushing creationism. I was speaking about the Republicans in general. As for looking for God? I don’t need a politicians or a policy’s help, and I don’t want it.

People found God in the midst of the Roman Empire. We have it nowhere near as bad. We don’t have to worship any emperor or watch what religion we subscribe to because it might be in official disfavor. If people don’t get ostentatious with their religion, it’s not a bad thing. Christianity is not about showing off.

In a free country like this, there will always be folks who challenge and disparage us. The key is to become innoculated, to grow defenses agaisnt the day-to-day temptations of this country.

As for Creationism? I think it gets in the way of people understanding God in the midst of the modern world.

So much of what we see around us demonstrates human ingenuity, and it’s part of what brings people to believe that God is unnecessary. When so much power is at every individual’s fingertips, when modern medicine sees to it that people can survive illness, injury and chronic conditions that once killed far easier, then what need is there for God? What makes him so great? As long as Religion denies the progress of modern Science and reason in these things it will seem to people that Religion is only defensible if you leave your brain at the door.

Science, though, is increasingly showing us a world that is so much more complex than we are even capable of figuring out. Those trying to play God with species, for example, find that reducing a predator species to increase the numbers of a prey species often fails to work, as the predator’s or prey’s rivals are also taken out of check. One snag with cloning is the important role the environment of the womb plays in a child’s development; in fact, much of that development is worked off of the mother’s genes, and that is part of what ensures that most people, despite major genetic differences, are fairly similar in shape and form. It’s development in the late term and in Childhood where our own DNA makes its most significant contribution.

This is one of many complex things that science sees in the world today, and as much as we have learned and gained, the knowledge and understanding about all these things surpasses the ability of one person to know it by leaps and bounds, and that’s in the incomplete form!

Any God who could manage all that together is many orders of magnitude wiser and smarter than any of us, and to such a God I’m more than willing to submit.

On the subject of the release of this information, The Defense Security Cooperation Agency released this information in april of last year. As you can see in this PDF file, this is a news release, rather than a classified file. This is how the New York Times talks about it.

Additionally, in looking over this item, I found out that the real concern is not the use of them on Hezbollah, but rather on Iran.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #169916

Ever heard of the Mushroom Theory? It’s what this administration and its conservative pundits do.

To grow mushrooms, you keep them in the dark and feed them shit. That’s exactly what this administration does with the American public. And this blog seems to reinforce this theory over and over again.

NYT jeopordizing US security on releasing a story that the US will send smart bombs? How ludicrous. First off Haartiz in Jeruselem broke the same story the same day. Second, everyone in the world knows that Israel gets its munitions from the USA. So where is the big state secret?

As I have said on other posts here, Israel is showing the same disregard for civilians as its opponents, Hamas and Hezbollah. The difference is the US munitions and air power that Israel uses. And what a difference it makes.

Lebanon has suffered for too long. The only reason Hezbollah is there is because Palestinian refugees were pushed into Lebanon by Israeli forces in the 1950s and that influx of poor, landless people destablized Lebanon since. Lebanonese and Palestinians have been rivals just like the British and French. So this influx of refugees with no solution provided, has been festering for 50 years.

And it is not just Arab vs. Jew. Many Lebanonese are Christian (even speaking Aramaic in church). And you can be assured they have suffered severely from the Israelis. (As have the 100,000s of Christian Palestinians.) So all you Christian Right wingers, take note: Israel’s plan for a greater Israel does not include Christians (read Israel’s laws on immigration.)

Posted by: Acetracy at July 23, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #169928

Oh my god, NYT is reporting US is arming Israel!
Sad day for journalism, when you’ve no “new” stories to report but the old ones.

Indeed, that’s a treasonous to real journalism.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 23, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #169930


I was not comparing selling “smart” bombs to the Manhattan Project.

What I was comparing was the ability of the media of 60 years ago to exercise responsibility in what they reported and the lack of that same responsibility of today’s media.

I reported for a small town (population 45,000) newspaper for nine years and in the course of that time, I became privy to information that could have, to say the least, made life miserable for some of our more prominent citizens.

Sometimes, we reported this information because it affected the community at large. Other times, we sat on the information because reporting it would only have served to harm the individual and had no bearing on the community at large.

I don’t know what you call it, but I call it responsible journalism.

Posted by: ulysses at July 23, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #169932

Let’s establish the facts here, friends and neighbors: This arms sale was not only not a classified secret, it was already a matter of public record, along with just about every public arms sale we do.

Here, I think, is the relevant documentation.

This was public record last year. But of course, that wasn’t the basic assumption by Doctor Politico, or his source. Their assumption was that the Times was up to more treason. It’s become rather easy for those on the right to make accusations on matters they’ve not bothered to fully research. I acknowledge that the intentions are likely good, and that there’s a reason most of the time to respect Classification of information.

The problem here is one of what the Republicans believe goes without saying. One, that we should be kept in the dark about much of what our government does in our name to defend us. Two, that the media is out to selfishly undermine national security for the sake of selling papers and furthering the political agenda they perceive them to have. Three, that Bush’s authority as CINC gives him license to override constitutional guarantees.

The problem is, what is Bush declaring secret, and why? Conversely, what does he really know, as opposed to what he tells us? What it opens up for us, is this president telling us one thing about what he’s doing, when he’s playing a completely different game behind the scenes. Libya is a great example of this. Bush made it look like Ghaddafi was scared out of the water by the invasion of Iraq, when in reality, they had been working on a deal for some time to allow the dictator to save face and get out of the sanctions that were crippling his country’s regimes. Everybody knew what was going on except for us.

If we are to have a productive war on terror, some information will have to be kept secret, but those secrets cannot be simply kept for the sake of a politician’s reputation.

It does inhibit (thankfully) their ability to move cash around for their terrorist activities, but the flipside to that is that we loose the FININT (financial intelligence) that comes with that.

As for SWIFT, the program was public record as of October 2002, I believe. Furthermore, I doubt people as smart as al-Qaeda believed their transactions were not being monitored.

For reasons already listed above, it is not illegal to report on arms deals such as the 100 GBU bunker busters. The real question is, why these weapons to Israel. Given what certain Bush administration members have suggested in terms of policy in the Middle East, it’s rather alarming. I don’t think we’re prepared, as we are, to shoulder the burden of the consequences of a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran. They’re going about it like that anyways, this news tells us.

When are we going to realize that this administration’s ego on foreign policy is writing checks the body politic can’t cash?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #169943


“What I was comparing was the ability of the media of 60 years ago to exercise responsibility in what they reported and the lack of that same responsibility of today’s media.”

Today we live in an open society where we are bombarded 24/7 with the “news”.
I don’t think it necessary to repeat what Stephen just posted.

“As I have said before, during World War Two some journalists stumbled onto the existance of the Manhattan Project and the plans for the D-Day invasion of Europe, but they kept it to themselves.”

That is your exact quote. You are comparing the responsibility of reporting on the Manhattan Project, which was top secret, to the reporting of an arms sale, which is not.

This is apples and oranges, a chance for Doc Politicico to take a cheap shot only for political purposes, and that is a load of crap.

This is also just more of the “we don’t really know what we’re talking about but repeat it again and again and hope people will eventually believe it”, propaganda that the right is using to brainwash the squares in this country.

The folks in America aren’t that stupid.

Posted by: Rocky at July 23, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #169947

I admire Israel when it comes to war. It doesn’t need the UN. If a country around the size of Indiana doesn’t need the UN, the the world’s only superpower doesn’t need them either. The UN is nothing but a bunch of leeches that suck my money. The US funds the UN too much. I know that if we were leave the UN and kick them out of New York, then within several months, they would disband because they lost their biggest host to suck the life-blood out of.

As for the New York Times, execute them. People should go to prison for treason during times of no war, but we are in a war and treason during war should be death because they are endangering millions of people.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 23, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #169958

Hey! I have a novel idea! Even Bush will agree to this one! Let’s make it illegal to:
1) criticize the government
2) print actual news
3) be a Liberal blogger
4) protest against corporations
5) use words like “peace” and “troop withdrawal”

Oh, wait… I guess he beat me to it.

Posted by: ChristianLeft at July 23, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #169964

BTW, by Dr. Politico’s standards (snicker) these links prove we should go to war with Britain:

Posted by: ChristianLeft at July 23, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #169965

Sorry about the broken links. These should work:

Israel ‘presses US on bomb sale’

Iraq prisoner abuse ‘was routine’

Posted by: ChristianLeft at July 23, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #169975


Oh yeah?

Take a look at the people Americans elect (and re-elect) to govern them, then tell me they’re not stupid!

And I stand by my assertion that I was comparing journalistic integrity then and now, not specific events, regardless of how you spin it.

Words, like people, can be easily manipulated in the hands of an expert.

Somehow, I believe that if you and I should engage in a war of words, I would quickly be defeated!

Posted by: ulysses at July 23, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #169978


well,,, thanks,,, I guess.

Posted by: Rocky at July 23, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #169980

If its news and available to the Press, the press should print it. It is called free press for a reason and obviously not because you have to pay to buy the paper.

Want to criticize? Criticize the swiss cheese Bush administration which can’t keep their navel lint private. That’s navel, not naval. This is like going after the store owner for being robbed and wasting tax payer dollars by calling the police. Go after the robber/leaker, not the robbed/reporters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 23, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #169983


You’re welcome! Keep up the good work.

David R. Remer

Even if that “news” is obtained illegally or as the result of a criminal act?

Should the media be exempt from the law of the land because the people have a right to know?

Is the exception to the “three wrongs don’t make a right” rule?

Posted by: ulysses at July 23, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #169990

This is one of many times that I’ve tracked down an issue raised by the Republicans to find only half-truth or outright lies behind it.

It’s a common occurence. One person after another claims that Wilson lied when he said the Vice President sent him. They never bother to read his actual editorial, which said that the CIA approached him to answer a question that had been posed to them by the Vice President’s office. They talk about a vacation junket, without checking to see whether a trip to Niger is really all that wonderful of a getaway.

Good reporting is often about looking at claims and filtering the facts from the fiction, the authorities from the amateurs. It’s also about not letting these kinds of myths build up. Too much of the time, instead of using the 24 hour news cycle to fill up screens with more information, we instead get mere repetition and representation.

We need more than just a greater amount of information coming in, we need more meaningful and correct information coming in.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #169998

“BTW, where in my post did I write anything about the left? Elected Democrats have been nothing short of amazing in demonstrating their support for Israel over the past couple weeks.”

Sorry, Dr Politico, I just assumed you knew that the NYT is a left wing rag, run by the secret cabal of lefties.

Posted by: gergle at July 23, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #170053

“Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Of course, like other “rights,” freedom of the press has been watered down. In general, though, prior restraint has not been upheld by the courts, and newspapers can libel (not slander, as someone claimed) anyone they like. They may be sued if the claim is untrue AND printed maliciously, but an injunction against publishing is not permitted. Judges may issue gag orders, but again, they may not restrain the press from publishing.

Freedom of the press is our most precious right. It pains me to see how willing people are to jettison or water down that right. The most dangerous threat to our democracy is not foreign invaders, it is our own government. A major reason for the second amendment is to protect us against tyranny, including the tyranny of our own government. This is not a “left” or “right” issue; this is an “American” issue.

Posted by: Trent at July 23, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #170055


“The most dangerous threat to our democracy is not foreign invaders, it is our own government.”

Actually, from reading some of the posts on this thread, the “most” dangerous threat seems to be from the American people.

Americans seem to become less informed, and yet more opinionated every day.

Hmmm, must be the fault of that “treasonous” media.

Posted by: Rocky at July 23, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #170067

What? I’m uninformed because I don’t agree with another’s opinion?

I’m uniformed because I look at the same information and draw a different conclusion?

I’m uninformed because I view the world through a different set of values?

Am I uninformed because I’m the wrong color, or the wrong religion, or practice the wrong politics, or don’t have a college degree, or live in the wrong neighborhood, or have to work for a living?

Am I missing something? Would someone please explain to me what “being informed” means?

Posted by: ulysses at July 23, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #170073


The entire premis of this thread is much ado about nothing.

BTW, the word “some” isn’t all inclusive.
Don’t take it personal.
I can’t post names because that would be “attacking the messenger”, now wouldn’t it?

Posted by: Rocky at July 23, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #170144

stubborn conservative;

The UN is nothing but a bunch of leeches that suck my money. The US funds the UN too much. I know that if we were leave the UN and kick them out of New York, then within several months, they would disband because they lost their biggest host to suck the life-blood out of.

It’s not the UN who “suck” your money but your US government that continue to agree to fund UN while, at the same time, make everything he could to discredit UN. Does it make any sence too you!?!
If you really want this to stop, simply ask your government to stop funding UN. If they don’t listen to you, change your government. Or you vote, at least. In both case, next time better choose a real conservative candidate, not a faking one. For once.

As for the New York Times, execute them. People should go to prison for treason during times of no war, but we are in a war and treason during war should be death because they are endangering millions of people.

Yeah! Death for them. Hang them! Now. No trial. We’re, well not me so… *you* are at war, damned! Maybe the free press didn’t get the memo??? How come, AFAIK they get all official memos plus the leaked ones too. How could they miss the “US declares War on Earth” one!?!
Anyway, death for treason, and treasons for everyone daring to oppose you. That wont stop to endangering millions of people but, at least, will get some *bad* people killed for sure. Hurray, the good side win again.

PS1: Execute as well the DSCA militaries that are endagering millions of people by publicly reporting US is selling arms to Israel.

PS2: Execute as well the Congress who allow DSCA to publicly report about US arms sells to Israel

PS3: Execute as well the americans people who let their representatives allowing DSCA to publicly report about US arms sells to Israel.

PS4: Execute as well the humans who allow the americans people to keep living in a democracy during so-called war time. After all, we’re all endagering millions of people by letting americans having some freedoms.

PS5: Please, ask your government to resign from UN. Your country is clearly showing that he don’t want to be “united” with any nations anymore. But money. *Your* money.

PS6: *your* money, even the one *sucked* by UN thru US government, is valued regarding the global economy. Please consider isolationism as you want but keep in mind that in real world you’re not alone, far from it, and that your *money* could suffer in the process…

PS7: Sadly, my own money will do too. But I’m not for isolationism, quite the opposite.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 24, 2006 4:37 AM
Comment #170231

Interesting how the libs are so(oooo) quick to blame Bush (yet again!) about these leaks and not the NY “Al Jazeera” Times. That’s it libbies, every problem in the world can be solved by blaming Bush. Nice…

Posted by: rahdigly at July 24, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #170232

I agree that there are some limits to free speech, but this is way out of line.

The state secrets are entrusted to states officials. It is their responsability to protect the secrets. If something gets out, we should punish the government official responsible for the leak, not the press. Afterall, if the NYT can find out about a certain fact, so can the enemy spies, have no doubt about that. So if information that is not supposed to be public gets published, blame the government for failing to protect the secret.

One more point - it is a pretty well known fact that most of the classified documents are being classified without serious reason (governamental abuse). So perhaps we should not only support NYT for letting us know what the government is doing, but also fight for severe limitation of the government’s right to classify information. You can be sure that whenever the government is doing something wrong, they will classify all information about it.

Posted by: South Park republican at July 24, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #170233


If there so smart, why have they killed hundreds of civilians? Hezbollah the “TERRORIST GROUP WHO BUILDS SCHOOLS HOSPITALS AND HOMES FOR THE POOR” Let’s blame the poor people once again. No HEZBOLLAH ever called me a wetback.

Posted by: Anthony at July 24, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #170237

you all do realize that the information about the missiles was realeased on CNN the night (or afternoon, i can’t remember exactly which one it was) before the ny times printed it? the reason that this particular transaction is making waves is not because we are giving israel arms; as many of you have said, we’ve been doing that forever out in the open. the controversial part of it is that we are giving them weapons specified for blowing bunkers well ahead of the next scheduled transaction. therefore, it appears as if we are trying to search for a diplomatic solution while giving israel military support to continue in their military actions. as a country, we are already in the midst of a growing petroleum shortage/crisis and this move could very likely anger much of the arab world from which we get a good amount of said oil. on top of that, we project to the world the impression that we will support israel regardless of the situation and it could undermine the already shaken trust that they have in us.
back to the ny times: the accusations that have been lofted against the times, though in general reasonable, fall apart once you look beyond the superficialities of politics. the articles that have had the most reaction are those in which were exposed illegal activities. i believe it would be irresponsible for any newspaper to look the other way as the government betrayed the trust of the people and proceeded to breach their rights and get involved in illegal activities. i don’t care that the administration involved was a republican/conservative one; if somebody does something that is against the law, and immoral, they should be punished. especially with the wiretapping shenanigans: the administration had tons of leeway already to eavesdrop on whoever they wanted. the system had little to no red tape and was essentially hardwired to approve anything they chose to do. but they were still blatantly ignoring the system they had had set up for themselves a few years earlier and breaking the law. with this latest non-issue that is being made into a debacle, doesn’t the public have a right to know that their government, which represents them to the rest of the world, is providing military support to a country on one side of one of the hottest, most controversial conflicts of our time? i also do not see this as harming national security, either ours or israels. so what if hizbollah knows that we’re giving israel missles? there’s nothing they can do about it: it’s not like they have the capability to strike at the shipments or the us right now and they’re already sending rockets into israel. what it does is expose the all too familiar double-faced nature of our government (not limited to this administration). and yes, i am jewish and believe strongly in israel as a jewish homeland; but one that should (in an ideal world) be shared with all who find, for whatever their reaons are, something holy about that particular swatch of land.
as to the comparison between the manhattan project discovery and this: when the reporters stumbled across the manhattan project, they had no idea about the decimation and horror that they atomic bomb would cause because not even the scientists truly knew until the first one was released over hiroshima. i’m sure they were also informed in some way by the powers that be that this a project of utmost security and priority that was the best hope at the time to ending the war. this latest release was about a couple of missiles sent to an ally during a war (although where to draw lines now and such is getting hazier as time goes on) and is in no way relevent or comparable to the manhattan project discovery; just as the other contemporary ny times releases have been. so lay off, stop trying to make a scapegoat for everything that has not gone exactly according to plan and for all that that might go wrong in the near to distant future. because i can assure you, something will go wrong, and in some major way, those throwing accusations will be to blame; as much as they’ll try to make it appear that they aren’t.

Posted by: alefnought at July 24, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #170537

The state secrets are entrusted to states officials.

Now there is a scary thought!!
I love all you brain-dead sheep that believe that just because something is labeled “secret” that it has something to do with National Security
God, that label has been so ABUSED by this administration to cover up it’s illegal activities as to have lost any credibility long ago.
Two, who said, or where was it indicated that this particular item was secret??
maybe not published or common knowledge (altho if CNN knew about it — it couldn’t have been all that tough to find out!!)

The same group who pushes “The Government knows best” when it comes to National Security are the same clowns that moan about the Government being so clueless as to be incompetent in handling anything else — Education, Environmental protection, business regulation, etc
Seems funny — the govt is too incompentent to be allowed to direct the education of our children, but when it comes to the security of our country — look out Boys, better not criticize them!! (of course if this were a Democratic administrations (ironic isn’t it, the double meaning there??) these same people would be all for the release of this information to disclose the treasonous/incompetent/untrustworthyness, whatever — nature of the administration.!!
HYPOCRISY at its worst!!!

Posted by: Russ at July 25, 2006 12:46 PM
Post a comment