Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Suddenly, the NYT cares about national security and sensitive information

You know, if I were a cynic, I would conclude that the only reason the Old Gray Hag obliged Obama’s request is because he’s (a) a Democrat, and (b) not George Bush.  Crazy, huh?

Here are excerpts from Newsbusters, who does a great job quoting the Hag’s 2006 defense of publishing details of the SWIFT program, a defense that rings hollow in light of today’s events:

The New York Times has apparently discovered its inner patriot. The paper decided after a request from the White House to hold off publishing key information about the war effort in Afghanistan for fear of alerting the enemy to key U.S. intelligence.

The Times and its executive editor Bill Keller, who defended the decision, have left the nation collectively uttering, “It’s about time.” Now that’s change we can believe in.

Keller told WNYC radio today that two Times reporters had a story ready to go on Thursday about the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban’s top military commander in Pakistan. The paper decided to hold off on running the story until today, the date the White House requested.

The National Security Council, Keller recalled, “thought it had been a clean snatch and they were afraid once the word got out, other Taliban officials would go deeper underground or take measures to cover their tracks. So they asked us to hold off for a while.”

The paper’s decision not to compromise such vital information is admirable, and has surely aided in the fight against the Taliban in the Af-Pak region. But where was this patriotic desire to cooperate with the nation’s war effort when the Times made public the SWIFT terrorist finance tracking program (TFTP), or a host of other highly sensitive programs designed to rout the nation’s enemies?

So why is it that when the Bush administration asked the Times to hold off on publication – and the Times refused – the paper was defending a critical right to free speech? But when the Obama administration made the same request, the paper erred on the side of security rather than “civil liberties”?

Nope…no liberal media bias!


February 17, 2010 - Posted by | hypocrisy, media bias, Obama


  1. Yep, no liberal bias… I wonder just how many soldiers were killed or wounded because of the NYT’s lack of integrity during the Bush years?

    Comment by Robert | February 17, 2010

  2. I still think the CEO and others within the NYT should be tried for treason! And Harry Reid (the war is lost) and Biden, and others!

    Comment by tnjack | February 17, 2010

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: