The New York Times breaks silence

Powerline ^ | 02/12/2006 | John Hinderaker

[Wasanother]

Here's some free advise for Risen, If you drop the soap just let it go and if some burley man says,"boy you sure got a purdy mouth", ask him what color lipstick does he prefer.

[tsmith130]

Well that's comforting, Bill Keller, newspaper idiot with no idea of national security, says they didn't jeopardize national security

Bingo! He gets to decide why?

[Beagle8U]

"Let's spread the damage to all the sectors of society who conspired, knowingly or otherwise, in this treachery."

I agree, and I want the trial to start by mid Aug. and be live on C-span for everyone to see the damage these RATS have caused to national security.

[TalBlack]

"Here's hoping the administration finds the intestinal fortitude to seek to convince a jury of Keller's peers."

In 'no balls' America that's just not happening.

This neutered condition extends as well to journalists who print what they please and are explicitly proud of it until they have something to print that may anger someone who they believe may blow their lying liberal heads off--then they become "prudent".

No balls and scumbag cowards to boot.

[Fruitbat]

Yeah, no kidding.

An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper may be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act...

I'll believe that when I see it.

[Socratic]

What does it take to get through to these dunderheads? Wild-eyed Muslims renting a van, filling it with fertilizer, etc., and parking it in the lobby of the NYTimes?

Perhaps this is their insurance that such a thing won't happen. After all,"The enemy of my enemy........."

[carlr]

"We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised believed that this information would be extremely damaging to the Bush administration which is far more important than national security."

Just reporting the real story.

[rock58seg]

A little enlightenment of what we are looking at, for those of us not on a lanmarks preservation committee, might be helpful.

[muawiyah]

It is highly noteworthy that the New York Times was not subjected to any sort of attack on 9/11.

[TADSLOS]

Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary

[Socratic]

It is highly noteworthy that the New York Times was not subjected to any sort of attack on 9/11.

QED

[Fruitbat]

It's also "no balls" politicians. If the roles were reversed, GOP and Dims, the Dims would back any measures to get conservative publications nailed, and even on falty information.

Well, here we have real data, generally speaking, and when we sorely need a period whereby we, the government/people, could sorely use some solutions for treasonous behavior, those in control politically will probably back off in the name who knows what for reasons of political expedience.

[JoeSixPack1]

So they weighed their options and surely had the countries best interest in mind when they decided this little tidbit of information was an unnecessary national security secret.

Who knew the NY Slimes were top notch national security experts?

(/sarc)

[ops33]

Its irrelevant whether you think your actions may or may not compromise national security. That's not the legal standard. The NY Times has no legal right to publish classified information. Period. It doesn't matter what you think of the war, or even if there is a war. They can't compromise classified information.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

"We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

These Ivy League elites who run the major media learned many things in college, among them:

1) Ethics are circumstancial and relative

2) The Press has little to fear from the government, due to endless legal complications and the perennial 'Freedom of the Press' defense. Did Ellesberg do time for releasing the Pentagon Papers?

[Moonman62]

"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security."

So the integrity of our national security depends on the judgement of the NYTimes. I'm not feeling too warm and fuzzy about that.

[Fresh Wind]

It is highly noteworthy that the New York Times was not subjected to any sort of attack on 9/11.

See, that proves that BushRoveHitlerCo wasn't to blame for 9/11 because their first target would have been the NYT.

[kanawa]

Geez, what were you doing at that URL?

[Mike Darancette]

How about "Federal Prosecutors"!?!?

They are called Conservatives when the Administration is conservative. Federal prosecutors were called Liberals when they went after Clinton.

What, they were called Conservative then too? I don't understand.

[ARepublicanForAllReasons]

The NY Times has no legal right to publish classified information. Period.

Such absolute pronouncements really stick in the liberal craw, lol.