Sun, 18 Dec 2005 06:56:31
Seriously, is it?
So...is the fact that someone may or may not have illegally leaked the name of a non-covert, out-and-proud CIA employee REALLY monumentally more important than the fact that someone absolutely and positively leaked matters of national security to the New York Times who sat on them and waited until now to use the story to A: take the thunder away from the Iraqi elections and B: attempt to further damage the White House?
SOMEONE LEAKED NSA PROCEDURE AND INFORMATION ABOUT AN ONGOING ANTI-TERRORISM INVESTIGATION TO THE NEW YORK FRIGGING TIMES.
Does anyone on the left care about that fact at all? Where’s the outraged calls for an investigation into this leak?
The President himself said it best:
“This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.”
If you consider yourself Democrat, progressive, liberal...what have you...you should be outraged. You should be completely disgusted at the idiots that run your side of the aisle. They have committed no less than an act of treason here, and the New York Times helped.
Oh, that liberal media
Posted by JimK at 06:56 AM on December 18, 2005
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: News, Politics, Crime and Criminals, The Fourth Estate, War
Tags:
Technorati: New York Times NSA eavesdropping Bush war on terror
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)
#1 Posted by Drumwaster
on 12/18 at 01:43 PM -
The New York Times, the Attorney General, the White House Counsel, the NSA in-house counsel, AND selected Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have all agreed that no laws were broken and no one’s rights were violated, but the Donks want Bush’s head {again}.
Why? To try and regain political power, no matter who gets hurt/killed.
See, they’re not worried about another terror attack, because if it doesn’t happen, they can “prove” that it didn’t because they stood up for the right of 13-year-olds to have secret abortions at taxpayer expense, and if it does, they can use that against Bush and prove that going out and fighting the terrorists in their homes “doesn’t work”, and so we simply must go back to kissing their asses because we never got attacked when Clinton was in office…
Oh, wait…