June 29, 2006

NYT Seems To Admit They Harmed National Security
— Ace

While the left has its talking points -- of course terrorists knew their money was being tracked, etc. -- the most immediate harm comes via our skittish allies. While foreign governments are hostile to the US, they're positively sweethearts compared to the anti-Americanism of their populations. Poland is often cited as a key US ally, and it is; but the Polish people are much less eager to assist in, say, Iraq than their government is.

When it is exposed that foreign institutions are governments are cooperating with the despised US, public pressure will be brought to bear, and may limit or end cooperation with the US.

The New York Times alerted the anti-American popuations of Europe that their banks were aiding the US and that their governments were looking the other way. Will they now continue to look the other way?

Tom Maguire notes a New York Times article suggests that maybe they won't.

A former federal prosecutor who handled major terrorism cases, Andrew C. McCarthy, said he believed that the greatest harm from news reports about such classified programs was the message that Americans could not keep secrets.

"If foreign intelligence services think anything they tell us will end up in the newspapers, they'll stop sharing so much information," said Mr. McCarthy, now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington.

Is the Times outing classified information for the purposes of keeping Americans informed, or for the purposes of keeping Europeans and Al Qaeda terrorists informed?

Posted by: Ace at 09:55 AM | Comments (13)
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Remember when the argument from the left about the "outing" of Valerie Plame was that foreign gov'ts and agents would not work with us if they knew they would be outed in the press....

Posted by: Brad at June 29, 2006 10:06 AM (1F8YK)

2 Not an admission on the part of the NYT, sounds more like crowing about their power if you ask me.


Posted by: The Machine at June 29, 2006 10:11 AM (L/jMX)

3 It's not letting the Times off the hook to say that the inability of the American intelligence services to keep their mouths shut is shameful. And do you think that people who run their mouths for the sake of showing off to a reporter or embarassing the administration are more or less likely to do it for money or blackmail?

Really, if you were MI5 or the Mossad, would you tell your American counterparts anything?

Posted by: JSinger at June 29, 2006 10:18 AM (EqFh0)

4 I actually think the NY Times printed this to purposefully drive a wedge between Bush and our allies. They don't like the fact that enlightened Europeans are cooperating with Bush's fascist regime.

I don't see how the Times concluded this would hurt Bush oon the domestic front (though they may be that out of touch), but it does embarrass him in front of our allies.

Posted by: Mark at June 29, 2006 10:29 AM (QE/AK)

5 Maybe the Times is trying to shore up its flagging paying readership by establishing itself as the daily periodical that caters to the anti-American impulses of Europeans (although between you and me, I believe that market is a bit saturated over there).

Posted by: Mark V. at June 29, 2006 10:56 AM (2ipxY)

6 There are already a couple of Human Rights / Watchdog groups that have filed claims in Brussels regard to our collecting international records in violation of the European Union requirements.

Posted by: roc ingersol at June 29, 2006 11:04 AM (m2CN7)

7 Later in the same interview Andrew McCarthy says the Europeans will go back to sharing secret information after he shares Molly Ringwald's number with them, I think.

Posted by: Bebeaux at June 29, 2006 02:44 PM (Nwtia)

8 And the debate, as always, focuses on the veneer that surrounds the Truth. The H*ll with targetting the Times, target the leaker. The MSM will not let our focus move there. Do that, subpeona and, if necessary jail the reporters. The public will tolerate that, easy.

The Times has a strong incentive to protect the leaker. He/She is gold to them. That makes them partial, and morally, ethically, should stay out of it. By controlling the debate, they keep it focused on Journalism and the first amendment. Concede the point and let it blunt from rust. They were shits to do it. Big story. If, however they actively harbor a fugitive, it becomes an ongoing crime, committed in public. The folks will notice.

Posted by: Tom M at June 29, 2006 04:34 PM (ARXgj)

9 I don't recall where I saw this comment*, but someone made the point that today's NYT would reveal the fact that we had broken the Enigma code during WWII if Bill Keller were the editor in chief at the time. After all, we may have been invading another sovereign's right-to-privacy or some such...

Has the ring of truth to it, it does.

*(it may have been a commentor here for all I know).

Posted by: Matt at June 29, 2006 04:44 PM (3bFaP)

10 They learn that only after they have lost 75% of their subcribers and readers phooie i still dont want this rag in my cage no way SQUARK SQUARK

Posted by: spurwing plover at June 29, 2006 05:45 PM (UdEnh)

11 Bottom line: if John Kerry (or any Dem) were president, the Times wouldn't run this story.

No need to over-think this.

Posted by: Barry at June 30, 2006 08:10 AM (kKjaJ)

12 today's NYT would reveal the fact that we had broken the Enigma code during WWII if Bill Keller were the editor in chief

Don't blame Keller - he's just taking the heat for the quisling clown the nyt won't fire - Lynch Poisonfilthberger IV, and as long as the Poisonfilthberger family controls the nyt, it will continue to side with evil and agaisnt America - just as tit has always done. The nyt and the Poisonfilthbergers - America's home-grown curse.

Posted by: max at June 30, 2006 01:54 PM (jF15v)

13 A delayed comment but the NYT now says "Bush was bragging about the financial scrutiny programs months ago"

Posted by: JOHN RYAN at July 02, 2006 05:22 PM (TcoRJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
77kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 1.0331 seconds.
62 queries taking 0.9997 seconds, 249 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.