Shame on the New York Times for putting headlines above national security.
What they did was publish details of a fully legal yet classified program designed to stop terror networks dead in their tracks by choking off their funding. This is akin to giving al-Qaeda a flashlight when the White House is trying to keep them in the dark. It's absolutely disgraceful that the Times would aid and abet the enemy like this.
Now, I know a lot of you rabid lefty partisans out there would say that the job of the press is to dig for scoops, not help the White House advance one public policy program over another, even if exposing that program could compromise national security. Well, ethical considerations are at play, just like how you guys always cite ethical considerations when you're demanding that the corporate community demonstrate some social responsibility, even if the job of business is to maximize profit. (I thought creating jobs was the epitome of being socially responsible, but anyways.)
It's also hypocritical of the Times to be slapping the White House on the wrist for allegedly leaking the name of Valerie Plame when they published not only this leak-dependent story but also the wiretap stuff before Christmas. A leak is a leak is a leak and if the Old Grey Lady had any integrity, she'd rise above playing politics with state secrets in a time of war.
I also expected better of the Wall St. Journal, which apparently reprinted the Times story.
- From the "stories you may have missed in the mainstream media" file, we have news that a Liberal MP has introduced a private members' bill to criminalize abortion after five months of pregnancy. Regardless of which side you come down on the issue, one can only imagine the wailing that we'd hear from CBC headquarters down on Sparks St. if a Tory backbencher did such a thing.
- And as if it's not obvious enough, why would you take seriously a linguist's opinions on geopolitics?