29 November 2006

Well, well, well. I am shocked, SHOCKED, that the New York Times has published yet another confidential, classified White House memorandum that tells us that President Bush has a lack of confidence that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki will be successful in getting the Shiite militias under control, especially the Badr Brigades of Imam Moqtada al-Sadr. And so interesting, the story based upon that leaked memo is published the morning that the President is scheduled to hold a meeting in Amman, Jordan with both Prime Minister al-Maliki and Jordan's King Abdullah. Well, to quote an 80s TV show, LA Law's lead character Douglas McKenzie, "Don't you just love a good coincidence?" Yes, indeed, and of course, the meeting was canceled for at least one day, allowing the President of the United States to hold up in an Amman hotel for an additional day, if he's even successful in one of the most important political meetings of the decade, one which will possibly determine the future of the Iraq war.

I wish I had the power to do what I would like to the New York Times, after what they did in revealing the numerous leaks of classified documents, from the NSA intercepts of international calls of terrorists into the U.S. to the release of the program of successfully trace the bank accounts used by terrorist organizations. Even today, Michelle Malkin, in her blog, notes that the NSA has made a full disclosure of the intercept program, and the panel, which included Bill Clinton's former White House counsel Lanny Davis, unanimously stated that the NSA has actually been extremely effective in effecting safeguards for civil liberties with the program. So much so that Lanny Davis stated that he wished that the country could have had this information, which would reassure them that the Bush administration is indeed totally committed to protecting civil liberties while fighting terrorism. But don't hold your breath that the Times will ever print that story. I think the term "traitors" is accurately applicable to the New York Times, and it is disappointing that we cannot prosecute them all for either treason, or at least the 1917 Espionage Act, which I understand from Hugh Hewitt (who is a law professor as well as a conservative radio-blog commentator

Someday groups like the Times will learn that freedom of the press, while wide and expansive, is not infinite, and that revealing secrets to the world, including the enemy, in a time of war in the name of cheap political gain, is not just simply classless and unethical. It's illegal. It's treason. And criminals should be punished.

And traitors must die.

We can only pray and hope.


--Belisarius II----"For the Cid and for Spain!"--