Not, of course, with a law curtailing press freedom, which would be unconstitutional and opposed by any friend of the Constitution. But rather, as Bill Kristol and I just spent a segment discussing, with House and Senate Resolutions --preferably drafted, debated and voted on next week-- expressing outrage at the endangering of national security via the publication of sensitive national security information that obviously assists terrorists in eluding capture or killing. Perhaps the papers would find some supporters among the congressmen and senators, but I believe that a strongly worded condemnation of the papers'actions would pass, and would as Bill argued, send the message that it isn't the Bush Adminsitration the papers are defying, but the legislative branch as well.We are all less safe because the New York Times decided that they have the final word on endangering our lives.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
New York Time vs. America
The New York Times has decided that they can determine what is necessary to keep America safe. Of course if there is another terrorist attack it will be President Bush's fault. He is at fault for anything that goes wrong. But the New York Times reserves to it self the right to eliminate programs that keep us safe. Military blogger Sgt. T. F Boggs asks Times editor Keller why he chose to cause American soldiers to be killed. Hugh Hewitt suggests that Congress makes clear it has been violated by Mr. Keller: