Dan Froomkin of the WaPo has some pretty solid thoughts on the political game the White House is playing on the banking story. My initial impulse was to side with Bush in slamming the New York Times for writing the story exposing the banking surveillance. But when I noticed that the White House was only going after the NYT, and not the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal, both of which also published the story, I started to think that this is probably not about principle, but partisan politics.
Maybe I'm wrong. Still, I simply find it almost impossible to believe this Administration in matters like this.
The NYT vs. America?
Wednesday June 28, 2006
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
You have to figure if anti-war, anti-Bush, Murtha asked the NYT not to expose this program than there really is no good reason to defend the NYT.
I'd say constitutional provision for a free press is good enough reason to defend the NYT.
That they're being attacked for reportage when less "librul" papers are not is another.>
This issue isnt about rights of free press but exposing classified national security information during wartime.
Free press isnt a free pass to expose national security information.
A quote by the publisher of the NYT concerning the NYT, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger in 2003,"We are very powerful and we are very scary.">
And since when has this administration cared about what's "classified?"
I hate to do it, but I *will* play the Valerie Plame card if I have to.
It's all about internal consistency, folks.
This admin has none.>
Considering in the case of Plame, many people were hauled into testify before a grand jury under oath and those that refused to tell who leaked information to them were jailed, I think the same thing should happen to those at the NYT and the other two newspapers which reported the classified information.>
I agree Anon. Although I feel not only those who leaked the information to the press should be prosecuted but all those involved in publishing it, should be prosecuted as well.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.