New York Times and Lil’ Kim, We’re Sorry

North Korean leader Lil’ Kim apologized for detonating a nuclear device a few weeks ago and said he would not do it again. So after Lil Kim says, my bad I suppose the rest of the world community will tell us what a nice guy he really is and forgive and forget until he drops the next bomb in the middle of a crowded city.

The New York Times is like Lil Kim in that they dropped a bomb (many as a matter of fact) and now they have said, in true Kim fashion, “my bad.” The Times has been disclosing our nation’s secrets and with little regard for the damage such disclosures might cause. When the SWIFT program was disclosed the NYT made its usual stance about public right to know, Bush breaking the law and every other excuse to justify why it disclosed national secrets. Today, the NYT’s Byron Calame admitted that the paper was wrong to expose the SWIFT program, a program that allows us to keep track of terrorists by following the money. Unfortunately, now the terrorists know about the program:

My July 2 column strongly supported The Time’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column. . . .

I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.

Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program.

Calame is quite candid in telling us that he was off base, the program is legal, and contrary to the hate Bush crowd, no one’s privacy was violated. Why did the Times disclose the information then? According to Calame:

What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.

Never Again: Securing America and Restoring Justice

Michelle Malkin points out that all the criticism the Times took was well deserved and what we have been saying all along; the Times is so blinded by its hatred for Bush that its judgement was clouded. Because of this hatred they published national secrets which helped our enemies.

The New York Times caught a lot of hell for disclosing the SWIFT program and they have been experiencing a serious drop in circulation. They had little credibility before the admission of Bush Derangement Syndrome and it is unlikely that they will ever have credibility again. Consider this, how many people will believe them when they make the claim that they are doing the right thing the next time they decide to release classified information.

Big Dog Salute to GM Roper
Instapundit |

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Comments are closed.