Hypocrisy on Parade

Set my VCR yesterday specifically to catch the New York Times guy on one of the Sunday morning shows. The most I could gather from what he said was that he was a member of the press, and he was going to do whatever he damn well pleased.

He made a point of saying that once the Times and other papers and outlets had been specifically given some information for them to print, which they did. He then likened that to what they had done recently. You would think that somewhere in his schooling he would have learned the difference between printing what he had permission to print and not printing what he didn't have permission to print. They are not interchangeable.

He also admitted where he stood on the issue of the war, and gave the definite impression that his paper had no intention of presenting things in a neutral fashion. In other words, his paper wasn't going to print the news, it was going to print his take on the news. That's fine for the editorial pages, but not for the news pages.

I would really like a liberal to answer the following question: "Do you think we can lose this war on terrorism?"

If the answer is "yes," the next question would be, "Why then do you breach national security?" If the answer is "no," I would just like to ask "Why not?"

By the way, Valerie Plame was NOT a covert operative, so saying her name and employer did absolutely nothing and no law of any kind was broken. Yet the leftist media went ballistic and demanded that heads roll. The New York Times has twice now actually breached national security, and the man in charge sits there smug and self-satisfied and says "so what."

And they probably stay up late wondering why their subscription rates are declining.