So my reaction to the drumbeat of disclosures by the New York Times of classified military programs - even ones that were unquestionable legal, like SWIFT - had been that they had it in for George Bush and were using every opportunity to disclose news that would embarass and weaken him.
Boy, was I wrong. On Feb 23, the Times published this story:
U.S. Unit Secretly in Pakistan Lends Ally SupportBoy, that's gonna go over well in Pakistan, isn't it?
BARA, Pakistan - More than 70 United States military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the country's lawless tribal areas, American military officials said.
The Americans are mostly Army Special Forces soldiers who are training Pakistani Army and paramilitary troops, providing them with intelligence and advising on combat tactics, the officials said. They do not conduct combat operations, the officials added.
They make up a secret task force, overseen by the United States Central Command and Special Operations Command. It started last summer, with the support of Pakistan's government and military, in an effort to root out Qaeda and Taliban operations that threaten American troops in Afghanistan and are increasingly destabilizing Pakistan. It is a much larger and more ambitious effort than either country has acknowledged.
Could the NYT have done anything to make that program less effective or more of a political liability - for Obama?
Man, I'd love to know what the Times editors are thinking.
Updated and perhaps more accurate theory: the "New York Times" has it in for any U.S. policy other than defeat, retreat, and appeasement. It will disclose any secret it can find in order to damage any firmer foreign policy.
The Times doesn't explicitly want the United States Government defeated/thwarted in every conflict. It just believes it should accept a New World Order where the correct people (all of whom live within a few blocks of Pinch Sulzberger) guide humanity into a future free of strife and disharmony.
The Times is of course taking it on faith that once this happens, the heathens 'crost the oceans will see the light and submit joyfully to said enlightened leadership.
Hey, it's working for the British Empire, isn't it?
I always thought newspapers have had an addiction for leaks ever since watergate. If you have a got an inside leak, almost no matter how worthless, people will read it. It has propelled the media and 'storybreakers' to positions of hero worship and authority ever since.
Look, there is an unsustainable quagmire being financed through deficit spending that reflects poorly on what was once the most respected and feared institution of in the world, but is now a shell of its former self.
Now lets talk about the war...
The Times is not particularly fond of the military no matter who is in power.