2) Re the front page: the story also ran on the front page of the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal. Do you suppose the Journal ran the story on the front page to embarrass Bush?

3) This is an administration which has regularly leaked information to the press such as misleading intelligence reports (to the Times, among other papers) as well as the identity of a covert agent. Now they are shocked – shocked! – that something they have talked about for years is reported in the paper.

Did you see a similar outrage when Geraldo Rivera disclosed troop locations on Fox News? Of course not. The administration is much better at pointing fingers than accepting accountability, and could there be a better embodiment of elitist Eastern liberalism than the Times? I think that between now and November, you’ll see the Republicans running against the New York Times in addition to the Democrats – that is, when they have the time after they finish protecting us against flag burners –

Still waiting for all of those folks in the “public” who are hopping up and down with joy over this story. Not only that, but not one Dem has come out for this disclosure so far – not one.

It was my initial rxn, as I thought nobody could be that stupid to think that we won’t watch the flow of money. Judging by the 9/11 commssioners, who the NYT chose to ignore, it was a big deal.

I just saw Susskind on Hardball, and his take was the program was ‘diminishing’ in effectiveness anyway. I did not take this as the equivalent that it had no merits. If it used to catch all terrorists, but now only captures the dumb (or the hurried), I’d still take it.
(Speaking of Hardball-what a line-up-the NYT’s Susskind, WaPo’s Ignatius, and Newsweek’s Evan Thomas-discussing the NYT v. administration in a ’roundtable’ with Chris? This was a joke.)

Oh, and now Belgium is acting like they may kill the program - but it’s that darn Bush, who cares about national security?

And of course, bipartisan pleas not to reveal the program were made because these people just wanted some face time with Keller…

I frankly don’t understand the newsworthiness of all this. The administration has been saying for years that it would stop the flow of money going to and among terrorists. Now the Times prints a story which says they have been doing just that. What’s the big deal?

We the press of the united states don’t give a rat’s *ss about providing for the common defense, that’s ‘people’ work.

A newspaper decides to print the exact specifications of how to build a nuclear bomb…and they could argue it is common knowledge and the public has a right to know. In theory the govt could use a bomb against its citizens, and the citizens have a right to defend themselves.

Also wish that the press was equally respectful of the individuals right to bear arms, as they are of their own ‘imagined freedoms’. But then the press(an organization) has more rights than the individual.

Holding someone responsible/accountable, denies their right to freedom from being held responsible. Sounds silly, but this is where the press would have us go with their own responsiblity.

“If I had to chose between a free press that printed things the government wanted secret and a press that withheld information from me every time the government claimed it was a matter of national security I would take my chances with the free press every time.”

Sounds good to me.

When I hear that both chairmen of the 9/11(Keane and Hamilton) commission and Tim roehmer, along with several other people in a position to know, directly advised the NYT not to do this.
I too questioned its efficacy, but clearly it had bipartisan support that it remain secret.

In 13 I was just pointing out the diffuclty in comparing a known quantity to an unknown. The death that has resulted from Iraq is a painful metric, the gain is not materially tangible. I have been feeling that I’m on weak footing, supporting the war, despite failing to provide the applicable basis for our effort. good to see that you now must make the same argument, on the poor footing I held, if it is only to defend our right to know.