***bumping to the top***
Meant to get to this earlier, but the newspaper of wreckage is at it again–publishing illegally leaked classified information about the war in yet another transparent effort to sway the election.
The article title: “Military Charts Movement of Conflict in Iraq Toward Chaos.”
After blabbing about the classified info revelaed in the article for 11 paragraphs, the Times notes:
A spokesman for the Central Command declined to comment on the index or other information in the slide. “We don’t comment on secret material,” the spokesman said.
The article then continues to blab about the illegally leaked info for another seven paragraphs.
Fox News reports:
The Pentagon is looking into how classified information indicating Iraq is moving closer to chaos wound up on the front page of Wednesday’s New York Times, and is not ruling out an investigation that could lead to criminal charges.
A spokesman for U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for operations in Iraq, confirmed to FOX News that a chart published in The Times is a real reflection of the thinking of military intelligence on the situation in Iraq as of Oct. 18, adding that an effort is underway to find out who leaked the chart and if the breach of operational security constitutes a crime.
The published report includes a classified one-page slide show from an Oct. 18 military briefing. The slide show is titled: “Iraq: Indications and Warnings of Civil Conflict,” and shows spiraling violence in Iraq and a worsening position for American efforts.
Based on the slide show, Iraq is moving sharply away from “peace,” designated in green on the left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the red-zoned right side of the spectrum, marked “chaos.”
As depicted in the command’s chart, the needle has been moving steadily toward the far right of the chart since February, when a Shiite shrine in Samarra was bombed by insurgents.
An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide says urban areas are “experiencing ‘ethnic cleansing’ campaigns to consolidate control,” and violence is at an “all-time high, spreading geographically.”
The Times reports the analysis was prepared by the command’s intelligence directorate, which is headed by Brig. Gen. John M. Custer.
The New York Times had not yet responded to a request for comment by FOX News about how it obtained the chart, but a spokeswoman for the newspaper said it will.
This is the chart:
Mario Loyola has some questions:
I want to know whether there is any level of national secret the Times is not willing to betray for the political advantage of its pet causes.
There is nothing the blabbermouths won’t blab if it hurts the Bush administration.
And I would like to know what else they may have doctored on the slide.
Hello, Justice Department?
And while we’re at it, I would love to understand why the law doesn’t prohibit the propagation of strategic national secrets in wartime — which has always been understood as treason.
Good question. Unbelievable that the Times thinks it’s problem is that it is too “even-handed.”
As touched on in my column on war time blabbermouths last week, the insidious, self-reinforcing relationship between the Bush-bashing Times and the Bush-bashing Dems harms us all. I repeat:
Another clarifying moment that underscores the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats on matters of national security, seriousness and secrecy took place on June 29, 2006.
That was the day the U.S. House of Representatives voted to condemn the decision by several newspapers — led by the newspaper of wreckage, The New York Times — to publish details of the Bush administration’s classified program to track terrorist financing. Known as SWIFT, the program had led to the capture of a key Bali bombing suspect and identification of a convicted al Qaeda helper based in New York City, as well as helping investigators probing domestic terrorist cells and suspected Islamic charities fronting for jihad. Under specious claims by anonymous accusers that the program’s legality and oversight were in doubt, the Times splashed details of the program all over its front pages. Democrats dutifully piled on to condemn the White House for its “illegal” “abuses of power.”
But House Republicans refused to roll over for the blabbermouth media and the blabbermouth Democrats. They put Washington on record with a vote on a nonbinding resolution stating the obvious — that news organizations may have “placed the lives of Americans in danger” by disclosing SWIFT and that Congress “expects the cooperation of all news media organizations” in keeping classified programs secret.
The resolution passed 227-183, with only 17 Democrats joining nearly all House Republicans in condemning the leak-dependent news media and supporting the surveillance program.
“This measure attempts to intimidate the press and strengthen the hands of this despotic administration,” railed New York Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchey. “It is a campaign document,” pouted Rep. Pelosi in attacking the resolution. Republicans “have adopted a shoot-the-messenger strategy by attacking the newspaper that revealed the existence of the secret bank surveillance program rather than answering the disturbing questions that those reports raise about possible violations of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. privacy laws,” wheedled Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass.
Why do I remind you of this vote and the Dems’ kindergarten reaction? Because the Times’ own ombudsman admitted this week that the story should never have run. Public editor Byron Calame ‘fessed up: “I don’t think the article should have been published. . . . I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal. . . . The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.”
Not a single one of the Democrats who lambasted Bush and Republicans for protesting the reckless story has stepped forward to apologize to the president and the American people or acknowledge the harm caused to counterterrorism efforts.
Do you need to know any more to judge which party will keep this country safer? I don’t.
The difference between D’s and R’s
Blabbermouth damage, again
When blabbermouths lie: question the timing
The newspaper of wreckage
How about a nice big glass of…
The terrorist-tipping Times
More blabbermouth posters
Messages for the blabbermouths
Backlash against the blabbermouths
NYTimes blabbermouths strike again
February 7, 2014 09:25 AM by Michelle Malkin
April 25, 2011 10:12 AM by Michelle Malkin
June 22, 2009 11:14 AM by Michelle Malkin
December 1, 2008 05:02 AM by Michelle Malkin
June 22, 2008 10:22 AM by See-Dubya