The blabbermouth media strikes again
(Image credit: PTG, 2006 NYT blabbermouths photoshop contest 2006)
Last week, it was the Washington Post spilling the beans on the nation’s post-9/11 top-secret infrastructure.
Today, it’s the NYTimes dutifully splashing vengeful Wikileaks’ massive document dump on our Afghanistan military strategy.
The Times tries not to break its collective arm patting itself on the back for its valiant struggle to publish the documents. As if it could resist.
Remember: From September 11, 2001 to the present, the terror-tipping blabbermouths of the New York Times have repeatedly undermined national security by disclosing sensitive/classified information about many key counterrorism programs. The paper has gone to court to force the government to release such information. The paper has shown reckless disregard for the consequences of disclosure.
The only time it has shown any restraint is when disclosure would endanger one of its own reporters.
The Fishwrap of Record: Our enemies’ favorite rag.
Commenter corkie quotes from the NYTimes’ disclaimer:
Information that is marked “secret” has been determined to be information or material that the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause “serious damage” to the national security.
So the New York Times is freely admitting that they don’t concern themselves with risking serious damage to national security.
The fact that this information wasn’t marked Top Secret allows the Times to pretend that they wouldn’t have published material that has been determined to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to the national security. It’s nice to see that they deny contributing to exceptionally grave damage while being complicit in contributing to serious damage.
Flashback: From our 2006 Blabbermouth NYTimes photoshop contest (more here)…
HA affiliate Sanctuary Bryan:
John McG.:
Xardoz (hat tip –
Impacted Wisdom Truth):
Richard Pucillo:
George Ratton:
Previous:
Supreme Court to NYTimes: Buzz off
Terrorist-tipping NYTimes wants Ruth Ginsburg’s help
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
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
KSM and company go on military trial, face death penalty
April 4, 2012 01:30 PM by Michelle Malkin
65 Comments
Video of the day
February 21, 2012 12:31 PM by Michelle Malkin
70 CommentsThe trial of the last Haditha Marine: SSgt Wuterich takes plea deal
January 23, 2012 03:25 PM by Michelle Malkin
59 Comments
The last Haditha Marine: Trial update, prosecution collapse, plea deal in the works?
January 19, 2012 05:49 PM by Michelle Malkin
56 Comments
The abysmal incompetence of the non-Romneys; Huntsman, Gingrich, Perry all go Occupier; Santorum declines
January 9, 2012 10:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
370 Comments
The last Haditha Marine: Wuterich trial update
January 5, 2012 06:19 PM by Michelle Malkin
26 Comments
Remember SSgt Frank D. Wuterich: The last Haditha Marine goes on trial
January 2, 2012 12:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
57 Comments
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.”
December 25, 2011 03:26 AM by Michelle Malkin
75 CommentsJoe Biden: The Taliban Per Se is Not Our Enemy
December 19, 2011 04:06 PM by Doug Powers
105 Comments
Categories: New York Times,War
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearSister Toldjah
» Barack Obama: Can we call him a Socialist now?Redstate
» Daily Links – May 25, 2012
Our children are at war, don’t patronize enemy sympathizers.
The NY Times reserves its worst treatment for Israel. Kristof has been busy doing video reports for the Times web site of various Israeli “crimes” in the West Bank while ignoring the horrific human rights violations in Gaza under Hamas or in Syria under Assad. Roger Cohen has been busy calling for the US to embrace the government of Iran and to lessen ties to Israel. Maureen Dowd, recently caught stealing Josh Marshall’s blog postings and then lying about doing so, recently referred to the “world’s three rogue, crazy states: Israel, North Korea and Iran”. Robert Wright has devoted columns to venomous attacks on Israel and recently said that we Americans should try to understand Hamas, that after all Hamas was the victim of Israel, who according to Wright, “dispossesed the Palestinians”. Wright does not even think the State of Israel has any legitimacy. Kristof joined the campaign to deligitimitize Israel by praising Israeli historians who have challenged what Kristof considers Israel’s phony claims to the land.The NY Times is far less objective than Al Jazeera or Al Ahram.
From the NYT:
Information that is marked “secret” has been determined to be information or material that the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause “serious damage” to the national security.
So the New York Times is freely admitting that they don’t concern themselves with risking serious damage to national security.
The fact that this information wasn’t marked Top Secret allows the Times to pretend that they wouldn’t have published material that has been determined to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to the national security. It’s nice to see that they deny contributing to exceptionally grave damage while being complicit in contributing to serious damage.
Anyone else wondering whether, and if so, by what word-magic, Michelle’s statement,
will be called out as made-up and erroneous at some point in this comment thread?
Nice updates (from the originals) to the wartime propaganda posters.
I am not sure about the situation here. When the Pentagon papers were leaked, a number of intelligence operatives ended up dead. No question about the connection.
The real question is what is in this information that will compromise current or future operations.
So, is the NY Times hypocrites or not? Probably not, after all, Their actions didn’t actually trigger the pulling of any triggers now, did it? Can we get some lawyers in here to parse this?
Help me out. What was the NYT’s role in all this?They reported on the documents that wikileaks exposed and in doing so provided greater exposure? They didn’t leak the docs themselves though, right?
I thought Wkileaks WAS</em> the New York Times!!!
Regardless of which organization did leak the documents, I’m of two minds about this.
On the one hand, I’m livid about the possibility of these leaks putting our servicemen/women at risk.
On the other, if they highlight serious problems with our current administration’s policies regarding the execution of the Afghan conflict, and lead to changes which make those policies more effective, it’s possible that it might actually SAVE American lives in the long run.
Unfortunately, I kind of doubt the current administration has any idea what to do to improve the obviously deteriorating situation over there.
Is this a serious question?
Couldn’t they have reported on the document disclosure without contributing to the exposure? They reported on the Mohamed cartoons without printing the cartoons.
Wow.
That was quick.
…and a quasi-insult to boot.
A bonus.
Huh? What are they going to do? Say Wikileaks released some documents. But we can’t tell you anything about them? They are now out. Nothing the NYT did was going to change that. Is it preferable to have these documents made public for anyone in the world to see AND to have citizens remain wilfully ignorant of what they contain?
Also, if you want to argue about “contributing to the exposure” then are you going to condemn MM for providing a direct link to the story?Couldn’t she have written her post without linking the story? The only reason I have read the NYT piece is that I read this blog.
Cool, granite must be in touch with al queda and/or be able to predict the future. Can he give me the winning lotto numbers too?
If you mistook that as a quasi-insult, granite, I apologize.
That was meant to be a full blown insult as to your intelligence and obsession with me.
These leaks had a source inside the wire. Security through obscurity is not security. The problems are with those who leak to organizations like WikiLeaks or traditional media outlets.
Too bad we don’t have an official secrets act, like the Brits. If we did, then anybody releasing, printing, linking to, or otherwise disclosing classified information would go directly to jail. There would be none of this “can’t disclose my sources” nonsense. We’ve already determined that there is no journalistic integrity. Now we should make them accountable for their actions, as well.
Yes. Or even better – not mention them at all.
The New York Times proliferated the “outness” and legitimized the leaks. That was wrong.
Yes. It’s preferable for the NYT to shun and condemn Wikileak for the inexcusable leaks. The NYT had no problem condemning the Mohamed cartoons while not publishing them.
I’m not sure MM can contribute anything other than a rounding error compared to the NYT, and I appreciate MM’s condemnation of the leaks.
I doubt that this blog will be your only exposure.
Remember, this isn’t simply an issue of this leak. This is an issue of inviting future leaks. The NYT has clearly done this.
?????????????
Corkie, the NYT should have printed the cartoons. Every respectable news outlet in the world should have printed them.
Come to think of it, every news outlet in the world that is deserving of respect did print them.
Not very many. So sad.
You would prefer that our enemies potentially have this information and American citizens not know what was released? Or maybe you trust them to read the condemnation in the NYT and NOT hop on the computer and pore through wikileaks themselves? Absurd.
What she did was wrong only in difference of degree.
She spent hardly any time condemning the actual leakers (naming them only once in passing) and instad spends the vast majority of the article condemning those reporting on the leaks.
Happy was complimenting you on your amazing ability to predict the behavior of the Forces of Darkness.
Yes, granite finds it quite clever to preemptively assert I will comment on something.
It is what passes for “meaningful contribution” in his mind.
Prett sure corkie wasn’t saying that the NYT was right in not publishing them. He was just saying they have shown the ability to report on a topic without showing the actual source material.
***
The real problem is the failure of the U.S. Department of Justice to find and prosecute those who gave classified information to unauthorized, uncleared persons with no need-to-know.
***
I held a security clearance for most of my working career. There was never any doubt what would happen to me if I violated the security rules due to carelessness or deliberate intent. First offense–a week off without pay. Second offense–fired. And possible jail time for willful violation of these rules that protect our country.
***
And SECRET is not a “low level” classification. Even failure to handle the FOUO (for official use only) documents and information will bring down fire on you.
***
John Bibb
***
Arguably, in other words, our domestic enemy(ies).
If this leaked information compromises national security – or the security of men and women in uniform – then the solution is simple.
1) Charge them (the leakers) with treason.
2) Find them guilty.
3) Execute them via firing squad.
4) Let their bodies lie there for 24 hours.
Here is the incredible irony of the New York Times. The NY Times deliberately concealed evidence about the holocaust. The NY Times editors had hard proof that the Germany army and Govt. was systematically murdering Jews. The Times knew about the death camps. But the Sulzberger family, for reasons known only to them, spiked any news about the holocaust. It was a deliberate and shameful decision. Yet the same NY Times, under the leadership of the same Sulzberger family, has no problems with publishing the movement of US troops in wartime. How many American soldiers are killed or maimed by the Times indifference is of no interest to the ruling family at the Times. I digress by noting that the Sulzbergers seem oblivious to the financial disaster taking place at the Times.
Just another good reason to put conservatives in office. With the current mis-administration in office, we’re not going to see arrests and prosecutions for treason, nor for “giving aid or comfort to the enemy.”
They apparently believe that these laws do not apply to a news source that gets direction from the administration. Fox News…that’s different. They’re (according to Howard “The Duck” Dean and other prominent Progressive leaders) racist, AND get their talking points from the RNC, both anti-American entities. The NYTimes…Not so much!
The Obama/Holder position on this? “You can’t hold American citizens responsible for speaking from the heart, and exercising their first amendment rights!” But what about national security? “Our borders have never been more secure.”
We MUST Reset in 2010, or many of us may find ourselves in Government Reeducation Camps, or worse. It has happened before in this country.
What??? It’s absurd for you to suggest that American citizens can’t expend the same resources as our enemies to access this information.
No. Michelle’s condemnation was well worth the added dissemination her blog post caused.
1. I never stated that condemnation of the leakers was important. I stated that condemnation of the leaks was important.
2. You admit that she did condemn the leakers so it’s strange that you make a point to highlight that her condemnation wasn’t extensive.
Michelle, you forgot to include my actual quote of the NYT’s. The emphasized portion of your update are my words.
Chap makes a good point. This would have been a story about the NY Times if the Times had been the one to print the Docs first, but they were not it was Wikileaks.
Honestly, I think the person that should be feeling the heat (more than they are right now) is the soldier who misued his clearance to obtain and then pass on classified material.
On the otherhand, some of the information realesed is interesting. For example, the NATO document that claims that Al Qaeda and the Taliban had officials depart from Iran to go to North Korea to get remote controlled rockets to use against our aircraft.
There is also the information that points directly to the Pakistani Intellginece Service, which for all intents and purposes is who created the Taliban. This information has been known by many in the military for years, but it has been covered up while both the Bush and Obama administration has been sending more “aid” money to the Pakistani government that is ultimately ending up in the hands of the Taliban (to kill our troops) via the Pakistani Intellegence Service.
NYT – a terrorist organization.
DO you dispute there is a huge difference in the motivation between the two groups? And even if there was not, how many average Americans have the time or the resources to pore through 93,000 documents?
Fine. She spends about cursory 5 words condeming the leaks and about 1,000 condemning the reporting of the leaks.
Again, she spent a whole 5 words on the actual leakers/leak/whatever you want to call it. And then goes on for the next 1000 words attacking the reporting of the leak. A more cynical person would claim that she cared about the actual leak only to the extent that it gives her fodder to attack an old and established enemy of hers.
I think the little weasel was caught (U.S. Army intelligence analyst, Spc. Bradley Manning). I’m hoping he is the only one. But the Wiki-dude Julian Assange needs to be charged with receiving stolen government docs. At least make the cost of treason, if he is American, as high as possible.
C’mon folks, 10000 pages of docs? It takes a White House to “leak” that much. This is the Afghan exit strategy; show how messed up it is as a justification to get out now. If the docs are real, they’ve probably been cherry-picked; my bet is that they’re not even real. Either way, this is orchestrated.
You’re starting to understand the point of security. It’s not about making anything an air tight lock. It’s about forcing the enemy to expend resources in order to benefit from classified information. The higher the classification – the more resources the enemy is being forced to expend.
Leaks makes is cheaper for the enemy. Leaks are bad. Helping to motivate leakers and helping to disseminate leaked information is good for the enemy. There’s no doubt that Wikileak is despicable in this regard. The New York Times entered into an agreement with Wikileak which benefited Wikileak.
Please explain how the NYT doesn’t deserve condemnation? They hold back all types of information from readers all the time. Don’t pretend that they did this as some blanket obligation they feel towards the public.
This is why “leaks” happen things like the nyt will pay money, good money, and there are things who having already sold everything, family, friends…find that all they really need …. is money
Do you or do you not think that Al Quaeda/Taliban is going to pore through all those documents on wikileaks whether or not the NYT article paints them with a very broad brush and links to a handful of redacted examples?
Who cares about their motivation? I don’t ascribe such sinister motivations as you perhaps, but even if I view the NYT entirely cynically the bottom line is that I now know at least somewhat what was in those documents, so that my opinion as to the damage, or lack thereof, of the leaks (which, again, happened with or without the NYTs reporting of it) has or will cause is at least somewhat informed. Not to mention the point Yash made in #11. There is substantive information in there about the course of the war that it is not entirely bad for the average American to know about. I do not trust ANY administration to be straight with us when it comes to our progress, or lack thereof, in Afghanistan/Pakistan or Iraq.
The NYT can read documents that disclose secret documents but they can’t properly vet candidates or give an honest summary of big gov power grab legislation.
Let not your heart be distracted. I’m not a conspiracy nut by nature, but you have to wonder about the timing of this ‘crisis’ to take attention off Sherrod, the ill begotten financial reform, the cratering economy and the WBO’s admission that the deficit will be worse than projected. Makes you want to go ‘Hmmmm”.
Let not your heart be distracted. I’m not a conspiracy nut by nature, but you have to wonder about the timing of this ‘crisis’ to take attention off Sherrod, the ill begotten financial reform, the cratering economy and the WBO’s admission that the deficit will be worse than projected. Makes you want to go ‘Hmmmm”.
I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts the NYT didn’t pay a dime to wikileaks. There is an ongoing Q&A on the NYT site with the executive editor if anyone is curious.
Maybe, I don’t know the extent of Al Quaeda/Taliban intelligence collection/analysis resources and neither do you despite any cursory assumptions you might have made. But the NYT has provided a big advertising sign and helped with the initial analysis. Do you or do you not think that Al Quaeda/Taliban are our only enemies?
However, well intentioned, Yashmak’s point is stupid – unless you also believe it’s ok for a low ranking enlisted person to decide that certain people charged with murder should be killed because it might save American lives – many of us would rather trust the law in this regard.
And sometimes vigilantes kill bad people.
What does your gut tell you? Be honest.
No…but once the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, it would be stupid to ignore the substantive consequences of the bad act, both good and bad. Do you think we should spend the time and effort continuing the trial of someone accused of murder simply because we don’t want the vigilante to have “won”?
You didn’t ask me, but my honest gut tells me that if there’s even a chance that the headcutters weren’t aware of the Wikileak leak, the NYT should have done nothing to make them aware of it. If it turns out they would have found about it anyway, the NYT could have waited until it was beyond clear that they had found out about it before publishing.
I don’t know. How many English speakers/translators and analysts do your gut think they have?
Does your gut think they are our only enemy?
Please.The NYT entered into an agreement with Wikileak, allocated resources to the project, poured through the documents, analyzed the information, wrote commentary, and readied publication all prior to the cat being out of the bag.
Everything they did has helped Wikileak achieve its object. I would have rathered if Wikileak had been subjected to universal public scorn instead of the endorsement that the NYT gave them.
Stories were also being published simultaneously in The Guardian and Der Spiegel. And wikileaks is not some unknown player. They have already made big splahes. There is no way that word would not have gotten out about this, with or without NYT.
None of which changes the fact that Wikileaks was going to go forward with or without all those things you say NYT was doing. Do you think they could have prevented the leaking in some way?
My gut says “more than enough.” But in any case, I wasn’t aware that the NYT printed its article or the documents in Farsi or Arabic or whatever other language is applicable. So not really sure how this helps your point one way or the other.
No, but they are the most relevant ones to the documents in question.
Oh, oops, I thought you could connect the dots yourself, granite. The sentence structure in post #4 was a bit odd, but I took it to mean you questioned MM’s conclusion there would be consequences for disclosing secrets. Surely you didn’t mean to question the NYT’s “reckless disregard.” Even the White House called the leaks “irresponsible.”
Therefore, how do you know there won’t be consequences? You have a line to Al Queda? Can you fortell the future? If Al Queda changed operations based on the leaks, how would anyone know?
Nope, not questioning MM at all.
I agree with our hostess.
But MM was very quickly called out by a word magician, as you and all of us have seen.
Michelle, I do not think that you need to; but, do others here perhaps feel that you should have your posts and conclusions vetted by a word magician/expert parser before you post them?
Just because they may not have been able to prevent it doesn’t mean that they had to help it.
It’s valid to condemn the help they provided.
I wonder if the NYT will report anything on how the rop type are bombing mosques, schools full of girls, almost every shop full of civilians, and Christians they can find to kill as many as possible? In war the enemy and some civilians get killed. Have the military killed someone they should have not, I feel sure they have. I hope they find who leaked this gets tried for treason! Our military men and women are not the bad guys, but this bho and team thinks our military is!
L
How is it possible to approve on one hand the NYT’s reckless rush to print a story that may prove harmful to national security, while on the other condemning Andrew Breitbart for his supposed reckless rush with Shirley Sherrod?
Really? Without reallocating?
I doubt you’d think the NYT would be worthy of condemnation if they had published in those languages, but are you suggesting that enemy intel people won’t even read the NYT coverage of this? Do you think a translation is the only thing the NYT could do to be helpful to them?
Are you so ignorant and/or blinded by your obsession of me to see that me claiming MM is going after the wrong target is not “word magic” or “parsing” or whatever term you commonly throw out there when you know you are too infantile to argue the merits of my argument?
National security classifications don’t exist merely to protect against only “the most relevant” enemies. It also exists to protect against other enemies – even those with fewer resources.
Apparently it wasn’t any reckless rush. They had access to the material for weeks, long enough to peruse it thoroughly to extract what they wanted for their stor(ies – they were only one of three papers contacted). They didn’t print until now because they had an agreement with Wikileaks. (Imagine that – actually honoring an agreement.)
From what I understand, all of the info concerns activities during the Bush Administration, so at least they have some scruples – they remain consistent in avoiding criticizing leftist regimes.
Certainly not, but lets focus on what they ACTUALLY did, which was publish an article which painted the documents in pretty broad strokes and reprinted a handfully of the source materials, heavily redacted.
I read the articles and found them interesting but hardly revelatory. We think Pakistan may be working with the insurgents? The admin paints a rosier picture of things than reality? Wow. Knock me over with a feather.
Is there NOTHING in those articles that could potentially be useful to an enemy? Probably not, and I’m no expert. But it is also not the case that the NYT details the secret location of every missle command we have over there. Maybe some of the docs Wikileaks has, but MM has chosen to make this another salvo in her ongoing war with the NYT, not the actual people responsible.
Jesus, I never said anything close to that. I also did not feel the need to list each and every single one of our possible enemies in my comment. I admit there are more enemies than those in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq or the Middle East in general, ecetera, ecetera.
Now, is there a point to that entire line of questioning?
Well I’m certainly happy that the NYT doesn’t detail the secret location of every missile command we have over there, and that they think that information which may reasonably believed to cause “serious damage” to the national security of the United States is a low level of classification which is fit to print. Can anything be learned about the sources of our intel?
MM is completely justified in calling out the NYT with respect to security leaks now and always. And other bloggers are justified in going to war with Wikileak if they want.
The act that the New York Iimes, the Washington Post, etc,. reveal secrets which help our enemies helps protect them from being attacked by al Qaeda and other terrorist, Muslim organizations.
In other words, now I know why al Qaeda and other Muslim thugs don’t blow up the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other, similar blabbermouths who hate the USA and do anything and everything they can to fight alonside the enemy.
Big difference.
Aiding and abetting?
Come on, chapoutier. I didn’t say that you said anything. Everyone can read the NYT. Whether they like it or not, they are probably the cheapest “open intelligence source” in the world. Responsible editors shouldn’t take that fact lightly.
During WWII, English newspapers lied, at the request of the Churchill government, about the location of German rocket damage in order to fool the Germans to incorrectly aim later salvos further away from populated areas. I’m not convinced that today’s NYT wouldn’t blow the whistle on this practice if it was occurring today. Are you? I don’t know if they’re irresponsible or nefarious, but their actions deserve whatever MM dishes out.
What’s not revelatory to you may be of great significance to others. As a fan of Sherlock Holmes as a child, it never ceases to amaze me of what can be gleamed from the inocuous and the mundane.
corkie
Are you out of your mind? Nowhere do I suggest that those responsible for leaking secret information shouldn’t be held accountable.
But only a fool would ignore such information that, once leaked, provides clear evidence that our war policy is flawed and is almost certain to, in the long run, result in additional American lives lost.
What’s stupid, is making a fuss over this information’s potential to result in American deaths on the one hand, while on the other ignoring the strategic implications it outlines with regard to the ongoing loss of American lives on the other.
Both aspects of this are important.
Ok, first of all what does the link have to do with the release of classified documents seeing that it is a link to someone standing up to union thug tactics? That was a video release from the NEA annual meeting, not secret classified documents. Try comparing apples to apples next time.
Yes, one shouldn’t ignore the fact that a vigilante might have murdered a bad person.
But one should take care that the acknowledgement of this fact doesn’t appear to be an endorsement of the vigilantism.
the nyt gray insane lady has been leaking US war secrets since they printed the D-Day beach names in their crossword puzzles. They’re a socialist rag from way back and can’t be expected to change. Not sure why any of this would be in questions.
This why the clarity of a declaration of war is the right choice. W send off our military without it. When things like this happen its a confused mess.
If we had declared war, the SP4 would be receiving a blindfold and cigarette, and the editor of the NY Times and everyone else who approved the sotry would be in jail.
This is treason in a time of war; no different than Benedict Arnold. But without a declaration the verim slither free. It makes me want to gag.
– corkie
Indeed. But if this information does make the public more aware that our leaders are following policy that puts our boys/girls at greater-than-necessary risk over there, and that leads to improvements to policy, it may well be that some good does come of this.
Acknowledging that fact doesn’t require an endorsement of these ‘leaks’.
Are the NY Times and WikiLeaks red herrings?
HOW did they get the information??
If the info didn’t get out there in the first place, there would be nothing to publish!
Why isn’t the story about those individuals who passed along the info?
Because MM hates the New York Times.
Once upon a time this type of treason would have been met with a UNIVERSAL call for heads to roll; trials and prison. Now the enemy from within just smirks, happy that our military and intelligence personnel have been put in even more danger than they already are. Is it any wonder why liberals, and their fellow traitors in the media are despised by most Americans?
Of course some good may come from anything which is bad.
You can hang your head in shame upon learning that you lost your life’s savings and see a quarter in the street. That quarter is certainly some good coming from you losing your life’s savings.
And you would be stupid not to pick it up.
I remember ‘early’ in the Iraq war and right after those (panty/doggie collar) prison pix came out that Rumsfeld stated that we are now being challenged by our own information technology. I see evidence of that regularly.
We may be experiencing what I’d call an information bubble (as in dot.com and housing bubble). And I fear the method by which it bursts.
And you would claim that the actions of those that were complicit in losing your life savings were mitigated by the fact that you found a quarter.
I am not claiming that the NYT is complicit.
But in any case yes, it is mitigated. If even only a little.
Really?
IMHO, MM merely expresses a dissatisfaction w/ the NYT’s often biased, regularly hypocritical, recklessly disingenuous, reliably traitorous, outlandishly distracting, normally smear tinged and preponderately fear mongering reporting that is stridently anti-GOP and never fails to treat the US as the enemy.
I know you’re not, but they absolutely are complicit.
Indeed. A finding a quarter in the street mitigates the fact that you’ve lost your life savings.
I guess you also think the Vallejo Times-Herald, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the San Francisco Examiner were complicit in the Zodiac murders because they published the killer’s letters.
Perhaps you are confused between “mitigate” and “make whole”? In any case, the NYT is not the one that caused you to lose your hypothetical life savings. They were just the teller that gave you a bank statement full of zeros.
Because these two situations are the same?
1. You know I’m smarter than that.
2. There’s no basis for you to think that I may have confused anything.
Of course they’re not. The NYT is the one that was complicit in this leak.
Bad analogy.
Similar enough. Clearly not the same.
Well then you would admit that finding that quarter would be mitigation, even if only a very small amount.
I agree that the life savings and quarter analogy was bad.
From this afternoon on MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
If this remains the case as they review the rest of the documents, it is good news.
Also, there is speculation in the article about a possible source of the leaks.
Yes, that’s probably why I stated, “finding a quarter in the street mitigates the fact that you’ve lost your life savings.”
My quarter analogy was brilliant. For some reason, you decided to misapply the New York Times to it.
Well, no. First you said that is what I would claim. Thus leading me to believe that it is not what you would claim. I am glad you agree it is mitigation.
Perhaps you need to explain your analogy a bit better. Who took my life savings? Who is making me hang my head? And what is the quarter? And why are the relative values of a life’s savings and a quarter appropriate?
psst. . chap. . .he’s just arguing for the sake of arguing now. Do yourself a favor.
Of course the claim is both accurate and silly to assert. If you lost your life savings, then I could claim that the sun still rises in the east. My claim would be accurate despite the uselessness of it applying to your lost savings.
Why on earth are you “glad” that I agree it is mitigation?
It never mattered who took your life savings. It was simply an example of identifying a good element in an overall bad situation. My point was that a situation can still be an overwhelmingly bad situation even if “some good” can be identified in it.
So, going by Chap’s rules, the NYT is innocent because they weren’t the first ones to break the story.
Going with that, Chap obviously feels that it is okay for Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, or even Al Quaeda to have nuclear warheads. After all, the US had the information first.
And gee, Hitler had information on how to build and use gas chambers to kill millions of individuals who disagreed with his world view. Guess that means it’s just fine for Obama to do the same, right?
Right?
I mean, after all, “They did it first!” has always been a valid reason for doing something that you know is wrong.
Innocent of leaking information? Yes, yes they were. There is a big difference between the party leaking and the party reporting on the leak. Sorry you don’t see that, which clearly you don’t based on your awful, awful analogies.
No. Correct me if I am wrong, but you claim that we should forego any of the good that could come of the bad situation. At least, that is what I took form you calling Yashmak’s point “stupid.”
You are wrong so I will correct you.
You have no rational basis for stating this.
Seriously, chap. That’s an absurd inference.
I was quite clear that Yashmak’s point was stupid because it could be used to provide an overall justification for the leak.
Did I claim that one should forgo the found quarter????
Did I claim that one should forgo some good coming from the murder of a bad person????
No.
Am I saying that one shouldn’t claim that the murder of a bad person justifies vigilantism?
Am I saying that a found quarter doesn’t justify the loss of your life savings?
Yes.
These are clear, material distinctions that you should have grasped by now. Stop being so lazy.
No. No you were not clear. At all. You simply spouted off stupid analogies about vigilantes and quarters.
And Yashmak NEVER claimed that anything was JUSTIFIED by any later consequence. Nor did I. Our ONLY point was that willfully ignoring the information once it has been made public useless and potentially wasteful. So you were arguing against some made up premise in the first place.
Sorry. I wrongly assumed you knew what the hell Yash actually said when you called his point stupid. My fault, I guess, for overestimating your reading comprehension.
Yes. Yes I was clear.
My analogies were brilliant.
You’re either lazy or trying to ruin your credibility. Read my last freakin’ comment, chap. For the love of God, it’s only a few inches away. I NEVER stated that Yashmak claimed anything was justified. I stated that Yashmak’s point could be used to provide an overall justification.
Why do you refuse to look at this issue on any sophisticated level?
Is that your ONLY point? Great, then I think we can establish a demarkation. Because I’ve never faulted the NYT for not ignoring the information once it was made public.
But:
1. We’ve already established that the NYT went to great lengths not to ignore the information well prior to the information being made public. Certainly, you’re not going to attempt to assert that the NYT ignored the information until it was made public.
2. There’s a big difference between “willfully ignoring” information once it has been made public and being complicit (and there is no doubt that the NYT was complicit) in a leak of classified information, endorsing a leak of classified information, and encouraging future leaks of classified information.
I know exactly what Yashmak stated and meant.
-corkie
. . .even though my original post suggested no such thing. Nowhere did I suggest that those responsible shouldn’t be held responsible, or that because some small good may come of this in the long run, that it exonerated the leaker of guilt. You imagined that up out of whole cloth.