David Keller- A Reply

The New York Times has only two reasons for publishing its latest purported scandal of the Bush administration. Either it must hate the Bush administration, or it must want Al Queda to win in America. The second alternative is so unreasonable as to defy any logic; therefore we must focus on the first alternative.
Can we show from sources that the New York Times does despise the Bush administration and favor a Howard-Dean-Replacement? Yes, it is a slam-dunk pronouncement, and the editor’s reply, trying to protect himself from the sharp outbreak of criticism by denouncing conservative hacks who have taken umbrage with him has exposed his true partisan motives.
As a libertarian, I have no problems with partisan motives; I have every problem with someone who claims to be doing something for other prurient interests, i.e.- he considers the people’s right to know as triumphing American’s right to be protected from terrorists. This postulate is fallacious, coming from an American newspaper; there is only one reason to print it- the hope that it will further damage the Bush administration.
One of the reasons that the editor, Bill Kellor, gives for justifying his article is a parenthetical response saying that conservatives should not reply to his article, as it only magnifies the wrong that he did in publishing it in the first place: “(I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)” Evidently Mr. Kellor wants to publish and be ignored by his opponents- what a paradise that would be for a journalist!
Someone recently pointed out that the NYT and John Murtha are the best weapons that Republicans have. I agree that Republicans have made a mess, but what alternative are we to choose? The alternative of the Times, which is give the enemy all news of every secret program you are using, or John Murtha’s alternative of fighting the war in Iraq from Okinawa, 5,000 miles away?
Neither is a thinking alternative, and thus I predict Republicans will dominate for the next decade. The shrill voice of the weird opponents cuts through to the sensible voter, and they will not buy into the fantasy. I read in a blog today where one crazy declared that Bush had won neither election- as long as such ideologues are in control of the Democratic Party, (Go Howard Dean!) the nation is probably safe from their influence.
Sergeant Boggs has made a most strong point on his blog. How have we made the world safer for our soldiers because of the Time’s article? Giving the enemy new information about how we are trying to catch them is indeed treasonous. The Times should be sent, entire staff, to Iraq for two years of service so that they may reap the fruits of the seeds they have sown. They might come back with quite a different attitude toward terrorism, once they have to suffer the monies they have exposed being dedicated to their own destruction.