Global War on Terror Watch: Bill Keller on Face the Nation

Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger (left) presents Bill Keller of The New York Times, with the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.

Exose the Left: Keller: â€˜If Youâ€™re Under The Impression That The Press Is Neutralâ€™, â€˜That Couldnâ€™t Be More Wrongâ€™ (VIDEO)

New York Times executive editor Bill Keller appeared on Face the Nation to defend his treasonous decision to publish information about the SWIFT program, which tracked terroristsâ€™ banking accounts.

Keller attempted to play the sympathy card, saying the public doesnâ€™t know when the NY Times DOES NOT publish sensitive information. If that wasnâ€™t disgusting enough, Keller continued his defense and summed up the leak as â€œone manâ€™s breach of security is another manâ€™s public relations.â€

As if that wasnâ€™t disgusting enough; Keller continues to amaze us when he is asked for his closing thoughts about the incident as we begin to celebrate Independence Day:

Ian’s video is here: VIDEO â€“ .WMV

Watch it all for a stomach turning experience.

Bill Keller is a LIBERAL SANCTIMONIOUS HORSES ASS.

The Wall Street Journal calls home out with Fit and Unfit to Print

Mr. Keller’s argument that the terrorists surely knew about the Swift monitoring is his own leap of faith. The terror financiers might have known the U.S. could track money from the U.S., but they might not have known the U.S. could follow the money from, say, Saudi Arabia. The first thing an al Qaeda financier would have done when the story broke is check if his bank was part of Swift.

Just as dubious is the defense in a Times editorial this week that “The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals.” In this asymmetric war against terrorists, intelligence and financial tracking are the equivalent of troop movements. They are America’s main weapons.

Which brings us back to the New York Times. We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters.

As Alexander Bickel wrote, the relationship between government and the press in the free society is an inevitable and essential contest. The government needs a certain amount of secrecy to function, especially on national security, and the press in its watchdog role tries to discover what it can. The government can’t expect total secrecy, Bickel writes, “but the game similarly calls on the press to consider the responsibilities that its position implies. Not everything is fit to print.” The obligation of the press is to take the government seriously when it makes a request not to publish. Is the motive mainly political? How important are the national security concerns? And how do those concerns balance against the public’s right to know?

The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don’t. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.

Bill Keller have lost all credibility. The New York Times and their minions are scrambling on the TV talk shows to rationalize their decision. The public is NOT with them and will vote with their feet and walk away from buying their newspapers and advertising their products/services. Bankruptcy for the New York Times would not be too good for a pompous ass like Keller and his Publisher Arthur Sulzberger.

Perhaps Mr. Keller has been listening to his boss, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who in a recent commencement address apologized to the graduates because his generation “had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.

“Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn’t supposed to be this way,” the publisher continued. “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights,” and so on. Forgive us if we conclude that a newspaper led by someone who speaks this way to college seniors has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.

How can this dynamic duo even pretend to use the First Amendment for their misdeeds? And blame the Bush Administration for being embarassed that people leak to the press? Or government abuse or secrecy?

How do you spell OVER THE TOP BIAS?

Among the programâ€™s successes was the capture of an Al Qaeda operative
known as Hambali, believed to be the mastermind of the 2002 bombing of
a Bali resort, several officials said.

Blogosphere:

Hot Air

Patterico

David Frum

Stop The ACLU

Old War Dogs

Flopping Aces

Global War on Terror Watch: Hugh Hewitt Vs. Eric Lichtblau on CNN Reliable Sources

Global War on Terror Watch: New York and Los Angeles Times – â€œWhen Do We Publish a Secret?â€

Michael Ramirez on the New York Times Publishing U.S. Anti-Terror Secrets

Global War on Terror Watch: House Resolution 895 Passes 227-183

Global War on Terror Watch: House Resolution 895 – The House Debates

Global War on Terror Watch: House Resolution 895 – Redux