« | »

NYT Crows Over Publishing WikiLeaks Info

Unsurprisingly, the traitorous New York Times was among several America-hating newspapers selected by the criminals at WikiLeaks to publish their ‘scoops.’

Here is how a giddy New York Times explains their valiant struggle with their conscience about leaking more vital military secrets that will irreparable damage the US:

Piecing Together the Reports, and Deciding What to Publish

July 25, 2010

The articles published today are based on thousands of United States military incident and intelligence reports — records of engagements, mishaps, intelligence on enemy activity and other events from the war in Afghanistan — that were made public on Sunday on the Internet. The New York Times, The Guardian newspaper in London, and the German magazine Der Spiegel were given access to the material several weeks ago. These reports are used by desk officers in the Pentagon and troops in the field when they make operational plans and prepare briefings on the situation in the war zone. Most of the reports are routine, even mundane, but many add insights, texture and context to a war that has been waged for nearly nine years.

Over all these documents amount to a real-time history of the war reported from one important vantage point — that of the soldiers and officers actually doing the fighting and reconstruction.

The documents — some 92,000 individual reports in all — were made available to The Times and the European news organizations by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to exposing secrets of all kinds, on the condition that the papers not report on the data until July 25, when WikiLeaks said it intended to post the material on the Internet.

Notice that despite claims to the contrary, there is honor among thieves. The Times would never have refrained if the government had asked for a delay.

(And by government, we don’t mean the Obama administration, of course. They would never delay such important information getting to those who have a need to know.)

WikiLeaks did not reveal where it obtained the material. WikiLeaks was not involved in the news organizations’ research, reporting, analysis and writing. The Times spent about a month mining the data for disclosures and patterns, verifying and cross-checking with other information sources, and preparing the articles that are published today

Isn’t it kind of the New York Times to verify this information for our enemies? It will save them such a lot of time and bother.

Deciding whether to publish secret information is always difficult, and after weighing the risks and public interest, we sometimes chose not to publish. But there are times when the information is of significant public interest, and this is one of those times.

We wonder if the New York Times will ever tell us what vital national secrets they have ever failed to publish when given the chance?

The documents illuminate the extraordinary difficulty of what the United States and its allies have undertaken in a way that other accounts have not.

You see, without revealing this information, which will greatly undermine the cause, the American public would never realize that the war in Afghanistan will not be a cake walk.

Most of the incident reports are marked “secret,” a relatively low level of classification. The Times has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests.

Again, when have they ever refrained from doing so before? We would like a list. Maybe WikiLeaks could get to work on that. It is our experience that the New York Times has jumped at every opportunity to publish any and all secrets even if (or maybe especially if) they are untrue.

The Times and the other news organizations agreed at the outset that we would not disclose — either in our articles or any of our online supplementary material — anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations.

If this lie were not so despicable it would be laughable. The entire purpose behind publishing this information is to hurt our military operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East in general, which of course puts the lives of everyone involved at greater risk.

We have, for example, withheld any names of operatives in the field and informants cited in the reports. We have avoided anything that might compromise American or allied intelligence-gathering methods such as communications intercepts. We have not linked to the archives of raw material. At the request of the White House, The Times also urged WikiLeaks to withhold any harmful material from its Web site

Wink, wink. ‘Hey, terrorists, you can find the rest of the details you need at the WikiLeaks website.’ (The line about the White House asking The New York Times to ask WikiLeaks to withhold harmful material is especially rich — Frank Rich.)

To establish confidence in the information, The Times checked a number of the reports against incidents that had been publicly reported or witnessed by our own journalists. Government officials did not dispute that the information was authentic.

Isn’t it kind of The Times and the Obama administration to verify this information for our enemies?

It is sometimes unclear whether a particular incident report is based on firsthand observation, on the account of an intelligence source regarded as reliable, on less trustworthy sources or on speculation by the writer. It is also not known what may be missing from the material, either because it is in a more restrictive category of classification or for some other reason.

But The Times and WikiLeaks will do their best to make everything as clear as possible for their allies in the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Never fear.

And here is still more justification from the despicable New York Times:

In Disclosing Secret Documents, WikiLeaks Seeks ‘Transparency’


July 25, 2010

WikiLeaks.org, the online organization that was to post tens of thousands of classified military field reports about the Afghan war on Sunday, says its goal in disclosing secret documents is to reveal “unethical behavior” by governments and corporations…

Isn’t that always the excuse?

“We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies,” the organization’s Web site says. “All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information.” The trove of war reports to be posted Sunday dwarfs the scope and volume of documents that the organization has made public in the past. In a telephone interview from London, the organization’s founder, Julian Assange, said the documents would reveal broader and more pervasive levels of violence in Afghanistan than the military or the news media had previously reported. “It shows not only the severe incidents but the general squalor of war, from the death of individual children to major operations that kill hundreds,” he said.

You see, the goal now is to force the US out of Afghanistan because of the harm being done to ‘innocent civilians.’

Lest we forget, the Afghan war is the war that everyone on the left pretended to support, as opposed to the war in Iraq. But now that the war in Iraq is over, they don’t need to pretend anymore.

Mr. Assange said in the interview and a subsequent e-mail message that some 15,000 documents would be withheld from release for a few days until WikiLeaks could redact names of individuals in the reports whose safety could be jeopardized….

You see, just like the New York Times and the Washington Post, and the rest of our watchdog media, WikiLeaks is very concerned about putting our soldiers at risk. They would never purposefully do anything that would endanger their lives.

In truth, they are less concerned about our troops than you are about the bugs on your windshield. You have to know that they secretly hate our military forces and thereby so naturally take great delight in the deaths of our soldiers. After all, they are their enemy.

The release of the data comes nearly three weeks after new charges were filed against an American soldier in Iraq who had been arrested on charges of leaking a video of a deadly American helicopter attack in Baghdad in 2007 that killed 12 people, including a reporter and photographer from the news agency Reuters. He was also charged with downloading more than 150,000 highly classified diplomatic cables.

WikiLeaks made public a 38-minute video of the helicopter attack as well as a 17-minute edited version that it called “Collateral Murder.” The abridged version drew criticism for failing to make clear that the attacks happened during clashes in a Baghdad neighborhood and that one of the men fired on by the helicopter was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade

Notice how the New York Times pretends to be offended by this. In fact, The Times gave the WikiLeaks lie tremendous play. Meanwhile, they gave the corrected version of the story very little coverage at all.

WikiLeaks has a core group of about half a dozen full-time volunteers, and there are 800 to 1,000 people whom the group can call on for expertise in areas like encryption, programming and writing news releases.

Thanks to our fulltime well-poisoners like The Times there are probably now a lot of America haters who are only too glad to volunteer to do such freelance espionage against the US. But we suspect there are also a number of ‘unregistered agents’ involved as well, from the Soviet Union from Russia as well as China, Iran and Cuba and the rest of the thug dictatorships of the world.

Probably this is what WikiLeaks means by its reference to the “scrutiny from the world community.”

Mr. Assange, 39, said the site operated from servers in several countries, including Sweden and Belgium, where laws provided more protection for its disclosures.

As if Mr. Assange has anything to worry about from this administration. Indeed, Mr. Assange probably has less to fear than any conservative on talk radio or who writes a blog.

In fact, it would be highly interesting to see how many of Mr. Obama’s administration work with WikiLeaks. We also wonder how much overlap there is between WikiLeaks and those moral Solons on JournoList. But, of course, those kind of ‘leaks’ are far too dangerous to ever be published by our watchdog media.

Sure, untold US soldiers and Afghan civilians may die because of this (dis) information. Sure, it might even help cause the US to lose the war in Afghanistan, and thereby consign the Afghan populace to generations of barbaric cruelty. Sure, these leaks might put our own nation at risk of future 9/11s.

Why should the New York Times care one whit? They’ve got what they hope will be Afghanistan’s version of the ‘Pentagon Papers.’ They might even manage to get another Pulitzer out of it.

Still, imagine their embarrassment if the next Afghanistan planned attack on New York City should hit 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue. Though they would probably still consider it to be worthwhile. They see destroying the United States to be their foremost moral duty, after all.

And, of course, none of this is new. As we noted a few months back, the New York Times is so proud of their ability to rise above such a parochial thing as patriotism that they have listed the following as a great moment in their illustrious history:

New York Times Timeline


The Times is widely denounced for an editorial praising an Austrian peace proposal that falls short of unconditional surrender. Adolph Ochs’s patriotism is questioned; The Herald begins a circulation drive with the slogan "Read an American Newspaper."

And, of course the Herald was right. But they should see the patriotism of the New York Times today.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, July 25th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “NYT Crows Over Publishing WikiLeaks Info”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    OK, stop the world. I want to get off.

  2. proreason says:

    When we overthrow the Ruling Class, let’s confine all Slimes reporters into a room with each other.

    There can be no better punishment.

    And yes, Frank Rich has got to be in the room.

  3. tranquil.night says:


    This is the next in a crucial series of tests. This week, any ‘Conservative’ pundit, commentator, or politician that concedes the premise here is immediately off my radar.

    If there is any sanity left these traitors will be publicly ‘refudiated,’ and the endless political tricks at the expense of our national security will continue to sink the Corruptocrats.

  4. Helena says:

    “WikiLeaks did not reveal where it obtained the material.”

    “We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies,” the organization’s Web site says. “All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires information.”

    Reconcile those two statements for me, will you, Wikileaks?

    Isn’t it time for FULL transparency?

    Very little has been made in the last weeks of the fact that the Peruvian “journalist” who just happened to be married to one of the Soviet spies was actively engaged in writing anti-American and anti-capitalist screeds. Our “progressive” friends would say she was motivated by a pure heart and strong beliefs. She was in fact, a PAID anti-American agent.

    How many of Wikileaks contributors are paid foreign agents? THAT’S something they will never reveal.

  5. TEDWINT says:

    How can we adequately reward the Lame Stream Media for their more-than-willing complicity in almost (at this point in time) bringing down our (and, inexplicably, their own) country?

    Their “slobbering love affair” could maybe be excused owing to a justifiably enthusiastic zeal / fanaticism in electing who they thought was an extremely well-qualified and honorable (and, of course, electable) candidate in Barack Obama.
    But how can we excuse their total refusal to do even the most rudimentary performance of due diligence in investigating a candidate with, at best, a murky and checkered background, for the most powerful office in the world?
    The ongoing boycott of their product: magazines, newspapers, TV news and talk shows, etc., obviously continues as we speak, as evidenced by layoffs by the print media, dismal ratings of their TV broadcasts, etc.

    But is this sufficient penalty? After all, they stood by, complicit in their lethargic apathy, as the Obama administration forged ahead inexorably in their campaign to weaken, cripple, and yes, to destroy the most noble country in the history of the world.

    We kill terrorists who try to blow up buildings or airplanes packed with innocent men, women and children. In a less complicated time, we have hanged spies who traded in espionage that would damage the country’s military capacity and defense capabilities.

    Killing and hanging are, admittedly, a bit extreme, but the destruction of the country that is their ultimate goal rises to the levels sought by terrorists and spies, if they are successful. Treason is the only word that adequately describes the behavior demonstrated by the sycophantic, state-controlled Propaganda Wing of the Obama Administration!!

    Criminal prosecution is compellingly indicated here, with prison sentences and fiercely punitive fines for those in charge.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »