Saturday, June 24, 2006

Most Harmful? The NY Times or al-Jezeera?

If you had asked me that a year ago, I'd have to give the nod to al-Jazeera, even though the New York Times would get a "dishonorable mention". Now, I'm not so sure.

I think it's truly sad that these guys are willing to sell out their country, simply to sell a few more newspapers and perhaps nabbed a Pulitzer Prize as an additional bonus. When you consider the depravity of it all, it's astounding really.

Can you imagine the NY Times behaving this way during WWII while either FDR or Truman were President? Somehow, I doubt it.

So the question they really hate George W. Bush so much, that they're even willing to "aid and abet the enemy"? The answer is unquestionably, yes.

They can make all the "First Amendment" claims they want. I'm not buying it. I wouldn't have bought it during WWII and I sure as Hell am not buying it now. Talk to the hand!

All of us have known that since 9/11 that the U.S. Government has been making efforts to track the financial dealings of terrorists around the world and that they have no doubt been very successful. Many successes we'll never know about and that's fine by me. There are things that SHOULD be Top Secret.

The problem with what the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal for that matter is NOT that they reported that this was going on. Anyone who's read a newspaper or watched the evening news should know that. It's the amount of DETAILS that have been exposed in the guise of the public's right to know.

Well, let me tell you something. The public also had a right not to get blown all to Hell and slaughtered by the thousands, even tens of thousands because some ambitious reporter wants to make a name for themselves.

Sooooooo.......who's more harmful to the average U.S. citizen? Hands down, the title now belongs to the New York Times. Congratulations!