When I told a New York Observer reporter that my only regret was that Timothy
McVeigh didn't hit The New York Times building, I knew many would agree with me —
but I didn't expect that to include The New York Times. And yet, the Times is doing
everything in its power to help the terrorists launch another attack on New York
City.
As with forced school busing, liberals seem to believe that the consequences of
their insane ideas can be confined to the outer boroughs.
Last year, the Times revealed a top secret program tracking phone calls connected
to numbers found in Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's cell phone. How much more probable
cause do you need, folks? Shall we do this as a diagram? How about in the form of
an SAT question — or is that a touchy subject for the publisher of the Times?
"9/11 architect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is to terrorist attacks as ..."?
Their reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times
building to half-staff. (Ha ha — just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any
American flags at The New York Times.)
And most recently, ignoring the pleas of the administration, 9/11 commissioners and
even certifiable liberal Rep. Jack Murtha, the Times revealed another top secret
program that had allowed the Treasury Department to track terrorists' financial
transactions.
We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is. As
liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One very
promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit
Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al-Qaida money trail.
But now we've lost that ability — thanks to The New York Times.
People have gotten so inured to ridiculous behavior on the left that they are no
longer capable of appropriate outrage when something truly treasonous happens. It
is rather like the rape accusation against Bill Clinton losing its impact because
of the steady stream of perjury, obstruction of justice, treason, adultery and
general sociopathic behavior coming from that administration.
This is a phenomenon known in the self-help community as "Clinton fatigue" (not to
be confused with the lower back pain associated with excessive sexual activity
known as "Clinton back").
In December 1972, Ronald Reagan called President Richard Nixon after watching
Walter Cronkite's coverage of the Vietnam War on "CBS News," telling Nixon that
"under World War II circumstances, the network would have been charged with
treason."
No treason charges were brought, but we still have to hear liberals carrying on
about Nixon's monstrous persecution of the press — which was so ungrateful of him,
considering how nicely the press treated him.
Today, Times editors and columnists are doing what liberals always do when they're
caught red-handed committing treason: They scream that they're being "intimidated"
before hurling more invective. This is getting to be like listening to the Soviet
Union complaining about the intimidation coming from Finland.
Liberals are always play-acting that they are under some monstrous attack from the
right wing as they insouciantly place all Americans in danger. Their default
position is umbrage, bordering on high dudgeon.
We've had to listen to them whine for 50 years about the brute Joe McCarthy, whose
name liberals blackened while sheltering Soviet spies.
In 1985, Times columnist Anthony Lewis accused the Reagan administration of trying
to "intimidate the press." Channeling Anthony Lewis this week, Frank Rich claims
the Bush administration has "manufactured and milked this controversy to reboot its
intimidation of the press, hoping journalists will pull punches in an election
year."
Rich's evidence of the brutal crackdown on the press was the statement of San
Francisco radio host Melanie Morgan — who, by the way, is part of the press —
proposing the gas chamber for the editor of the Times if he were found guilty of
treason, which happens to be the punishment prescribed by law. (Once again Frank
Rich finds himself in over his head when not writing about gay cowboy movies.)
I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution. A
conviction for treason would be assured under any sensible legal system.
But however many Americans agree with Reagan on prosecuting treason, we can't even
get President Bush to stop building up the liberal media by appearing on their
low-rated TV shows — in the process, dissing TV hosts who support him and command
much larger TV audiences. American consumers keep driving CNN's ratings down, and
then Bush drives them back up again. So I wouldn't count on any treason charges
emanating from this administration.
This is how Bush "intimidates" the press? The level of intimidation I had in mind is more along the lines of how President Dwight D. Eisenhower "intimidated" Julius and Ethel Rosenberg at 8 in the morning, June 19, 1953.
