NY Times to undermine Bush effort to get Bin Laden

[DougMD]

SOURCES: BUSH ANGER AT COMING NEW YORK TIMES STORY DETAILING HUNT FOR BIN LADEN... The newspaper is planning to expose a 'highly classified Pentagon order' authorizing Special Operations forces to hunt al-Qaida leader in mountains of Pakistan... DEVELOPING....

Another one of those, "Don't be surprised" deals where the liberal left undermines US interests in the fight against terrorism, even as they themselves demand we do what they are undermining our doing![:@]

[8mm/06]

Maybe some newspaper CEO need to be questioned. Perhaps a cavity search will uncover their sources.

[timbercruiser]

Sounds like grounds for treason charges to me.

[Griswold]

It's the NYT. We should be surprised? It isn't the first and certainly won't be the last. Unfortunately for the NYT and their ilk, they think the "public's right to know" trumps all else, even national security.

[The Rev]

That shouldn't surprise us! Now the Democraps would take that as gospel. Watch Obama jump on is little band wagon.

[JoeA]

The "leaks" need to be plugged as well. Back before 9-11, after the attacks on two US embassies in East Africa, we used their cell phones to locate the bases AQ used stage & organize the attacks, for some missle strikes. At first, the perps weren't sure who hit them or how they had been discovered. Then an "un-named Pentagon source" provided someone with a scoop, that we monitored cell phones, and were still doing so to mop up the guys we missed with the the first strikes.

What do you think happened the day story hit the newsstands? They stopped using their phones, spoke in code and the trails dried up. Whose side are they on, really?

[falcon]

Whose side are they on, really?

The sensationalistic, self-serving NYT is on the side of any kind of stuff that will boost their sagging subscription rates.

The "leaks" need to be plugged as well.

+1.
There was a time in the military when the leaker would have been ferreted out and court martialed or fired. Now they get kudos.

[cr422]

ORIGINAL: JoeA

The "leaks" need to be plugged as well. Back before 9-11, after the attacks on two US embassies in East Africa, we used their cell phones to locate the bases AQ used stage & organize the attacks, for some missle strikes. At first, the perps weren't sure who hit them or how they had been discovered. Then an "un-named Pentagon source" provided someone with a scoop, that we monitored cell phones, and were still doing so to mop up the guys we missed with the the first strikes.

What do you think happened the day story hit the newsstands? They stopped using their phones, spoke in code and the trails dried up. Whose side are they on, really?

Much of the news media, especially rags like the New York Times, etc., seem to come across as though they were neutral countries with no duty ofloyalty to the U.S.

[boysda]

i try to avoid the Times, but I thought it was a fairly compellling piece.

www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/washington/30tribal.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnlx=12 14908415-z6nLj71NfdurmV%20p1/Xx0A

[don128]

Bush might be more worried about some of the facts of the Hunt being brought to the surface.