National Security
Let me just point this out real quick. The LA Times has broken the story that the US may have been paying Iraqi media. If this is true, wouldn't it be bad for the US military. I mean they were doing it for a reason. They obviously didn't want it leaked that it happened, in fact I would be astonished if it was not classified SECRET at least. Well then didn't they out a clandistine operation? Against our national security too. Hmmmm, kinda hypocritcal since they have been one of the leaders of the Valerie Plame story. You know it really had a deleterious effect on our national security. So of course we should all be ready to see other media outlets to attack the LA Times for hurting our national security (Insert Sarcasm Here)
posted by Maddawg at 12/01/2005 06:02:00 PM
5 Comments:
I believe it was Ben Franklin that said "He that would give up just a little freedom for temporary security deserves neither freedom nor security." Leave it to a conservative to invoke taking away the freedom of the press. And he's in the military, too.
Absolutely authoritarian. Why don't we just have a military state, Jim?
Authoritarian? Are you insane? You arn't giving up any freedom for the pentagon to give its point of veiw. They are simply putting out the facts. No one is losing freedom of press here at all. Unless freedom of the press means only the liberal establishment has the freedom to put out the left-wing, defeatest news. The pentagon hasn't done one thing to keep you or anyone else from putting out whatever you want, no matter how much it hurts national security. The hypocritical nature of condemning the administration for Valerie Plame in the name of national security (what do you think the CIA does in the first place when they are covert?) and then publishing a secret national security operation is crazy. No ones rights are being violated by the pentagon putting out facts, Maybe they wouldn't need to if the normal media would do it.
If the L.A. Times got ahold of the story, the Pentagon obviously didn't do enough to keep it under wraps. Don't be pissed at the media for doing it's job, Jim, is all I'm saying. The Times owes no allegiance to national security, it owes it's allegiance to delivering reliable, trustworthy news to the American people. Nobody should attack the Times for breaking this story. If anything, people should be attacking the Pentagon for screwing up by letting the story leak. People should be praising the Times for doing such a damn good job at cracking the Pentagon's weak-ass codes.
The LA Times does owe alligence to national security. Last time i checked, they were Americans and all Americans owe allegience to national security. Even if they didn't they bitched and moaned about how having Valerie Plame lose her cover was bad for national security. Therefore they sold the story that national security was important. But then they print this deliberatly hurting national security, something they held to be important under the Plame affair. Thats hypocritcal
No, the reason they bemoaned the Valerie Plame story in the name of national security was because it was REPUBLICANS putting our national security at risk for petty partisan mud-slinging.
The other thing I had a question about is this: where in the Constitution does it say that every American owes an allegiance to national security? I've read the Constitution, and I don't recall such a section; maybe I was reading too lightly over it. But I'd like you to point out where in the Constitution I owe allegiance to national security. THEN you might have a case against the L.A. Times.
Post a Comment
<< Home