I'm still so boiling mad about the New York Times giving information to the enemy last week that I can't see straight. As Chester says over at Adventures of Chester, ". . . the President of the United States himself asked the New York Times not to reveal the details of how we spy on terrorist financing. And by its own admission, the New York Times blew him off."
What can you say about a rag so hell-bent on publishing information of value to our enemies that they essentially say "screw you and the whole United States too" ? Would the editorial board of the Times really help blow up New York if it would make the administration look bad ? I don't think so, but then again, I'm not really sure.
The Times and its fellow-travellers seem to have decided that we should lose this war because our cause lacks the requisite moral authority that only the Times, its editorial board, and the Chomsky-Kos set can bestow. The great end of ruining the President and the Republican administration seems to justify any means whatever. If terrorists escape, or some people are killed, that's simply the price of liberty to the swells at the Times.
I'll have more to say on this later, but meanwhile, have a look at some of Chester's suggestions for letting the New York Times know how you feel about its aid to our enemies.