Top Three Stupid & Dishonest Liberal MSM Statements This Week

3. Jane Hall, eternal defender of the MSM on the unwatchable Fox News Watch, says on Bill O'Reilly that we mustn't accuse the New York Times of anti-American or treasonous sentiments because reporters are risking their lives in Iraq.

What an absurd nonsequitor. What percentage of all reporters are risking their lives in hotspots, and how much danger are most of them actually putting themselves in?

I don't think James Risen is risking his life revealing secrets to the enemy in the comfort of the nice white professional neighborhoods of DC, except perhaps to the extent he risks a fender-bender by suborning treason as he drives about in an airconditioned Beemer.

Jane Hall and a lot of the liberals in the media keep making this statement -- "You can't criticize us because a small percentage of us are reporting from a dangerous place!" Well, fucking Jane Hall, doesn't that mean you are forbidden to criticize any of those with the most hazardous duty of all -- our troops?

Strange Jane Hall's idea that hazard duty provides immunity from pointed criticism applies only to the priveleged priesthood of the press.

2. This absurdity by Bill Keller, defending his decision to reveal top national security secrets to the enemy:

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)

How fucking stupid is that? Mr. Keller, Moron, Esq., let me explain to you: a story can only be broken once. Once it's broken, it can't be rebroken. Further, idiot, because you refused to heed the advice of Democrat 9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton and refrain from publishing, the government felt it had to rebut the innuendoes in your story and speak openly about the banking surveillance program.

In other words, shithead, everyone already knew when the "conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits" were discussing it. As Instapundit asks, do you think Al Qaeda waits to get its take on American news from Rush Limbaugh?

From where is it most likely Al Qaeda found out about the surveillance of SWIFT transfers?

A) The New York Times, the "Paper of Record" in America

B) The Wall Street Journal, the highest-circulation paper in America, which did a story on SWIFT surveillance once they found out the Times was breaking it and would not agree to withhold publication

C) The President and Vice President of the United States, who were forced to publicly speak about the program due to the NYT's disclosures

D) Either A, B, or C

E) Ace of Spades HQ, in between reading about giant crocodiles and monks dragging around heavy weights by their balls

Bill Keller just can't decide which is most likely. Hey, we're all talking about it now, so why point fingers as to who reported it first?

Funny, I don't think he'll take that position when it comes time to nominate his spies/reporters for Pulitzer Prizes. Then I think he'll be quite resolute on the question of who reported it first.

If Bill Keller made himself available for questioning, as he should, he'd be excortiated for such stupidity and dishonesty. But he doesn't expose himself to such embarrassment, and merely intructs us all that he did the right thing in an idiotic non-explanation all but written in the royal we.

1. Juan Williams claims the NYT did American national security a favor, by informing Al Qaeda we were watching their bank transfers, thus forcing them to seek other means of transfering money.

He really said that. First I had no idea what he could possibly mean. Then I listened to it three times to get it right.

He said the financial surveillance was a good program, but that the NYT did this country a favor by "shutting that network down," meaning, shutting down their previous method of moving money. Now they'll find a new way... but he thinks the NYT should be praised for its anti-terrorist efforts by keeping them away from the money-transfer network we're watching.

When Brit Hume patiently explained that it is best for America that we get to see these transfers and arrest terrorists based upon the movement of money, he reversed himself, cluelessly, and suggested we'd still be able to watch the money because they'd still have to move money through SWIFT.

He contradicted himself utterly in the space of one minute. First, it's great that the NYT told Al Qaeda that we were watching their transfers through SWIFT, and hence we'd shut "that network" down. A minute later-- we'll still be able to watch their money-transfers.

Juan Williams is an amazingly stupid man. It never even occurred to him that, if it were indeed better for America to announce we were watching SWIFT transactions to keep Al Qaeada from making wire transfers, government officials would have just made the announcement themselves, rather than begging the NYT and LAT not to reveal the information.

Again: he really said this. President Bush and his national security advisors thought it was better to let them make their transfers, without them knowing we were tracking them, and then using that information to find them. But wily Bill Keller, the Odysseus of Herald Square, knew better, and knew that Bush and the NSA and CIA and FBI were all wet, and that it would be better to reveal this information so they'd just avoid wire transfers recorded and reported by SWIFT.

So we really shouldn't be discussing whether to investigate Bill Keller for violations of the Espionage Act; the proper debate is whether to award him a Presidential Medal of Freedom or not.

No one has a right to be this stupid. Not even in America.

Video of a "Visibly Angry" Bush calling the NYT "disgraceful."

I guess the Presidential Medal of Freedom is less likely than Juan Williams might guess.

posted by Ace at 11:12 AM

| Access Comments