John F'n' Murtha Told The NYT To Publish

That seems to be the suggestion here in this interview with Bill Keller. He says he talked to three people outside of the administration regarding whether or not he should commit treason, and two of them -- 9/11 Commissioners Tom Kean (R) and Lee Hamilton (D) -- urged him not to.

He then says that one of the three did not counsel against publication.

As the third person talked to was Murtha, that would seem to suggest that Murtha told them it would be okay to publish it.

In his wholly unbiased opinion. You know, the unbiased, non-Bush-deranged guy who claims the US is more of a threat to peace than North Korea and Iran.

I can't decide what's more shocking -- that this cocksucker Murtha would tell the NYT, on his own dubious authority, that it's okay to violate the Espionage Act, or that the New York Times would consider John Fucking Murtha a disinterested, unbiased arbiter on the matter.

Fuck, why not just ask Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, George Soros, and Michael Berg?

And... If you haven't seen Treasury Secretary John Snow's letter to Bill Keller, you might want to check that out.

Thanks to DDG for the latter.

And There's Still More... Now How Much Would You Pay?: Another Pulitzer-winning scoop from the NYT:

WAZIRISTAN—An American soldier, clinging to a cliff face littered with broken shale and animal bones in Waziristan, northwest Pakistan, is currently engaging in direct, unwarranted surveillance of Osama bin Laden, confidential sources have revealed to the New York Times.

The soldier’s conduct raises questions about the Bush administration’s policy of covert surveillance and intelligence gathering in support of his “War on Terror�. Constitutional experts are “troubled� by this and similar unwarranted searches that are designed to gather information on terrorists, but may reveal private information about American citizens instead.

Correction: I originally inadvertantly wrote that Tony Snow wrote the letter.

Inadvertantly is a funny word. What does it mean? Does it mean it was merely a printer's mistake/typo? Or a bona fide mistake of fact?

Kinda right there in the middle-- not explicitly denying an actual mistake, but not really admitting one either.

It's the media's favorite word when mentioning corrections.

Nice.

posted by Ace at 10:30 PM

| Access Comments