>See inline,
>
>>>I am sick and tired of this guy exposing government secret ops are designed to protect our interests.
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/29/us.iran/index.html
>>>
>>>I know, freedom of the press. But there has to be some editorial discretion as to what is published. Can you imagine if newspapers had documented the details of Roosevelt or Churchill's Atlantic voyages? The U-Boats would have had a field day.
>>>
>>>I think the NYT has to be called to the mat on their blatant and dangerous partisanship. If the White House had guts, they would yank the White House credientials of every single NY Times reporter and cite this and earlier trangressions as the reason. Thanks, Seymour and the NYT editors. Covert folks with a lot more patriotism and discretion than you will now be killed and the mission possibly degraded. Thanks a lot.
>>>
>>>One of the many reasons I despise holier-than-thou partisans.
>
>>Please help me out here. How did the New York Times get included in your diatribe?
>>
>
>My mistake. I knew he was affiliated with the NYT at times in the past and assumed he still was. Mea culpa.
>
>>For those unfamiliar with Seymour Hersh, he is an investigative reporter who writes for The New Yorker, a weekly magazine. Among his achievements are winning a Pulitzer Prize and being the first to expose the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
>>
>>I agree with you that not everything journalists learn should be published. So do the editors and publishers of reputable media. Not sure this story fits in the category of national secrets. Like it or not, this administration's history of lying, obfuscation, and stonewalling is probably a factor in the news media opting to report more of what they do rather than less. Someone needs to tell us the truth.
>
>
>There we disagree. It's a subjective opinion whether the administration has a history of lying, obfuscation, and stonewalling and, therefore, doesn't rise to the level of objective news, IMHO, which is a core tenet of journalism. I mean, c'mon, Mike, you're saying that the media is honor-bound to "save" us from Bush. That's not right.
>
>So if the German-American Bund in 1940 published shipping manifests of ships leaving for Britain because of their perceived threat to Germany from Roosevelt, that would have been peachy-keen?
>
>I have to, stringently, disagree with that. Also, I find it difficult to believe that Hersh followed the "three sources" rule before writing. If there are three government sources willing to leak classified ops to a reporter then we are in deep kimchee.
>
>I think the mantra should be "could people get killed by publishing this". If the answer is "yes", then the huge temptation to embarrass Bush should be put aside. That's what, apparently, they couldn't bring themselves to do.
>
>Really, objectively speaking, it's shameful.


Liberals don't care about war, because they don't fight. They believe in surrender, at all costs. I'm afraid, I believe in protecting our interests, and doing so before the fact!