Skip to content
Advertisements

The New York Times — Trying to Relive Era of Pentagon Papers

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

It’s now the second time in three days that The New York Times has printed classified and top secret U.S government documents from White House leakers. (See my post of November 26th “The New York Times Commits Treason – AGAIN“)

EllsbergIt’s obvious to me that the Times is trying to take us back to the virulent days of Viet Nam anti-war protester Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked a top secret 7,000 page document called The Pentagon Papers to Neil Sheehan at The New York Times in June of 1971. The Pentagon Papers were commissioned by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara in June, 1967 and was completed in Jan., 1969, and revealed that the Viet Nam war would not likely be won and that continuing the war would lead to many more casualties than was admitted publicly. The papers further showed a deep cynicism towards the public and a disregard for the loss of life and injury suffered by soldiers and civilians. The disclosure helped fuel the anti-war movement and threw the country into turmoil over the already very unpopular Viet Nam war.

Sound familiar? Just substitute Iraq for Viet Nam and voila – The New York Times is hoping for the same fireworks. The Times hopes to fuel public opinion against the Bush aministration’s war policy — it desires to change national policy by embarrassing the government. Gateway Pundit writes this: New York Times Publishes Another Classified Memo to Hurt Bush.

Here’s what The New York Times wrote as reported by Michael R. Gordon:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 28 — A classified memorandum by President Bush’s national security adviser expressed serious doubts about whether Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki had the capacity to control the sectarian violence in Iraq and recommended that the United States take new steps to strengthen the Iraqi leader’s position.

The Nov. 8 memo was prepared for Mr. Bush and his top deputies by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and senior aides on the staff of the National Security Council after a trip by Mr. Hadley to Baghdad.

CNN put it this way:

Iraq’s prime minister saw his support erode on two fronts Wednesday as a White House memo questioned his leadership and a powerful political bloc suspended participation in Iraq’s government. The classified memo by President Bush’s national security adviser Stephen Hadley questions whether Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki can end the bloody sectarian violence in Iraq, and especially whether he can rein in the Mehdi Army militia loyal to anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Hours after details of the Hadley memo first appeared in Wednesday’s New York Times, Cabinet ministers and members of the Iraqi parliament loyal to al-Sadr underscored al-Maliki’s shaky position, saying they would stop participating in his government. The al-Sadr supporters had said earlier they would take such action if al-Maliki went ahead with a meeting with Bush on Thursday in Jordan.

The Hadley memo outlines steps the United States could take to strengthen al-Maliki, including sending more U.S. troops to boost security in Baghdad.
“We should waste no time in our efforts to determine [al-]Maliki’s intentions and, if necessary, to augment his capabilities,” the memo said.

A senior administration official confirmed the memo’s authenticity for CNN, but said the leak of the memo was “not helpful.”

In 1971 the release of the Pentagon Papers politically embarrassed the incumbent Nixon Administration. John Mitchell, Nixon’s Attorney General, issued a telegram to the Times ordering that it halt publication. The Times refused, and the government brought suit against it.

The Times eventually won the trial before the Supreme Court. The right of the press to publish the papers was upheld in New York Times Co. v. U.S..

On June 28, 1971 Ellsberg publicly surrendered to the US Attorney’s Office in Boston, Massachusetts. He was taken into custody believing he would spend the rest of his life in prison; he was charged with theft, conspiracy, and espionage.

In one of Nixon’s actions against Ellsberg, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, members of the White House Special Investigation Unit (also called the “White House Plumbers”) broke into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office in September 1971, hoping to find information they could use to discredit him. The revelation of the break-in became part of the Watergate scandal. Because of the gross governmental misconduct, all charges against Ellsberg were eventually dropped. White House counsel Charles Colson was later prosecuted and pled no contest for obstruction of justice in the burglary of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office.

Is The New York Times hoping that Bush and Cheney will do the same as Nixon did? Does The Times want to bring down this administration? — Isn’t it obvious they do.

Al Qaeda is cheering on the ferment and the public discontent, knowing that eventually America will get weak in the knees and the government will abandon the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. To the Islamic world this will mean that the “Great Satan” has been defeated and that they are the victors.

On October 7th, 2001, one day after the U.S. and Great Britain were bombing the Taliban, al Jazeera broadcast a prerecorded videotape from Osama bin Laden, “It’s greatest buildings were destroyed, thank God for that. There is America, full of fear, from its north to its south, from its west to its east. Thank God for that.”

Then on December 17th, 2001, as he was beginning his escape from Tora Bora, bin Laden wrote, “Despite the setbacks that God has inflicted apon us, these painful blows will mark the beginning of the wiping out of America and the infidel West after the passing of tens of years, God willing.”

The New York Times is just speeding up the process!


Digg!

Advertisements
3 Comments leave one →
  1. AST permalink
    Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:15 pm

    I’m for prosecuting the creeps. Not only can the U.S. no longer be trusted to keep its commitments, but the president can’t even get candid advice from his advisors. Why bother having a foreign policy at all?

    I’d like to see him start sending out fake memos as “Times bait” Just to track the leaks down. Or maybe the FBI should start bugging the Times editorial meetings and posting them on its website.

    How does this kind of thing have any benefit to anyone? No wonder it’s losing readers.

  2. Robohobo permalink
    Tuesday, December 5, 2006 2:31 am

    “Al Qaeda is cheering on the ferment and the public discontent, knowing that eventually America will get weak in the knees and the government will abandon the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. To the Islamic world this will mean that the “Great Satan” has been defeated and that they are the victors.”

    And bin Laden has predicted this would happen. It is happening right now and the victory of the Islamists is at hand. They have defeated us, we are just not acknowledging the defeat yet.

    This should cheer on Carter and his ilk at the HuffPo, the Kostards, etc. The Nutroots community.

    Please reference the published goals of the Communist Party in the US. Check off another one.

  3. Sparkles the Iguana permalink
    Thursday, December 7, 2006 12:16 pm

    Get with the program – the Hadley memo was written to be leaked, to put intense pressure on Maliki. I guess you’re one of the last to not figure this out.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: