The Times, they have a-changed

posted at 10:55 am on June 27, 2006 by Bryan

Captain Ed waybacks the New York Times to a point just after the 9-11 attacks. Back then, the Old Gray Liar was an old red hawk, specifically on the subject of tracking terrorist financing. He finds a Times editorial from September 24, 2001:

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities.

Hm. “Foreign banking authorities.” Like, for instance, and I’m only speculating here, the Belgian SWIFT outfit that the Times just alerted terror money masters is helping the US?

Read the rest of the Captain’s post–it’s juicy.

What this shows us is who has really politicized the war. In the wake of September 11, the whole country including the elitist leftists at the Times recognized that we had to stop that from happening again. We had to unleash whatever tools and weapons we had to get at the terrorists wherever they trained, however they were financed and however they traveled, recruited and plotted. Whatever the Bush administration did in those days was cast as good, but more needed to be done. So said the Times, and so said we all back then. I remember conversations with liberals back then, in which they called for all kinds of rightwing solutions, from crushing the Taliban by brute force to drilling in ANWR to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. You don’t hear any lefties talking that way now. They have reverted to their leftwing pacifist mean.

Just look at how times and the Times have changed. The administration was doing exactly what the Times and the entire country was calling on them to do. What was called for and lauded then is exposed and pilloried now.

And the treasonous Times is puzzled by it all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

In the arrogance-filled bubble in which they live (it’s way up there, above us peons), they don’t realize that people have the ability to do a little research and find their hypocrisy to expose for all.

I bet if they’re confronted with this, they would simply explain it away by going off on some BDS rant about how reckless Bush is and that, well, times have changes since Chimpy McHitlerburton launched his illegal war for oil.

JammieWearingFool on June 27, 2006 at 11:05 AM

What a disgrace. I wonder if the public has had enough and will start to make some noise. The Times needs to be reeled back in somehow before they cost us the war. What are those eggheads thinking. Do they think their people are immune to attacks on New York by terrorists? Do they understand the brutality? What do they hope to accomplish by running this story? Where are their heads. Crazy.

Shmo on June 27, 2006 at 11:30 AM

Where are their heads, Shmo asks?
Let me tell you where they are: up their asses.

Abigail Adams on June 27, 2006 at 11:46 AM

Is the NYT “Fair and Balanced” or just “Fairly Unbalanced”?

EFG on June 27, 2006 at 2:42 PM

IMHO, this changes nothing. America was hard at work in its effort to defeat terrorists, and the NYT came to their aid.

Enough said.

DannoJyd on June 27, 2006 at 3:52 PM

It has to be said: The N.Y. Timew was for tracking terrorist money laundering activity before they were against it.

Khyber Pass on June 28, 2006 at 12:30 AM

OOPS – Allah – In time, can you add a spell check? I like the format so far.

Khyber Pass on June 28, 2006 at 12:31 AM

After D-Day, journalist ernie Pyle wrote: “Now that it is over it seems to me a pure miracle that we ever took the beach at all. In this column I want to tell you what the opening of the second front in this one sector entailed, so that you can know and appreciate and forever be humbly grateful to those both dead and alive who did it for you.”

Ernie Pyle’s style of reporting would seem strange to modern-day Americans, because Ernie Pyle made it clear which side he was on. Ernie Pyle was on the battlefield, risking his own life, so that the American people back home would “know and appreciate and forever be humbly grateful” to the soldiers who fought for them.

Ernie Pyle was one of America’s most famous and beloved war correspondents. Pyle set a new journalistic standard during World War II by moving among the soldiers on the front lines. His reporting gave the American people a closeness to war that they had never experienced before. Pyle never glorified war, but he explained combat in terms of the sacrifices that American soldiers made on behalf of the people back home. Pyle wrote of the American warrior with a “heart-of-gold,” of the American soldier fighting the “good fight” against evil, and of the American soldier fighting for a “just and moral cause.” Ernie Pyle died on April 18, 1945, while reporting on the Battle of Okinawa in the Pacific.

Today, America is once again locked in a great struggle between good and evil. Brave Americans are fighting a new World War that pits the forces of freedom and democracy against the forces of Islamic tyranny: The War on Terror.

In the new World War, many Americans wonder where the loyalties of some journalists lie. Some journalists follow American soldiers into battle only to report on what goes wrong, to focus attention on mistakes that are made, to get the story from the enemy’s point of view, and to weaken American resolve: they blame America for evil deeds and seem to want America to lose the war.

When was the last time you read a newspaper article telling you about the bravery, courage, or success of our troops in battle? Can you imagine a TV news anchor closing a news broadcast with the words: “Godspeed to our troops and our prayers for the swift defeat of the enemy.”

Even worse, some journalists actually help the enemy by revealing top secret programs designed to protect America from enemy attack. In June 2006, the New York Times proudly published details of a top secret program designed to trace and cut-off the funding of Islamic terrorist groups. It was not the first time the New York Times chose to betray the American people by revealing top secret programs that have been keeping them safe since 9/11: The New York Times revealed top secret plans to adjust troop levels in Iraq; The New York Times revealed a top secret program to trace phone calls between terrorists in the U.S. and other countries.

Americans have good reason to ask: “Why are there no reporters like Ernie Pyle in my time?”

But Americans really should not be shocked by the anti-American attitude and treasonous behavior of modern-day journalists. It’s not new. The anti-American attitude and treasonous behavior of modern-day journalists was on full public display almost immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Many journalists in America’s “mainstream media” have been on the wrong side of the war since “Day One.”

After the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, journalists from the Reuters international news service refused to describe Osama bin Laden and his murderous disciples as “terrorists.” The journalists pointed to the official Reuters editorial policy, which stated: “As part of a long-standing policy to avoid the use of emotive words, we do not use terms like terrorist.” But the definition of the word “terrorist” is: “A person who uses or favors violent and intimidating methods of coercing a government or community.” The term is clearly descriptive, not “emotive.”

In the United States, ABC News barred its journalists from wearing American flag lapel pins because it didn’t want to be seen taking sides in the War on Terror. An ABC News spokesman said: “We cannot signal how we feel about a cause, even a justified and just cause, through some sort of outward symbol.”

In February 2003, just before the American invasion and liberation of Iraq, CBS News aired an interview with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the despicable mass murderer, torturer of women and children, and supporter of international terrorism. Many Americans scratched their heads during the televised interview, wondering what could possibly be learned about Saddam that wasn’t already known, and why they should believe anything that Saddam had to say. At the end of the interview, CBS News anchorman Dan Rather told Saddam: “I would very much like to see you in the future, Mr. President.”

On April 13, 2004, during a nationally televised presidential press conference, viewers across the country were astonished to hear members of the American press corps ask repeatedly whether or not President George W. Bush thought he should apologize for the tragedy of 9/11. The questions included: “Do you feel a sense of personal responsibility for September 11, 2001?” and “Do you believe the American people deserve an apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?” The president responded: “Here’s what I feel about that. The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That’s who’s responsible for killing Americans.”

Modern-day American journalists seem to have difficulty choosing the side of right over the side of wrong, the side of good over the side of evil: They even have difficulty showing loyalty to their own countrymen. During World War II, American journalists understood the meaning of “Loose Lips Sink Ships.” Today, many American journalists don’t. INCLUDING THE SEATTLE PI.

“Ernie Pyle, we miss you!”

michaelsclass on June 28, 2006 at 10:48 AM