Did I do the right thing?

No.

On two occasions, Kellor and his band of leftists violated the espionage act by blowing 2 programs that were successfully tracking down terrorists. Further, they LIED about the details because they were attempting to sabotage George W. Bush.

In the process, they weakened our anti-Al Qaeda capability.

You SHOULD HAVE published the story. You should have ignored their pleas for silence the way THEY ignored the Bush pleas.

If this had cost them their reporter’s life, well that’d be too bad. But their behavior placed all of OUR lives at risk to another terrorist attack.

If David Rohde had been killed as a result, that’d be too bad for him and his family, and we would have mourned. But it also would be a pointed reminder to the NY Times of the need to keep secrets, especially those affecting national security.

I saw Kellor proudly and self-righteously JUSTIFY his leaks. Well, sauce for the goose.

Ernie Pyle, America’s best-known WWII correspondent, said “Every reporter is a citizen of somewhere and a believer in something.” Unfortunately, Keller and publisher Sulzberger do NOT live in America – not as we know and understand it. They live in a leftist, Bush-hating utopia where THEY have no responsibility for violating the Espionage Act, especially if it hurts a political opponent on the right.

Because nothing else than the risk of death to their employee will drive home the lesson that publishing other’s secrets can have unpleasant consequences.

In other words, SCREW THEM!

When that insight is applied to our mortal enemies, I think so. I would not readily label our fellow Americans, even leftists like the New York Times and their crowd, as being our mortal enemies … yet. Cultural enemies, certainly.
PeterWarner on June 22, 2009 at 12:58 AM

You can’t use the same standards for enemies inside the gate and enemies outside the gate. You’d have to be a madman to slaughter a foreigner for the simple act of trying to turn a latch key — but when it’s your neighbor, the story changes. Barbarians at a distance can be tolerated, but to take the same attitude toward the traitor within is suicide.

If the aggressor determines the rules, what is the role of G-d and Goodness?
PeterWarner on June 22, 2009 at 12:58 AM

This is the essence of western liberalism: treat saints and sinners alike in order to prove how very much better than God you are. When you apply Biblical principles with no no standards, you’re not talking about “righteousness”; what you are talking about its opposite: SELF-righteousness.

Western liberalism is based on Judeo-Christian individual values, but with all the spirituality and concomitant judgmentalism sucked out of it – resulting in a bratty child’s version of the Ten Commandments: “Love everyone – except people who tell me to behave. Everyone should share all their toys – except me, etc… And as long as *I* do what feels right, then I will (somehow, magically) be rewarded in the end.”

Fascism and Communism spring from Islam’s prime collective tenet: “Any means is ‘good’ when it advances the goal of gaining land and subjects. We may feel like we’re living in Hell now; but once the entire globe is under a single yoke, the world will (somehow, magically) become a corporeal Paradise.”

What’s more, the seemingly impossible collaboration between these two utterly inimical world views isn’t a coincidence either. Islam’s institutionalization of Bedouin tribal raiding philosophy was created specifically to predate upon Judeo-Christian Samaritanism; and by exactly the same token, Communism was designed to parasitically exploit the openness inherent to free enterprise.

There’s nothing new under the sun. From the Crusades to Tripoli; through the World Wars and into the current bouts of terrorism… the same fight has been going on for over a thousand years now. There have been lulls, but the war itself has never come anywhere near ending.

Here’s the corrected repost of my misplaced blockquote. Just so nobody understands this in the wrong way (with some editions):

Look at Michael Yon’s latest photos of Green Berets playing with Philippine children. That is goodness that goes down to the bone, bones of warriors, and that Goodness can transform the dynamics with our more human enemies. No other military has such a presence of that heartistic transforming power, says Yon.

WHAT THE HELL, is what military does, have to do with this subject context!?

Oh wait! You want to bring the military in to fight for fairness in media!?

Actually…..that’s not a bad idea.
I can just imagine a machine gun toting Green Beret, standing next to the broadcasting script writer…”HEY!! YOU!! That’s not fair and equal time!!”

Thanks for the idea, Peter.

And screw you righteous bastards for letting it come to such a point!

Furthermore, doing G-d’s will doesn’t always guarantee ‘happy’ results. Our obedience to His guidance (our conscience if you like) advances Providence,

Yea…right.

You can just see all the rightousness that has advanced since Roe V. Wade, with the bunch of brownie-point-gathering ninkompoops shaping the conservative agenda, like you.

Screw you again.

(Forcing the abortion debate down to the state level is the right thing to do, which is all that reversing Roe V. Wade would do)

..not our personal situation.

The only thing you care about is how “good” you look.

Screw “YOU”!!

What about the country, for God’s sake!?

If the world at large, doesn’t have a country to practice freedom of religion, then we are all screwed!!

No greater love, etc. We are obligated simply to Do The Right Thing, regardless.

The only love you have, is for yourself.
You could never follow in the footsteps of Jesus and be willing to sacrifice your reputation for doing the right thing.

We cannot be monsters when doing the right thing, especially when that right thing is forcefully exposing the New York Slimes for the hypocrites that they are, by playing the game with their rules, along with some surprises.

Look. The worst thing that could’ve happened with Rhodes is that the Times would’ve had to pay the 5 million dollar ransom.

Add to all of this, is the fact, that neither Ed nor Michelle Malkin have really and truly told the rest of the story here.
The fact is that Rhodes was a blatant anti-everything-good-for-America, pro-jihadist hack writer and according to some comments above, the terrorists most likely captured him for a publicity stunt, since it appears that Rhodes may be more in kahoots with the jihadists than with an agenda that puts the safety of Americans first.
If this is true, then both Ed and Michelle are beyond extremely disappointing here!!

It truly saddens me, Michelle (and Ed) that you couldn’t put the story in it’s true plain English context – without a lot of weblink tracer stories.

You are sadly, extremely disappointing, since I believe you have dropped the ball in the biggest way of your entire career, so far.

Whether or not you have the cajones to ACTUALLY show some love for country instead of the immediate “nicey nice” reputations of your sorry little asses, is yet to be known.

Look. I repeat. The worst that could’ve happened to Rhodes is that the Times had to part with 5 million dollars…well, I guess his head on a platter would be worse. But then again so was Daniel Pearl.

Contrast that with a nuclear bomb on the eastern seaboard-beltway-north.

You know…this shit is so easy it’s getting boring.

Can you please give me something hard to think about here?

I am dying of boredom.

I am a bored genius, but I’m not perfect.

PeterWarner on June 22, 2009 at 12:58 AM
For our sake and the sake of civilization, we must be able to be tough AND good.

You’re making my point Peter.

Being tough doesn’t mean we are not good.

We, on the so called right of the political spectrum, are not only right, we are also just and correct because we stand on the decent principles that this country was founded on.

The media and the liberals in general, have abrogated their responsibility of truth and fairness in their expressive media channels and have therefore brought us to where we are now, which, is a constitutional crisis.

Those of us who are correct, right and just, no longer have equality in similar media channels and therefore this has created the first stages of a fight for civil fairness.

That to me is the meaning of righteousness.

Perhaps for you it is.

As for me, spare me the sanctimony.

Even Jesus picked up a whip and physically threw out the hypocrites.
As well, Jesus spoke truth to the leader in power at his time and called him a fox.
I know there’s a bunch of you that could never do such a thing like Jesus did, because you are bunch of doo-gooder ninkompoops.

Screw you.

You don’t really care about the disastrous path our country is going down, you merely care about gaining brownies points for being nice.

Double screw you.

Those brownies will be good for the first “bullets” to throw at you, in the impending “fairness civil war”.

Look at Michael Yon’s latest photos of Green Berets playing with Philippine children. That is goodness that goes down to the bone, bones of warriors, and that Goodness can transform the dynamics with our more human enemies. No other military has such a presence of that heartistic transforming power, says Yon.

WHAT THE HELL, is what military does, have to do with this subject context!?

Oh! You want to bring the military in to fight for fairness in media!?

Actually…..that’s not a bad idea.
I can just imagine a machine gun toting Green Beret, standing next to the broadcasting script writer…”HEY!! YOU!! That’s not fair and equal time!!”

Thanks for the idea, Peter.

And screw you righteous bastards for letting it come to such a point!

Furthermore, doing G-d’s will doesn’t always guarantee ‘happy’ results. Our obedience to His guidance (our conscience if you like) advances Providence,

Yea…right.

You can just see all the rightousness that has advanced since Roe V. Wade, with the bunch of brownie-point-gathering ninkompoops shaping the conservative agenda, like you.

Screw you again.

..not our personal situation.

The only thing you care about is how “good” you look.

Screw “YOU”!!

What about the country, for God’s sake!?

If the world at large, doesn’t have a country to practice freedom of religion, then we are all screwed!!

No greater love, etc. We are obligated simply to Do The Right Thing, regardless.

The only love you have, is for yourself.
You could never follow in the footsteps of Jesus and be willing to sacrifice your reputation for doing the right thing.

We cannot be monsters when doing the right thing, especially if that right thing is exposing the New York Slimes for the hypocrites that they are.

Look. The worst thing that could’ve happened with Rhodes is that the Times would’ve had to pay the 5 million dollar ransom.

Add to all of this, is the fact, that neither Ed nor Michelle Malkin have really and truly told the rest of the story here.
The fact is that Rhodes was a blatant anti-everything-good-for-America, pro-jihadist hack writer and according to some comments above, the terrorists most likely captured him for a publicity stunt, since it appears that Rhodes may be more in kahoots with the jihadists than with an agenda that puts the safety of Americans first.
If this is true, then both Ed and Michelle are beyond extremely disappointing here!!

It truly saddens me, Michelle (and Ed) that you couldn’t put the story in it’s true plain English context – without a lot of weblink tracer stories.

You are sadly, extremely disappointing, since I believe you have dropped the ball in the biggest way of your entire career, so far.

Whether or not you have the cajones to ACTUALLY show some love for country instead of your immediate sorry little asses, is yet to be known.

Look. I repeat. The worst that could’ve happened to Rhodes is that the Times had to part with 5 million dollars…well, I guess his head on a platter would be worse. But then again so was Daniel Pearl.

Contrast that with a nuclear bomb on the eastern seaboard-beltway-north.

You know…this shit is so easy it’s getting boring.

Can you please give me something hard to think about here?

I am dying of boredom.

Reporting this story would serve no purpose to the readers here.

At this point in time, the ones that get it, got it.
The ones that didn’t are complete morons and will never get it.

Keeping quiet most likely saved this man’s life and would not have changed anyone’s opinions about the terrorists.

You have to live with your own conscience, so you did the right thing. I would hope you have broken no trust with your readers, because this is exactly what they would expect of you.

Give yourself a pat on the back for me, anyway. Later, Tor.

coninnyc on June 21, 2009 at 10:15 AM
The Times and left wingers in general count on conservatives consciences. They know we have them and use them against us……. They, on the other hand don’t have any. They are completely consciousless, their cause outweighs anything they will do harm to anyone who stands in their way . I sometimes have a strong debate within myself ………….are they right?

When that insight is applied to our mortal enemies, I think so. I would not readily label our fellow Americans, even leftists like the New York Times and their crowd, as being our mortal enemies … yet. Cultural enemies, certainly.

Somewhere, either from Bill Whittle or at BlackFive, there is an article quoting the case that ‘protecting our enemies children endangers ours’. The logic is compelling but the conclusion so hideous that I tried not to remember it clearly (I’m not saying Whittle or BlackFive is promoting that view, only that they examined it). Must we all become monsters to defend ourselves?

If the aggressor determines the rules, what is the role of G-d and Goodness? For our sake and the sake of civilization, we must be able to be tough AND good. That to me is the meaning of righteousness. Look at Michael Yon’s latest photos of Green Berets playing with Philippine children. That is goodness that goes down to the bone, bones of warriors, and that Goodness can transform the dynamics with our more human enemies. No other military has such a presence of that heartistic transforming power, says Yon.

Furthermore, doing G-d’s will doesn’t always guarantee ‘happy’ results. Our obedience to His guidance (our conscience if you like) advances Providence, not our personal situation. No greater love, etc. We are obligated simply to Do The Right Thing, regardless.

And Ed M., you did the right thing. Bless you.

Best regards, Peter Warner.

There is a reason that people get kidnapped. And even the craziest extremist in the world wouldn’t do it to STOP the New York Times from reporting about his acts of terrorism when he could get precisely the same effect from simply not doing it in the first place.

logis on June 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM

The biggest mistake being made today by so-called “thinking” people is the absolute refusal to recognize the problem.

You have no clue what you’re talking about. You can debate and argue all the motives in the world, but like all the rest of the “root cause” crowd, until you look at Islam you will never understand their “reason”.

How does AIG factor in this? Isn’t that the company that Obama stole a hundred billion dollars from the US taxpayers to bailout? According to the article, they are apparently insuring against multi-million dollar ransoms to be paid to invisible captors on behalf of a company that supposedly sends their employees straight into Taliban camps. How much does the Times have to pay for this kind of insurance?
Buddahpundit on June 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM

If you keep paying the losses of someone who keeps intentionally walking into the same trap over and over again, technically you’re not insuring against extortion – you’re subsidizing it.

Insurance auditors are a pain even when you’re talking about normal policies. What would the Times do to keep its kidnapping rider rates from being higher than its policy limit?

Promise to stop doing “inside scoops” on the Taliban?

Promise to give them more favorable press?

If they do the first thing, they’ll lose their only stock in trade: the cache of being the leading organ of the United States liberal media. And I’m pretty sure that second thing isn’t even possible.

Looks like the Times was prepared to pay $5 million in ransom.

JammieWearingFool on June 21, 2009 at 11:29 AM

How does AIG factor in this? Isn’t that the company that Obama stole a hundred billion dollars from the US taxpayers to bailout? According to the article, they are apparently insuring against multi-million dollar ransoms to be paid to invisible captors on behalf of a company that supposedly sends their employees straight into Taliban camps. How much does the Times have to pay for this kind of insurance?

This is a good way for them to finanace al qaeda with our money. Or, if the NYT needs money, they could stage a kidnapping situation and collect the ransom for themselves. No investigation would be possible because the scene of the phony incident could never be investigated.

Since AIG is involved, our politicians need to get involved since they are forcing me to cover this insurance policy.

Any other questions?

Maybe you should call Rush (or me) next time.

John McCain is worthless, so who else can you call?

but I would hope that they would take the lesson from this and show much greater restraint in the future in endangering important security programs rather than err on the side of informing the public when it puts lives at risk unnecessarily

You’re a dreaming ninkompoop.

No wonder you’re such a cotton-ball throwing putz.

If you were convinced that you did the right thing, why did you even have to ask us?

The right thing to do would’ve been to go public under the auspice of it definitely being in the public interest but that you most certainly don’t want to endanger Rhodes (wink wink) and then when the Times complains, make it a nationally syndicated teachable moment!!

But NOOOOO!!

You couldn’t because you are a weak, very weak kneed, hubris filled blogger.

This makes me absolutely not, to ever…. take you seriously, (just like the New York Slimes) which is going to pay me off in spades because I don’t have to study your posts now.
I can just glance over them and know that whatever you write, you are an empty suit with a white balding head, instead of short black curly hair.

Pathetic.

Very pathetic.

Please remember this the next time a tasty morsel of a government secret comes across your desk. Not publishing it may save lives.

How many kidnappings has that paper publicized in the past? Just do a search on ‘yemen kidnap’ on their site. I got 2270 hits this morning.

They have absolutely no basis for their new-found moral high ground.

Filthy propagandists.

When was the last time a reporter was kidnapped and the kidnappers didn’t tell the world?

When was the last time a reporter was kidnapped and he/she wasn’t forced to make video recorded messages to the world denouncing whatever the kidnappers were against?

E9RET on June 21, 2009 at 11:04 AM

That happens all the time.

But the only time you HEAR ABOUT reporters being kidnapped is when their kidnappers aren’t happy with a story that paper printed.

…Or when the kidnappers were so pleased that they released a prisoner.

I’ll give you three guesses which one happened in this case.

(And here’s a clue: the paper involved was the New York Times.)

The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.
logis on June 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM

I suggest you learn a little bit more about Islam.
Jaynie59 on June 21, 2009 at 10:46 AM

I suggest that you put down the Koran down for a few seconds and learn a little bit more about the English language.

There is a reason that people get kidnapped. And even the craziest extremist in the world wouldn’t do it to STOP the New York Times from reporting about his acts of terrorism when he could get precisely the same effect from simply not doing it in the first place.

And once you’ve mastered some rudimentary grammar skills (don’t worry; it won’t take very much at all), then go and look up up a copy of the NYT from June of 2003. You’d see that their editors publically admitted that they had been slanting their coverage to support Saddam’s regime for years because they were afraid of what Saddam would do to them.

And in your perusal of the New York Times, you are sure to also notice one more tiny little fact: They report about terrorist kidnappings all the freaking time!!!

But you shouldn’t even need to know any of that stuff. The only reason the media could possibly have to selectively keep quiet about THEIR OWN hostages is because they don’t want the world to know that they are operating directly under Al qaida’s orders.

Ed, thanks for doing the right thing. Now capitalize on it by pointing our in a more vocal fashion that the Times will be silent to protect their own (in Congrerss as well as on staff) but has no problem jeopardizing the lives of our national security personnel

I agree with this statement.
Use the fact that you and so many others did the right thing to instruct the NYTimes that the “right thing” should be universally applied.