Bill Keller: Another MSM Stooge Who Does Not Get It

This comes from Hugh Hewitt and it is in regard to Bill Keller--the Editor at the New York Times. It seems an e-mail of his is not only featured in a National Journal piece penned by Murray Waas. But the e-mail is an important aspect of the debate right now focusing on leakers.

"I'm not sure journalists fully appreciate the threat confronting us -- The Times in the eavesdropping case, the Post for its CIA prison stories, and everyone else who has tried to look behind the war on terror. Maybe we're suffering a bit of subpoena fatigue. Maybe some people are a little intimidated by the way the White House plays the soft-on-terror card.

"Whatever the reason, I worry that we're not as worried as we should be. No president likes reporters sniffing after his secrets, but most come to realize that accountability is the price of power in our democracy. Some officials in this administration, and their more vociferous cheerleaders, seem to have a special animus towards reporters doing their jobs. There's sometimes a vindictive tone in way they talk about dragging reporters before grand juries and in the hints that reporters who look too hard into the public's business risk being branded traitors. I don't know how far action will follow rhetoric, but some days it sounds like the administration is declaring war at home on the values they profess to be promoting abroad."

First, I would like to ask Mr. Keller who the "us" is that he is referring to in sentence number one. It is obviously not the nation, as a whole. It sounds more like the "us" he is referring to is the elite MSM-types that think, for some odd reason, that they are above the law. I will come back to this in a second.

I doubt the nation is "subpoena fatigued" in any sort of way. I am almost positive that the nation, again as a whole, would like to see more such actions taken against certain members of the government and the established media elites. And as for the president's take on those "soft on terror," the president is 100% on the money. Thomas has started work on a book. It's working title right now is "American Dhimmis." And to me that sounds a lot like a firmly-entrenched, openly-hostile press that attacks anything it dislikes; that includes ideological ideas contrary to their collective mindset.

As for his idea that "accountability is the price" paid for democracy, what a load of horse hockey. The accountability rests in the hands of the people of this nation, and they spoke clearly in Novermber, 2004 by sending the president back to Washington for four more years. "Accountability" does not come from the media, and most especially not one who thinks they have a free license to do what they want, when they want, without fear of any sort of repercussion.

The First Amendment applies to every citizen of America. But the press likes to take it's "freedom of the press" that is succinctly in the First Amendment to extremes at times. There are limits to freedoms, and the first limit is the ability to recognize that with such comes a great responsibility.And in this war, the press has shown:

--A blatant disregard that anything "good" occurring in Iraq or Afghanistan is "pro-Bush."

--A refusal to accept some things are secret, and should not be revealed.

--A rejection that our troops are doing the right thing, for the right reasons.

--That the president is the Commander-in-Chief, and is the rightful leader of this nation at this point in time.

There is no war on values from the administration, but there is clearly a war between the media and the administration. This is one of the reasons why newspapers like the Times, and her sister in LA are losing subscribers and advertisers. People are just plain sick of not only the rhetoric, but the invective innuendo and lies erupting from the news pages everyday.

Which brings me back to where I started. The lie being pushed by the media right now is that Dana Priest is above reproach; as a reporter, she was only reporting the news. The problem is that the news in question was a classified government secret, and a tool in our ongoing war. There is no excuse available to give her a pass from prosecution.

Mary McCarthy, as a CIA officer, was privy to classified material. She took some of that, and passed it onto a reporter. Mary McCarthy not only broke the law in doing this, but she violated her oath as a CIA officer, AND violated the agreement she signed when joining the Agency; this agreement is binding, and must be signed by every active agent, officer, and operative at the CIA. It states that they will not reveal what they know. Period. She did.

The moment the information landed in Dana Priest's hands, she was in possession of "stolen goods." The secrets were not hers, nor were they Ms. McCarthy's. They were Uncle Sam's. And The moment that Dana Priest revealed it, she passed purloined goods into the hands of American citizens. She also put that information in the hands of our enemy. An argument could be made that she was "unaware" it would end up there, but that argument is feeble, at best. We are well aware that our enemy pays attention to American news; their propoganda has utilized the Left's talking points for quite some time now.

The idea that Mr. Keller is trying to pass off--that reporters cannot be held accountable for simply reporting the news, regardless of its secrecy--is garbage. They can, and they should be. If either Thomas or I become privy to any sort of classified material, despite both of us being bloggers, it will never be revealed right here until we have the permission from the appropo party to do so. We take things like this to heart. We take it seriously. Thomas refers to this war as a "game;" moves and countermoves on a global chessboard. If that's true, we do not want our enemies knowing moves before we make them, and even then we would prefer they stay surrepticious. The media--Dana Priest and Bill Keller, especially--seem to miss this point of fact.

The Bunny ;)