Clarice Feldman has a ripping post out at The American Thinker which is just fantastic.

It’s clear that the New York Times is in big trouble with the announcement that the Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the leaks behind its NASA surveillance story. The investigation is long overdue.

The paper had been warned by the President that national security would be seriously jeopardized if this program were made public, but it nevertheless chose to print it anyway. And it timed the disclosure just as Congress was debating the extension of the Patriot Act, a law which, along with the NSA program, undoubtedly is responsible for the remarkable absence of attacks on US soil since 2001. There has been much debate on the legality of the program. All significant legal opinions in areas of new technology and unprecedented situations are debated. But keep in mind that the President sought legal opinions through normal channels, subjected the program to internal reviews and appropriately advised the Senate and House Intelligence Committee Majority and Minority members of it. Although Senator Rockefeller may have written a private note to himself expressing concerns, none of the members of Congress raised any serious objection to it or took a single step to stop it.

They undoubtedly understood at the time that the President acted out of real concern for the national welfare and in an area not adequately covered by existing law or procedure.
…
I can think of no reason why they sat on the story for a year, except commercial and partisan considerations. The Left is claiming the Times should have published the story in time to sway the election against Bush. But public editor Calame notes conflicting statements from the Times about the story’s readiness for publication a year ago. No dount criminal legal counsel employed by the Times is already worrying about getting the story straight.

And Clarice finds an interestingly ironic statement form some journalism support group about why the press needs to be protected from its own mistakes, and then nails them for being so stuck on stupid for making the argument

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, expressed outrage at the Justice Department investigation into who leaked classified information to The New York Times about the Bush administration’s controversial domestic spying program, saying it is even more serious than the Valerie Plame probe.

“This is much more of a classic whistleblower than the Plame case was and that is why the stakes are much higher,” Dalglish said. “The public needed to know about it and that is a classic reason why reporters need to protect their sources and it is even more reason why there is a need to have a federal shield law.”

Dalglish believes that the seriousness of this case could drive regular citizens to speak out against such investigations and push more for a federal source protection bill to be passed by Congress. “Hopefully the public will begin to understand,” she said.

I have no idea in what precinct of Planet Zongo the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is located, but Ms. Dalglish, this is the worst possible case for protecting sources. Those sources, dear lady, just violated federal laws designed to protect national security in the middle of a war started on our own soil. And the reporters who abetted that disgusting act are not worthy of our sympathy.

I might add I think the public damn well understands. That is why there is a movement for us to take on the treasonous media outlets ourselves. What will all the NY Times sponsors think about being associated with a group that undermined our abilities to stop terrorist attacks here in the US? You think Coke or Ford or any major company will want to be associated with treasonous leakers once a suite is filed by the people against the NY Times? I think not.

Another American Thinker article points out the NY Times is also trying to kill off democracy in Iraq and make all the death and destruction in that country for naught (which is the only way for their predictions to come true).

Somebody please stop the New York Times before it kills what fifteen million Iraqi voters are risking their lives for: a tiny but hopeful democracy. To greet the New Year, the NYT headlined a story,

Iraqi clerics found on Pentagon payroll

Ever since Saddam was overthrown—- against the advice of the NYT—- it has been warning about the danger of a bloody civil war in Iraq, as the Sunni Saddamites try to regain power, killing thousands of Shiite civilians in the process. Under the circumstances, given Middle East reality, it is hardly surprising that the US military has tried to get some Sunni clerics to support the new government and evade a certain bloodbath.

The egoes in the NY Times are so desperate to be right, they are willing to let others die for to make it happen.

Plus, there is this great question to throw back at the liberal left

Liberals, libertarians and “maverick” Republicans are asking whether the U.S. government should be allowed to “spy on Americans.” They should instead be asking whether al-Qaeda terrorists should be allowed to use America’s borders to shield themselves from surveillance. That’s what the effect of abolishing the National Security Agency’s “controversial” anti-terror policy would be.