NYT Writer: Why We Chose to Betray America

Subtitle: We Hate President Bush

That's not really the title of Eric Lichtblau's defiant apologia, of course, excerpted here at Slate, but it might as well be. This Slate article contains all the dishonesty (and some inadvertent candor) we've come to know and loathe from the Gray Lady each time she chooses to screw the US and endanger her citizens in an attempt to boost circulation.

This time it's the "warrantless wiretapping" story. Why does Lichtblau choose to refer to the NSA's electronic interceptions of potential terrorist communications with the archaic term "wiretapping?" Because it evokes an emotional response: trenchcoated G-men pulling their fedoras low while they sneak about from house to house fastening alligator clips to telephone lines.

Admitting that the NSA program does not actually listen in to millions of conversations, but focuses on communications between known and suspected terrorists and American citizens would be counter-productive to the Times goals: making money while electing liberal Democrats.

Lichtblau actually admits that dislike of Vice President Cheney affected the decision to expose the anti-terrorist program:

Dick Cheney had thought about coming to the meeting but figured his own tense relations with the newspaper might actually hinder the White House's efforts to stop publication. (He was probably right.)

This led Lichblau and his co-conspirators at the Times, who have after all, printed diagrams showing mujahideen exactly where to shoot Marines in order to defeat their body armor, to expose the program, rendering it worthless.

Ludicrously, Lichtblau justifies his culpability in this betrayal by pointing to the opportunistic political circus that has developed around the intercept program:

More than two years later, the Times' decision to publish the story—a decision that was once so controversial—has been largely overshadowed by all the other political and legal clamor surrounding President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program...

Amazing, isn't it? The New York Times version of "journalistic ethics" (please excuse the oxymoron) always leads them to do what will profit the NYT the most.

It's Karma, baby.