Uh. . .
January 24th, 2005 - 11:11 pm
Stephen Bainbridge has a few questions for the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman:
Did the Pentagon intend to disclose this program or did only to do so in response to Gellman’s investigation? If the latter, why isn’t his conduct basically treasonous? Did he put personal self-interest as a journalist ahead of the national security? If operatives are killed or missions blown as a result of this story, will Gellman feel any remorse? If the countries named in his story as targets of the missions pull out of the war on terror, will Gellman accept any responsibility for the resulting harm to our national security?
Gasp!! The Pentagon establishing programs to gather intel during a time of war!!?? What will Bush-Rove-Rumsfeld think of next?
How soon until the Michael Jackson trial gets under way so the MSM will have something constructive to occupy their time? -Spin
“Did he put personal self-interest as a journalist ahead of the national security?”
Well yes, that and his desire to destroy Bush and send the country down the tubes. Your basic leftwing agenda.
“If operatives are killed or missions blown as a result of this story, will Gellman feel any remorse?”
Only that he didn’t break the story before the election…
Oh come on. If there were consequences for journalists comprimising national security the entire profession would be behind bars.
The Power of the Instapundit
Glenn Reynolds recently updated one of his posts from yesterday to link to two posts on my blog. Given Glenn’s posting rate, it’s way down the page. In fact, you have to scroll down more than halfway to get to
A “journalist” puting personal self interest ahead of national security? Why that has not happened more than a few thousand times since 1944! How can you even think it!
I left out the Rathergate implicatins in the last comment; sorry,
Truth to power, Stephen.
make that Stephens.