This isn't about the privileges guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is about the agenda practiced by the Times and some other newspapers and media outlets that clearly want the administration to fail in Iraq - and in everything else - so that Democrats will retake the reigns of government. The Times' editorial board fears what one more Republican term could do to the left's judicially imposed cultural realignment and wants to blunt the Bush administration's counteroffensive.
Their agenda was summed up by New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger in a commencement address at the State University of New York, New Paltz, on May 21. Sulzberger apologized to the students: "You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to start a new life, the rights of gays to marry, or the rights of women to choose."
If a newspaper publisher regards a war as "misbegotten," isn't it likely he will do all he can to bring that war to an immediate end, even if it means publishing secret efforts to defeat the terrorist enemy, not only in Iraq but in the United States?
The conservative National Review magazine recommends the White House pull the credentials of New York Times correspondents. I have a better idea. Let the administration refuse to speak with Times reporters on grounds they cannot be trusted. For too long, the Bush administration has tried to play cozy with the media elites. It has gained them nothing. Times reporters should be publicly ridiculed and verbally flogged because they richly deserve it for giving aid and comfort to America's terrorist enemies.
Paying Attention Now? Gosnell Movie Campaign Reaches $1 Million After MSM Ignore Gruesome Abortion Story | Cortney O'Brien
Kansas Students and Parents Not Thrilled About Michelle Obama Speaking at High School Graduation Ceremony | Christine Rousselle