Blood on Bill Keller's Hands

Once again, the United States Congress has preserved my right to burn the American flag. I paid even less attention than usual to the silly ritual this time, knowing full well what a silly, intentionally futile charade the whole affair was. As such, I spared myself from having to read or hear anyone declaring that American servicemen have given their lives to preserve my freedom to burn flags. But I have no doubt that somebody resurrected that tired cliché just as reliably as Republicans revive flag protection amendments in election years.
But, while I doubt that any serviceman who gave his life in war ever wasted a thought regarding the rights of flag burners, there is no doubt that soldiers, sailors and marines have put their lives on the line defending the principles of freedom upon which this nation was founded.
That said I doubt that very many servicemen would risk losing a fingernail defending the right of the New York Times to put their lives in greater jeopardy.
When the Times elected to reveal how the Bush administration traces terrorist money transfers, it increased the probability that Osama Bin Laden and his kind will successfully attack this country again. The Times made it easier for terrorists in Iraq to purchase weapons to use against our soldiers and Iraqi civilians. Without a doubt, people will die thanks to the Times.
The Times insists that it is perfectly within its rights to behave so irresponsibly. I am less certain, and I reference the Times itself. The New York Times was among the loudest advocates for pursuing the supposed leaker who revealed to Robert Novak the identity of Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame. As Valerie Plame was nothing more than a CIA desk drone, her exposure harmed no one, not even her flickering career. The Times was indignant that anyone would violate the law by revealing official secrets and demanded that the miscreant in his administration be discovered and punished. Of course, the New York Times was seduced by the prospect that they leaker was none other than the dastardly Karl Rove, whom Joseph Wilson demanded be “frog marched” off to jail in leg irons.
But in this case, the leakers who handed over to the Times the details of how the government tracked the financial transactions of terrorists will certainly be protected by the Times and the phalanx of lawyers it retains. The sanctity of leakers is determined by how much harm they do to the Bush administration and the war on terror.
The real irony here is not the Times’ duplicity. The irony is that, back in 2001 while the World Trade Center rubble was still smoldering, the Times demanded that Bush implement just such a program.
``Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists," the Times opined on its editorial page. ``The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity. . . Much more is needed, including . . . greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also be closer coordination among America's law enforcement, national security, and financial regulatory agencies. . . . If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one."
Bush did what they asked and the Times stabbed him in the back. No, I take that back. The Times was so obsessed with stabbing George Bush in the back, that it stabbed America in the back.
Equally noteworthy is that, in 2004, the Times endorsed the John Francoise Kerry notion that the war on terror must rely more on intelligence and less on military might. But the Times has, at every opportunity, subverted the Bush administration’s effort on those fronts. Thanks to the Times, terrorists know how we track their phone calls.
Perhaps American servicemen have died defending the right of the Times to exercise its First Amendment freedom with the same arrogant irresponsibility of a flag burner. But it’s unlikely that any flag burner actually contributed materially to the death of a serviceman. The New York Times has.
So, when it happens, will American soldiers be dying to preserve the Times’ freedoms, or will the Times have killed the American soldiers?