N.Y. TIMES: BETTER DEAD THAN READ
July 12, 2006
by Ann Coulter
When I told a New York Observer reporter that my only regret was that Timothy McVeigh didn't hit The New York Times building, I knew many would agree with me — but I didn't expect that to include The New York Times. And yet, the Times is doing everything in its power to help the terrorists launch another attack on New York City.
As with forced school busing, liberals seem to believe that the consequences of their insane ideas can be confined to the outer boroughs.
Last year, the Times revealed a top secret program tracking phone calls connected to numbers found in Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's cell phone. How much more probable cause do you need, folks? Shall we do this as a diagram? How about in the form of an SAT question — or is that a touchy subject for the publisher of the Times? "9/11 architect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is to terrorist attacks as ..."?
Their reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha — just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at The New York Times.)
And most recently, ignoring the pleas of the administration, 9/11 commissioners and even certifiable liberal Rep. Jack Murtha, the Times revealed another top secret program that had allowed the Treasury Department to track terrorists' financial transactions.
We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is. As liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al-Qaida money trail.
But now we've lost that ability — thanks to The New York Times.
People have gotten so inured to ridiculous behavior on the left that they are no longer capable of appropriate outrage when something truly treasonous happens. It is rather like the rape accusation against Bill Clinton losing its impact because of the steady stream of perjury, obstruction of justice, treason, adultery and general sociopathic behavior coming from that administration.
This is a phenomenon known in the self-help community as "Clinton fatigue" (not to be confused with the lower back pain associated with excessive sexual activity known as "Clinton back").
In December 1972, Ronald Reagan called President Richard Nixon after watching Walter Cronkite's coverage of the Vietnam War on "CBS News," telling Nixon that "under World War II circumstances, the network would have been charged with treason."
No treason charges were brought, but we still have to hear liberals carrying on about Nixon's monstrous persecution of the press — which was so ungrateful of him, considering how nicely the press treated him.
Today, Times editors and columnists are doing what liberals always do when they're caught red-handed committing treason: They scream that they're being "intimidated" before hurling more invective. This is getting to be like listening to the Soviet Union complaining about the intimidation coming from Finland.
Liberals are always play-acting that they are under some monstrous attack from the right wing as they insouciantly place all Americans in danger. Their default position is umbrage, bordering on high dudgeon.
We've had to listen to them whine for 50 years about the brute Joe McCarthy, whose name liberals blackened while sheltering Soviet spies.
In 1985, Times columnist Anthony Lewis accused the Reagan administration of trying to "intimidate the press." Channeling Anthony Lewis this week, Frank Rich claims the Bush administration has "manufactured and milked this controversy to reboot its intimidation of the press, hoping journalists will pull punches in an election year."
Rich's evidence of the brutal crackdown on the press was the statement of San Francisco radio host Melanie Morgan — who, by the way, is part of the press — proposing the gas chamber for the editor of the Times if he were found guilty of treason, which happens to be the punishment prescribed by law. (Once again Frank Rich finds himself in over his head when not writing about gay cowboy movies.)
I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution. A conviction for treason would be assured under any sensible legal system.
But however many Americans agree with Reagan on prosecuting treason, we can't even get President Bush to stop building up the liberal media by appearing on their low-rated TV shows — in the process, dissing TV hosts who support him and command much larger TV audiences. American consumers keep driving CNN's ratings down, and then Bush drives them back up again. So I wouldn't count on any treason charges emanating from this administration.
This is how Bush "intimidates" the press? The level of intimidation I had in mind is more along the lines of how President Dwight D. Eisenhower "intimidated" Julius and Ethel Rosenberg at 8 in the morning, June 19, 1953.
COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER
