"A War Against The War" Goes On

Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, wrote a letter in response to the email the Times has been getting over the Times' publication of details of the international banking transaction tracking program that the United States Government has been using in the war on terror.

Mr. Keller's attempt to shift some of the exposure blame from the Times to conservative bloggers, talk radio and TV pundits is laughable.  He should have also included Congress and the President among the groups who see the publishing of this story as dangerous to our security.  Here's a bit of what the President had to say this morning-

"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and, at the same time, make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do. The 9/11 Commission recommended that the government be robust in tracing money. If you want to figure out what the terrorists are doing, you try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing. And the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."

Hugh Hewitt does a capable job of rendering Mr. Keller's response ineffectual (although Keller doesn't need much help), as does Andrew McCarthy, and Captain Ed.  Michelle Malkin has a great round up of reaction.  I have yet to read a reasonable account of why the Times published their story, other than it's "in the public interest," which really doesn't hold much water.  On examination of the story and the details of the program that are available, it seems to me that my interests are better served by my government executing all available methods to defeat the folks who want to kill us and destroy the United States.  If that means secret programs to track enemy methods, that's fine with me, and, even according to the Times' article, it's fine with the law also, in this case.  What good comes from disclosing the details of this program to the enemy?  None.

Mr. Keller's discussion of the "The power that has been given us" and how that part of the Constitution anoints him and his ilk is disgusting for it's patronization of Americans, who Mr. Keller thinks don't know the meaning of the Constitution.  Glenn Reynolds has some comments on this subject here, and here.

So why publish the story now?  According to Keller, the Times has no "animus toward the current Administration," which is hardly believable, considering the 5 year campaign the Times has waged to discredit President Bush and his determination to see our way to victory in this war.  While it's impossible to read the mind of Mr. Keller, it is possible to discern motives from his actions.  If someone was always talking me down in public, only mentioning the times that I screwed up, never when I did something good, and was condescending when speaking of me with others, I'd think they had a bunch of "animus" toward me, regardless of what they said to my face. 

Actions do speak louder than words, and in this case, Mr. Keller's, and the Times' actions speak very clearly.  I believe that their effort to discredit President Bush will fail, and even backfire on the Times and her minions.  Americans are pretty savvy when it comes to defending our country.  We usually figure out who the good guys and the bad guys are pretty quickly.  It is very clear to this American who's side the Times is on in this war.

LATER (June 26, 2006 4:07p EDT):  I posted this before reading Powerline.  Here is Scott Johnson's invocation of Abraham Lincoln.  And make sure you read this letter to Keller, Lichtblau, and Risen from LT Tom Cotton, who is serving in Iraq.

And here is Tom Maguire's funny analysis.  Wizbang has the Readers Digest version of Keller's letter.