The New York Times Blew a CIA Officer's Cover, Then Tried to Play It Off. SPOILER ALERT: It Doesn't Work
When the New York Times reached out to the Central Intelligence Agency for comment on an operation in the Middle East, they promised not to reveal the identity of an American officer working undercover.
The Times even stated they'd "take care not to put national security or lives in danger, and [they] take that concern very seriously."
Of course, in a June 2 report, the New York Times published the identity of the covert agent, thus endangering lives and national security in a demonstration of total indifference.
Their excuse? Transparency. Here's the explanation the Times released:
If the Times is so committed to transparency that it sees fit to release information that runs counter to national interests, then we look forward to seeing the following explained:
- Exactly why did former Executive Editor Bill Keller decide not to report a piece on NSA surveillance after being pressured by the Bush administration and being advised not to do so by bureau chief Philip Taubman?
- During the Duke Lacrosse team controversy, why did the New York Times choose to present only the prosecution's version of events?
- After copious amounts of evidence indicated reporter Jayson Blair was plagiarizing and fabricating stories, why was the New York Times so reluctant to fire him?
Plain and simple, the left does not like to admit when they screw up. They screw up because they think everything they do is a good idea. They think their good ideas are everyone's good ideas.
Stay alert. Stay alive.