When Mary Cheney was on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, she echoed a point she made in her most excellent book, Now It’s My Turn : A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life that while she disagreed with the president on the Federal Marriage Amendment, the War on Terror was a more important issue. She so articulated the essence of my support for President Bush. Upset that he had announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment on February 24, 2004, I refused to vote for him in the California Republican primary the following week; I wrote in Rudy Giuliani instead.
But, as the campaign progressed and John Kerry failed to convince me that he had a plan to win the War on Terror and as I was reminded of the president’s steadfast leadership in that endeavor, I returned to my original support of President George W. Bush. The New York Times publication of another clandestine surveillance program offered further proof of the wisdom of my choice.
Within 10 days after the attacks of 9/11, the president had already put a plan into place to trace the financial transactions of terrorists. This shows that while he may have been initially stunned by the attacks, within days of this unforeseen catastrophe, he and his team were already developing plans to track down those villains who would do us harm before they could realize their terrible plans. This particular program helped capture the most wanted Al Qaeda operative in Southeast Asia.
As the program reveals how quickly — and responsibly — the president (and his team) acted, I believe that the publication of this information is close to treasonous. Watching “Special Report” on FoxNews tonight, I learned that in addition to the president, both the chair and the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission (i.e., a Republican as well as a Democrat) asked the paper not to publish the article because it could jeopardize this important tool in the War on Terror (confirming what Trace Phelps had said in a comment to my previous post on the topic).
In light of such revelations, Mort Kondracke said the decision of the paper’s editors showed the “totally adversarial attitude of the New York Times to its own government,” adding that it had to be “based in Bush-hatred.”
I write this post, in part, because I fear that some may have misunderstood the intended sarcasm of my previous post. I wrote in haste and don’t think I succeeded.
Let me conclude by repeating my two basic points ont this story; (1) it shows that the president is fully committed to the War On Terror, acting to catch terrorists before they harm us and so protect Americans, (2) the New York Times is more interested in attacking George W. Bush than in the promoting the security of the United States.
That paper has shown so little respect for the government which protects its freedom to criticize it.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com