Subscribe to this story's comments
Why do we have to let the world know what we are doing?
Aren't some things better left unsaid?
That's easy. The Liberal media lets the world know so there is an increased chance the missions are compromised. That way, Americans may die and the missions may fail. They can then justify their position that the war on terror is a disaster for the Republican Administration.
Exactly right, navy65. It's nice to know we're doing something to get SOB Laden, but I would rather not know it if that same information can be used to keep SOB Laden in hiding.
It looks to me as if some reporters are helping the enemy, you can't fight a war with all of your plans published before the attacks take place.
Barry Obama said he wanted to nuke Pakistan. Who is this guy? ________________________________________ http://SlickBarry.com _______________________________________
Whoa...just a minute here. We can't do that! We need to arrest him, handcuff him (hands in front of course...don't want to hurt him), Mirandize him, and then transport him back to the U.S. to be tried by a fair and impartial jury of his peers.
....and don't forget his right to free legal counsel. I'm sure the ACLU can free up a lawyer for this worth cause, or maybe Justice Kennedy, Ginsburg, Stevens, or Souter is free?
I agree with some of the comments that the news media has a responsibility to keep secret information that is vital to gaining victory over our enemies. Times, you need to understand that, yes, it is cool that we have the technology to kill this SOB with an unmanned drone. But at the same time printing that info will tip off Bin Laden and his people to "look up" when they are concidering where an attack may come from. Also, remember that we are at war whether you and your liberal friends in the media want to convince the American public that we can't be because after all, you all believe that this war is illegal. Well, I've got some news for you, it's not. the Congress overwhelmingly voted for the use of force to stop any further terrorist attacks from where ever that attack may be coming from. They did it. The U.N. agreed to the use of force against Hussein, Bin Laden, and Al Quaeda, the Talaban and whoever would attack America. If you will go back in your issues and reports from 2002 you will find that Bush and Powell worked their butts off to get authorization from our Congress and the U.N., for over eighteen months. Now, just because there are a bunch of leftist who don't want the U.S. in anykind of war whether legal or not, and liberals believe that war isn't nice, doesn't mean the war on terror in Iraq is one that is illegal. It's not. So deal with it. We are in a Congressionally authorized war and since that is what that means you are now guilty of sedition, which is aiding and abetting the enemy with information which could help them kill more of our soldiers and Americans and/or our allis. Look it up. I would hope that someone in the government would have the balls to come and arrest whoever is responsible for giving you that info, and authorizing you to print that info. Don't do this anymore. If you do with this warning you will be guilty of Treason. And the penelty for treason during war time is death, not years of trial, ACLU lawyers, and tons of oppossing press from your leftist friends in the media, no, just death.
Unbelievable. Why would you publish this? Hmmm, let's see. If "we" are succesful in catching Osama Bin Laden that would make the Republicans look good which libs cannot let happen. So let's tip off Bin Laden so he can take further precautions. That way he won't be caught prior to the 2008 election and the Republicans wouldn't get a significant bounce, thus helping our boy Barrack Hussein Obama. Sickening.
What is the carbon footprint when you burn a hellfire missile and a 6ft terrorist in a cave?
Ping2007 et al - The military has been wrestling with this problem for so long they have figured out a solution. They don't put any info out there they don't want the enemy to read. It's not the press's responsibility, but HQ's, to filter the information.
Hmmm? the timing of this is rather fishy. President Bush recently promotes the idea that getting Bin Laden before his term ends is a priority and here we see this "standing agreement" thing between the Pakis and us come out. So, what's the big deal? If there's a standing order to blast OBL without the Pakis' permission, I'd prefer to hear about this on the occasion of our blasting the bum!
I would agree with others. I have always voted democratic and opposed the Iraq, but this news article is either a manipulation by our spooks or the height of journalistic irresponsibility.
@Ping and WillofLA - are you seriuosly accusing the Washington Times of being biased towards liberals? The Washington Times is notoriously right leaning, and the owner the great Rev. Sun Myung Moon, is a huge contributor to GOP candidates. i really doubt they'd let anything remotely left leaning make it on their paper.
And I thought he was still in Illinois!
Post a comment
There are comments on this article, submit your opinion!
