Interesting discussion about the NY Times on Fox News Watch. Jim Pinkerton of Newsday (itself a liberal paper) feels that the reason the NY Times is so anti-war to the point that it reveals state secrets is that it is”so consumed by hatred of President Bush that it wants us to lose in Iraq”

As you watch the video below, take a look at Jane Hall’s reaction. She looks so uncomfortable that you would think that Pinkerton was cussing on live TV:

‘The New York Times Wants America to Lose’
Why would the New York Times divulge information that could prove harmful to the national security of the United States? Because, so consumed is it by hatred of President Bush, that the paper actually wants America to lose. Such is the considered opinion Jim Pinkerton expressed on yesterday’s Fox News Watch. The case in point was an article the Times published on June 30, 2008, Amid U.S. Policy Disputes, Qaeda Grows in Pakistan, which quoted from a “highly-classified Pentagon order” describing internal disputes at the Pentagon over plans to capture Osama Bin Laden and defeat al Qaeda.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

JIM PINKERTON: We endanger national security when you leak sources and methods. For example, the story that Cal [Thomas] alluded to before, about the wiretaps across the world. JANE HALL: That’s a different deal. PINKERTON: OK. I think—just a hunch—that the New York Times hates the Bush administration so much that they want us to lose, that’s what I think.

PATRICIA MURPHY [of Citizen Jane]: The New York Times was complicit with the Bush administration when we were going into Iraq. All of those unnamed sources—Scooter Libby—they were protecting the Bush administration. PINKERTON: In the last four years, five years, they have, shall we say, changed their tune. Judith Miller and others are gone. And now it’s nothing but people who just have such a grudge against Bush that they want to see America fail.

A bit later, Cal Thomas weighed in with a, shall we say, micturative metaphor.

CAL THOMAS: The press has switched sides. We are no longer the good guys, as we were during World War II, when there was a censorship board, and mostly the press cooperated with the government because they knew we were on the same side. ALISYN CAMEROTA [hosting]: But Cal, isn’t it also the role of the press to be a watchdog of government, and in this case, if they’re not really looking for Osama Bin Laden, shouldn’t the American public know about that? THOMAS: Well, there’s a difference between being a watchdog and peeing on the fireplug, and that’s what the New York Times is doing.

I can’t help but think of Rush Limbaugh’s parody ad in which the New York Times urges terrorists to subscribe to keep current with the U.S. government’s plans against them.

source :Mark Finkelstein Newsbusters