The problem is that in the quotation to which you are responding in this passage never accuses, or even implies, that the NYT “WANTS” to aid terrorists. In restating the way you do, you misconstrue the original point: instead of addressing the possibility that, whether intended or not, the NYT may, as a downstream consequence of their reporting, empower terrorists, you reframe the question in terms of whether the NYT actively joins “sides” with terrorism. Clearly, the NYT in no way, shape, or form means to aid terrorists; that does not, however, logically eliminate the possibility that that may, in fact, be doing so.

Now, that casuistry aside, the right-leaning blog crowd are a bit…rabid. Still, no more so than the left-leaning blog community. Cheers.

The comments by Jo above were accurate - Greenwald is drawing lines in the sand and saying ‘you’re either for us or against us’. I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the party of nuance and careful calibration.

What a maroon.

The NYT publishes top-secret details on how we track the finances of terrorist organizations. Reynolds and other bloggers respond that this empowers terrorists. This is nearly indisputable. How could knowing the ins-and-outs of our defenses not help them?

But Greenwald doesn’t focus on whether the Times was justified in its decision to publish. He’d rather stand aghast that rightwing blogs would so cavelierly toss around mean words like “reckless,” “extremely dangerous,” or “stupid.” How anyone but extremists talk like this in a civil society? And, after all, extremism must be condemned in the strongest terms.

Oh, wait. I guess it’s okay to use those words. As long as we’re talking about extremists, rather than the New York Times. As long as we’re talking about critics of media orthodoxy, not those who give away secrets to the enemy.

That’s pretty rich. Because if we agree with some of Bush’s underlying premises, but not with his actions, we’re still tantamount to electing and supporting him as Fuhrer of Axis Amerika.

Being able to see good logic and reasoning, even in the thoughts of men you would consider wrong or just plain evil, is something many people lack.

Example:

Hitler was a profound and supreme orator. He was capable of moving crowds with gestures and tone as a maestro of an orchestra leads.

I do not, however, think Hitler was a good man. Just a good orator. He had an excellent grasp and understanding of his countrymen.

The same can be said of Bush and his actions:

He has displayed an excellent grasp of the actions and motivations of America’s enemies. That he’s willing to realize what’s in plain sight is admirable. That he has been willing to act is also commendable.

However, he has also committed a lot of intellectual and political atrocities. Stem cell, gay marriage, “Religion of Peace”, etc. I am far from being a Bush groupie, but by the logic you follow, agreeing with the “War on Terror” makes me a rightwing nutjob, a Republican sycophant, and Bush’s greatest sponsor.

Well, I guess the Democratic party needs some kind of platform.

~~~

Democrats in 2008!

Because if you disagree with us, we’ll call you nasty names and imply you’re a fascist!

How HAVE the Democrats been losing all these years with a policy like this?

We see the same thing in the periodic controversy over the Confederate Battle Flag. Because the ‘Civil Rights’ crowd sees it is a symbol for racism, (making them victims and therefore empowered) anyone who uses it is therefore a racist, no matter what the intent of the person who uses the flag means by it. Ditto for all the other issues over which the Civil War was fought: “States’ Rights” is now a ‘code word’ for racism, as is opposition to high taxes.

The reflex to play the Victim Card and thereby trump rational discourse has gotten to the point that ‘racist’ effectively means ’someone winning an argument with a liberal’. It’s the modern equivalent of accusing someone of being a witch; the accusation cannot be refuted logically (for it is an illogical charge), and any character witnesses for the defense will be charged with racism themselves, so as to make their support meaningless.

In the Cartoon Wars, the ideas that the cartoonists meant to convey (some of those cartoons don’t even depict M. at all; other cartoons subsequently added by Muslim agitators are used to retroactively taint the others…) are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that “We are Outraged!”. (Blessed indeed are the Outraged, for theirs is the Moral High Ground, from which the range of their Katyushas is improved somewhat.)

The problem with this mentality is that there are no objective criteria for victimization. A member of an officially approved victim group can spout the most hateful rhetoric, and be reflexively defended, while every utterance from the dextrohemisphere is tainted by the Original Sin of having issued from a diseased mind. The ‘real motive’ of the writer is always imputed to be as evil as possible. This then builds up a repository of ‘proof’ of the inherent evilness, which is used to justify future assumption of intent.

Of course, since my remarks above can be so easily twisted to write me of as a racist myself, I need not fear that I’ve had any positive effect on the Greenwalds of the world. Besides, I used the word ‘ditto’ above, which obviously makes me a Limbot.

Neither the statement nor the linked item says anything at all about the NYT’s “patriotism” or defacto aid to terrorists (intentional or otherwise), but rather challenges their accuracy concerning well know historical facts and what it says about their much self-lauded system of editors and fact checkers. Glenn R.’s point would be just as valid had he referenced an article stating the Earth was the fouth planet from the Sun by writing “the NYT ‘can’t even figure out what planet we’re on.’”

It is pure projection.

Mr. Greenwald, why do you wish to place the political commitments and activities of the NYT beyond reproach? It may be perfectly true that they are not “siding with the terrorists.” However, to simply gloss over their attacks on our intelligence collection programs as if there is nothing to note shows a profound inability to understand the world as it really is. People may die because of these exposures. You and the NYT apparently don’t care because it makes you feel good to pretend otherwise.

Is it any wonder that you are running into angry opposition from people more forward-looking and mature than yourself? No one is taking away your precious rights, Mr. Greenwald, but you are damn right that we are questioning your judgement and looking for ways to minimize the damage that you and your kind do to this nation.