The Maverick Conservative

"U.S. secretly helps Pakistan guard nukes."  Isn't that a GOOD idea?   Of course it is.  Isn't the "secretly" part a good idea?  Sure it is.

That brings us to the relevant quesiton:   Whose side is OUR media on?  Answer:  It is certalinly not ours.

What part of "highly classified" does the New York Times (and AOL) not understand?  That means it is a TRIATOROUS ACT to reveal the information ("anonymous sources" means that you cannot believe the details, anyway, since a MJAJOR part of the "news"--the sources--is being CONCEALED).   Even conceding that it is questionable whether the New York Times has legallly comitted treason, it has definitely encouraged others to commit TREASON.  And this is morally treason, whatever the legalities.

Pathetic "excuse":   Parts of the story have leaked out in Pakistan.  I repeat:  these people are NOT on our side.   Nor does it eveh HELP the public to know the "highly classified" details.

Since the "highlly classified" details of this program seem pretty much irrelevant to any public policy issue, WHY does the New York Times (and AOL) think that this act of treason (at least morally, if not legally) doing this?

Well, there is a certain amount of "journalistic" competitve hubris going on here.  The New York Times wants to trumpet how good its sources are, and that it has a SCOOP that it withheld for a considerable time for the good ot the country.  Of course, the good of the country is not primarily what the New York Times is interested in, and therefore that "noble" impulse has fallen by the wayside (as it always does with today's mainstream media).

However, I think there IS another agenda here.  This is a left handed way of trying to highlight a SCARE story:  how "vulnerable" the nuclear weapons in Pakistan are.  

Yes, I think this is a left handed way of saying that the Bush Aministration is not really making us "safe", despitve reasonable efforts

Problem:  It does NOT help the leftist agenda of The New York Times, and AOL, to try to foucus on the "vulnerability" of nuclear weapons in Pakistan.  That merely validates the Bush Administration attemps to help Pakistan protect its nukes, AND validates the Bush Administration's attempts to fight Islamic extremists wherever they are (including helping Pakistan, to the extent we can).

What about IRAN?  Pakistan is under siege by Al Qaeda and Islmic extremists, and is polticially fragile.  IRAN is CONTROLLED by a terrorist supporting government ALREADY.  If nuclear weapons in Pakistan are a problem (and they are, and have been ever since Pakistan developed them decades ago), how much MORE of a problem would IRAN be with nuclear weapons?  Enough to justify a military strike to prevent it? 

It is hard to see easy answers in Pakistan, or much alternative to the Bush Administration policy (appeasing the terrorists, per Democrats, is certainly not an alternative).  But the lessons for IRAN seem to be clear. 

The world reallly cannot afford more dangerous countries having nuclear weapons (they don't get any more dangerous than IRAN).

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this