The NY Times blows the US Undercover Terrorism operation in Pakistan:

BTW, all the libs, Jon Stewart, and the like who keep saying that the Bush administration is issuing terror threats to thwart positive efforts made by Kerry can now kiss my white .***. I guess this is the libs attempts to thwart terror warnings. That's fine though because the most tempting target is NYC...home of NY Times & Jon Stewart.

Check it out:

<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626850/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626850/</a>

Touchdown Rrrrrooockets! Wrote:The NY Times blows the US Undercover Terrorism operation in Pakistan:

BTW, all the libs, Jon Stewart, and the like who keep saying that the Bush administration is issuing terror threats to thwart positive efforts made by Kerry can now kiss my white .***. I guess this is the libs attempts to thwart terror warnings. That's fine though because the most tempting target is NYC...home of NY Times & Jon Stewart.

Check it out:

<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626850/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5626850/</a>

I agree with what you said, that its liberals' fault for pushing the government into a position where they felt they needed to reveal more and more intelligence streams.

But to be fair, its not exactly clear where the NY Times got the name of Khan. Reports seem to indicate that they didn't get Khan's name from the come government. If the NYT tracked this down on their own, then its both good reporting and a thought provoking quandry of journalistic ethics.

I don't know just how much harm has been done by this. The Metropolitan Police in the UK definitely sped up their operations as a result of it, but they managed to nab al-Hindi anyway. We've taken a hit from this that will limit our options to go on the offensive, but these things happen. We've still done a great job.

But its a point well-taken that liberals should give the govt' at least a little more benefit of the doubt on these questions, particularly when this level of specificty is involved. It isn't smart politically either, because if there is an attack before the election now, the Democrats will be portrayed fairly as being naive about terrorism, and they will look very weak. I'm sure Howard Dean got read the riot act already, so I doubt we see this again.