Why go to the trouble to author a resolution that is clearly intended to rebuke the NY Times for disclosing classified information about an anti-terrorist government program and then not name the NY Times?
What is the point?
Question: if the NY Times had not run the story in question last week would this resolution have been authored? No.
Was their a culprit or not? If the answer is yes…which it is, then why would you not lay blame where blame is due?
UPDATE: I have been watching the new all evening and repeatedly the media refers to this resolution as the “congressional resolution condemning the NY Times,” and of course, effectively it is. As mentioned above, where it not for the Times irresponsible reporting, this resolution would not exist. But why not just make it it explicit? You could still add a clause in the resolution that addressed the MSM in general.
I suppose, however, at this point, we will have to take what we can get.
UPDATE: I am inclined to agree with these sentiments:
The question before the Congress, the one on which the House –inexplicably, and to the shame of the GOP majority there, has apparently punted– is did the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times injure the war effort by assisting terrorists in avoiding capture?
All the rest is posturing.
The resolutions in both House and Senate are being brought forward because of the stories from Friday.
Not referencing the stories is clearly understood by observors to be an acknowledgment that these papers are privileged in a way soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are not: They get to make mistakes, and not be called to account.
If the House and Senate don’t call them to account, and with specificity, these papers and others will repeat their behaviors.
Sadly, when I say we are going to have to take what we can get, it does not mean I think the resolution is great. That comment is more of a reflection of a conservative who is used to being let down…it seems to happen too often these days. Congress is full of half measures and watered down PC resolutions. The fact that a resolution was even introduced at all has to, to some degree, be a good thing. It means GOP leadership is not completely deaf. But I worry that this resolution was introduced half-heartedly — with the intention of satiating a justly outraged base rather than honing in on the real issue at hand. Friends on the Hill tell me that I am wrong…that this is about going bigger than just the NY Times and LA Times.
UPDATE: Ok, after some thought, I am calming down about this one…