The evil New York Times.

I guess I should be used to it by now, but Putz's constant droning on about our treasonous, corporately-owned, publicly-traded media is getting really boring.

Today's rant is about the pro-terrorist New York Times' begins thusly:

BILL KELLER ISN'T VERY BRIGHT, or else he thinks you aren't.

Yeah! Take that, idiot newspaper boy! In your face!

Putz, along with the rest of the wingnutosphere, is having a hissy fit because the Times, surely at the behest of Osama bin Laden, reported on the Bush Administration's latest legally-questionable spying program.

Not-very-bright Keller writes,

A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was that publication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument was made in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported — indeed, trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort to track international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, which is why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. But they also continue to use the international banking system, because it is immeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.

What? Does the New York Times actually want us to believe that terrorists already knew we were watching them?

Not very bright. Indeed.

UPDATE:

Putz adds this little dig:

I realize that the Times' circulation is falling at an alarming rate, but it hasn't yet reached such a pass that its stories are only noticed when Rush Limbaugh mentions them.

He's referring to Keller's argument that if the story hurts national security so much, why do the wingnut media beat it into the ground?

What I wondered about was this circulation thing, so I looked it up here.

DAILY
MARCH	Home Delivery	Single Copy	Other	Total
1998	660,931	390,015	59,197	1,110,143
1999	679,390	396,450	59,134	1,134,974
2000	708,974	364,055	76,547	1,149,576
2001	724,200	338,015	88,832	1,151,047
2002	726,105	362,089	106,297	1,194,491
2003	709,881	323,166	97,693	1,130,740
2004	688,645	310,155	134,963	1,133,763
2005	687,366	286,820	162,247	1,136,433
SEPTEMBER
1998	635,289	396,185	35,184	1,066,658
1999	675,486	373,854	36,953	1,086,293
2000	704,172	349,996	43,012	1,097,180
2001	694,526	344,288	70,557	1,109,371
2002	684,533	347,068	81,399	1,113,000
2003	702,419	341,904	74,242	1,118,565
2004	692,154	310,431	118,472	1,121,057
2005	690,294	287,107	148,789	1,126,190

Can anyone explain out how these numbers are "falling at an alarming rate"?