Gotta love Tim Dickinson over there at Rollingstone. Still working on my next post, so I thought I'd put up something else:

Of Treason and Tunnel Vision



An honest question:
Why did the New York Times get the “treason” treatment for revealing the administration’s not-so-secret surveilance of international banking records, but when the FBI’s covert monitoring of Jihadi chat rooms was leaked last week . . .

Officials say the plot was uncovered more than a year ago by U.S. and Canadian intelligence agents watching a jihadist internet chat room. Officials say the suspects communicated freely, thinking that no one could track them.

. . . nobody made a peep?

Indeed, Why wasn’t Dick Cheney “offended” by this leak too? Perhaps it’s because the disclosure of could hardly have harmed our anti-terror efforts.
Because let’s get serious: Anyone who is cunning enough to represent a true threat to our national security isn’t going to be broadcasting the details of his incendiary plots on Jihad.com.

------
There's another post that's an exchange between a lib and a con concerning a tim dickinson edit that questioned the motives of the administration's 'leak' of a terrorist plot that had been foiled up to 6 months earlier. On the anniversary of the london bombings coincidentally. It's a good one:
------

Comments of the Day: Tunnel Terror
My post suggesting a political motivation behind the decision to leak the “largely aspirational” Tunnel Terror plot, months after it was broken up, on the first anniversary of the London bombings no less, landed on the front page of GoogleNews, and caught the attention of both the left-leaning Raw Story and the right-brained Little Green Footballs.

(The latter may have just given me a new tag line, btw:
“Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson — late to the lefty blogosphere but making up for lost time with sheer ostrich-like moonbat lunacy.”)

The influx of new readers of all ideological stripes gave rise to a righteously roiling reader debate. A flavor:‘Ian’ writes:

I love the game: because the Democrats are perceived as weak on national security issues, they attempt to make anyone who suggests that there is a very legitimate terrorist threat into a fearmonger and political manipulator. Let’s see — the 1993 WTC bombing, the plot to attack NYC landmarks, the plot to down US commercial airliners over the Pacific, the Millenial bomb plot, the embassy bombings, the attack on the Cole, that minor incident on 9/11, not to mention the bombings in Spain and London, and the shoe-bombing incident. Yep, no terrorist threat here. Thank you for bravely exposing another Rove consipiracy.

‘Pug’ offers:

Tim didn’t say preventing innocent deaths was a bad thing, he said telling us NOW that they prevented innocent deaths months ago shows an alterior motive. Nuance? In an argument? Run. Fast. Go cry in the arms of Papa Bush, so he can reassure you how simple the world’s problems are, and how he’ll protect you from all those dangerous things you don’t understand, as long as you let him tap your phone. Have fun with that.