After all, the thousands killed on 9/11 and since, and our service men and women who have died fighting the war on terror and who will be dying in greater numbers for a lot longer than would be necessary had the NYT not handed our enemy a gift to evade capture and extend the war, haven't been given a trial, nor have they had the luxury of having a liberal media to support their position.

Captain Ed weighs in on Keller's response: "Outgoing Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose low-key leadership led to his eventual replacement, has ensured that he will make waves on his exit from the Bush Cabinet. Secretary Snow released a rebuttal to Bill Keller's wan explanation of his decision to expose covert tactics in tracking terrorist financing that all but calls Keller a liar. While Keller described efforts by the government to hold back publication of the story as "half-hearted", Snow reveals that Keller's association with the truth is half-assed... "

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

Read more of Captain Ed's commentary.

Update: Welcome to all our liberal friends arriving here from the Dao Report, The Carpetbagger Report, and the Martini Republic. The most special welcome goes out to the latter who says that Hyscience is a Wingnut blog and that we have made a strong bid for "Stupidest Blog Post of 2006" (looks like we captured MR's attention):

Wingnut blog Hyscience makes strong bid for Stupidest Blog Post of 2006:

"About Those Treasonous Media Leaks Of Our National Secrets During A Time Of War: Didn't We Execute The Rosenbergs For Less?"

Just a few quick comments about what the New York Times, The L.A. Times, and the Wall Street Journal have done in divulging government secrets used to defend Americans against our terrorist enemy during a time of war.

The Rosenbergs where [sic] executed for a lot less - conspiracy to commit espionage for helping the Soviet Union steal the secrets to the atomic bomb from the United States during World War II.

Hmmmm. . . let's see. . . .

On the one hand, we have the press reporting on our government breaking US laws, treaties and the Geneva Conventions, while shredding constitutional protections and lying to the American people about undertaking warrantless wiretaps.

On the other, we have a couple convicted of providing the totalitarian Soviet Union with secrets on how to construct the most awesome and devastating weapon in history, a weapon capable of destroying all human life on this planet.

Think. . . think. . . think. . . which is worse?

Gosh, MR, I don't know where to begin. But always being one to respect the opinion of a fellow blogger, albeit a left-thinking one with a penchant for not recognizing and enjoying a touch of satire, so typical of some of our friends on the "other side" of reality (I'll be kind here and let readers decide which side is "in touch"), what the press did was call attention to a not-too-secret, secret government program that we use to keep terrorists from using everything from suicide bombs to those "most awesome and devastating weapons" you speak of, and the program broke no laws, treaties, or shredded constitutional protections. As for "lying to the public" and those "warantless wiretaps" you speak of, I'm afraid that you've mixed-up way too many stories to make sense within the context of our current topic.

By the way, the only way we can prosecute a war against a determined enemy is to fight them in every way that's legally possible. The program that the NYT made public was completely legal. The program is about international financial transactions. Al Qaeda did not know we had a program of that extent. They knew that we were making some progress. They knew that we had fairly good knowledge of what was going on in the U.S., but they did not know that we had that level of international cooperation. Al-Qaeda may have thought we had the capability, but now, thanks to the NYT, they know we do. The NYT acted only to embarass the administration; it didn't work.

The adminstration broke no laws, MR, as I'm sure you'll find out after re-checking your facts. On the other hand, although the NYT likely broke no laws, the leaker to the NYT did break national security laws, as did the Pentagon leaker from their previous story on the troop plans. Should Keller et. al. "actually" be executed, as in really shot at sunrise, blindfold and all? Naawwwwww - skip the blindfold. I'll let readers figure out whether I really mean it - or not.!.

What some of our friends seem to be missing is that "our"government has a responsibility to protect us. This rant has been to emphasize the fact that our government has to have the tools to keep Islamic terrorists from killing Americans. The threats and dangers are real. Some of our media and some of our citizens fail to realize this. Death trumps personal privacy, and the NYT is using the personal privacy argument for political and business reasons, and whether adversaries of the administration want to admit it or not, each time we reduce our effectiveness at detecting who the terrorists are and who is supporting them - people die. The next one to die may be one of us, or our family.

BTW - we're always appreciative of being on the receiving end of a link. Hence the link and reference back to our friends.