s story is really stunning
there was a piece
in anticipation of the brain any hearings today thursday
in the new york times
that was reporting on uh... john brennan's uh... development of
the or extension
of the drone program now
we we will get to that question uh... in a in a moment but what was really uh...
stunning about this is in the course of their piece it was sort of
quietly uh...
where not to trumpeted but it was reported
that
the c_i_a_ you had established a secret third round based in saudi arabia
that was different from the drones that were being sent by the military
this drum bass was essentially the launching pad for attacks in yum
and
the reporting of that in the new york times
set off a sub report in the washington post
and a debate within the new york times because according
to the new york due to abuse by the new york times on bullets
woman or a person
the new york times and the washington post and perhaps other news
organizations
had been sitting on this information
that there was a drum bass in saudi arabia
and apparently this is according to the managing editor dean backlit
at the new york times and maybe mispronouncing his name
the government's rationale for asking that the location of the government has
that the location became the be withheld
here was this
revealing it might jeopardize the existence of the base
and harm counter-terrorism efforts
the saudis might shut it down because this citizenry
would be very upset
we have to balance that concern with reporting the news now this is stunt
this is not analogous
to reporting where our troops are in the course of the battlefield
this is not an allegation too
uh... saying hey we've got spies who are work m
in the highs reaches of the iranian government
no this is saying that we're going to withhold information
because
there may be a reaction by either saudi citizenry or frankly american citizenry
that would force the government to change its policies
now i don't know what the point of the news of new of the media for reporting
on government
is it is not to inform the citizenry
so that they can have full disclosure about what their government is doing
and be able to react to it i mean this could be the same justification for
saying like for instance
well the reason why we never reported that there was no evidence of weapons of
mass destruction in iraq
was because
that would cause the citizenry to say hey we don't believe there's
justification to go to war
this is a stunning admission
and the very fact that the new york times now feel that it's okay for them
to report it
suggests that
this is not a question of national security
or that it's not one that rises to the point for them to reporting enemy in
this is just
on believable what they should be coming out and saying is we made a mistake
we shoulda reported this initially we've re-evaluated the handshake that we had
with the government and that now we reporting
it really is uh...
i'm if they're not reporting that
you really uh...
it greeley
uh... if anything but we need to see out the new york times
in the washington post
izzy very
clear public policy as to what the threshold is for what they are not going
to report on behalf of the request by the government
this is a massive failure on their part
and it's uh... it really is stunning