The Billy Joel rock ballad from 1986, A Matter Of Trust, from The Bridge album, tells the story of a love haunted by the past, a woman having difficulty committing to the man who loves her. Between them it's always been a matter of trust, trust that she has difficulty develping given the memories of past relationships that burned her badly.
You can't go the distance,
With too much resistance.
I know you have doubts,
But for God's sake don't shut me out.
The NY Times, led by executive editor Bill Keller, still haunted by 1974 and the moment that Richard Nixon announced his resignation, seems to have had difficulty trusting the judgement, morals, ethics, and intentions of Republican presidents ever since. This weekend's publishing of leaks of classified national security information is yet more evidence.
First the Times detailed the existence and protocols of a program to track terrorist financing and wire transfers. They acknowledged that the program is legal and effective, that Congress had been kept informed, and that there were built-in reviews and protections. And still they published the details. Mr. Keller wrote a lengthy response to the outrage trying to give rationales for their decision. The letter itself was weak; even weaker was that he didn't adequately address a prime problem - that since the program is now exposed terrorists will find other ways to move money, ways we can't observe - merely brushing off such concerns as minor.
Then the Times doubled down and published on Sunday leaked information about a possible reduction in troop levels in Iraq.
According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.
[...]
American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.
Wait, there's a punch line.
General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity.
Not any more. Some Democrats are claiming vindication; some people claim that this is election year politics. I'm sorry, I don't see either to be the case. It conforms exactly to what Mr. Bush has said would be the process. And this does not match Mr. Murtha's 'redeployment' to Okinawa or Mr. Kerry's date certain for withdrawal. Any reduction is contingent upon continued improvements in conditions in Iraq. This is called planning; it is the job of the generals.
These two instances of publication of national security information can be added to the earlier NSA terrorist surveillance program, often wrongly called 'domestic wiretapping'. For the NY Times it is a matter of trust. The reporters and the editors of the Times don't trust Mr. Bush. If the Bush administration is keeping a program secret the Times staff can't imagine that it could be for anything but nefarious reasons.
This is, in general, what generates the preposterous conspiracy theories and bizarre suspicions of the anti-Bush left, which the Times has now joined. Of course the blood being spilled in Iraq is for oil and not for national security. Of course the war was started to enrich Dick Cheney's Halliburton. Of course Mr. Bush lied!! about WMD. Of course Diebold threw Ohio to Bush. Or Blackwell did. Of course the NSA surveillance program is just a way for Bush to spy on his domestic political enemies. Of course the troop reductions are a political ploy for November. Of course Marines committed cold-blooded murder at Haditha. Mr. Bush and his henchman Rove are eeeeevil! There couldn't possibly be a logical, legitimate or innocent explanation for any of these things. Bush cannot be trusted. Ergo, any action Bush takes is by definition criminally motivated and criminally taken.
The NY Times, instead of acting as a legitimate purveyor of news and information, and taking national security into account as it acts, has now been diagnosed with BDS. How does it feel, Mr. Keller, to forfeit the centuries-in-the-making credibility of the Old Gray Lady on the altar of your unreasonable suspicions.
But you're gonna face a moment of truth
It's hard when you're always afraid
You just recover when another belief is betrayed
So break my heart if you must
It's a matter of trust
This is a moment of truth for Mr. Keller. This is about national security. It's a matter of trust.
6/26/06 2240: Mr. Bush responds to the betrayal of the Times.
"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do," Bush said. He said that to figure out what terrorists plan to do, "You try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."
And every now and then Glenn Reynolds makes a sharp observation. Also check out Michael Barone.
Why do they hate us? No, I'm not talking about Islamofascist terrorists. We know why they hate us: because we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, because we refuse to treat women as second-class citizens, because we do not kill homosexuals, because we are a free society.
No, the "they" I'm referring to are the editors of The New York Times. And do they hate us? Well, that may be stretching it. But at the least they have gotten into the habit of acting in reckless disregard of our safety.
While you're at it read outgoing Treasury Secretary John Snow's letter to the Times.
You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works.
"Breathtaking arrogance" about sums it up.
7/2/06 0630: In a piece that will, I'm sure, be read many more times, over at Wizbang The Hatemonger's Quarterly makes essentially the same point.
