The newest correspondent for The New York Times boasts a unique dateline for a column: “Fort Leavenworth.”
Yes, the military prison in Kansas. No, the correspondent didn’t interview an inmate. In this case, the correspondent is the inmate — Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, who was born Bradley Manning.
Last weekend, the Times gave an 1,100-word platform to this individual, who is serving 35 years in Leavenworth for espionage, namely sending to WikiLeaks documents that represented the largest leak of US classified data ever.
“I understand that my actions violated the law,” wrote Manning in the Times. “However, the concerns that motivated me have not been resolved. As Iraq erupts in civil war and America again contemplates intervention, that unfinished business should give new urgency to the question of how the United States military controlled the media coverage of its long involvement there and in Afghanistan.
“I believe that the current limits on press freedom and excessive government secrecy make it impossible for Americans to grasp fully what is happening in the wars we finance.”
Why should anyone — much less a daily newspaper that purports to be the “paper of record” — take this seriously? And does any sane American truly regard Manning as a champion of press liberty?
Then again, this is the same newspaper that partnered with WikiLeaks to help expose America’s secrets to the world. These disclosures were a gift to our enemies, informing them of what we knew about them and how we tracked them.
So let’s recap: At a moment when the long-suffering people of Iraq are fleeing a resurgent al Qaeda that aims to use beheadings and butchery to undo all the gains purchased by the sacrifices of American men and women in uniform, The New York Times looks for wisdom to an ex-Army private who betrayed his country.
Seems the private formerly known as Bradley isn’t the only one with confusions and delusions.