Yesterday, I wrote about how the members of the former glorious band R.E.M. are using their talents to send money to American traitor Chelsea Manning. Chelsea, who used to be known as Bradley before his gender reassignment, was worse than a "leaker." Here's a refresher course:
When he dumped hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic secrets into the public domain, he violated every single tenet of the warrior ethos. He abandoned the mission. He “accepted” defeat and, through his data dumps, worked to facilitate it. He quit on his comrades, acting with utter, callous disregard for their lives. His message to his unit and to his nation was clear: He would disobey lawful orders and risk killing his comrades to, in his words, stimulate “worldwide discussions, debates, and reforms.”
David French over at National Review called his pardon the "last poisonous acts of the Obama administration." But it's one thing to have a writer at National Review outraged. It's another when the readers of the New York Times agree.
The Times had an article called: "The Long, Lonely Road of Chelsea Manning/Her disclosure of classified documents in 2010 ushered in the age of leaks. Now, freed from prison, she talks about why she did it — and the isolation that followed." And it was exactly what you think it would be. Ann Althouse reports on the top-rated comments in this super-liberal publication. One commenter wrote, "Glad the New York Times was not around 250 years ago, or you would be braying about 'Benedict Arnold: Misunderstood Patriot.'" Boom! And here are the top two comments so far:
2. "Manning still doesn't seem to have the slightest clue as to the impact of her stealing of this classified material. When she's drinking her Starbucks,* does she ever think about the Afghan villagers, for example, whose life she put in danger by her disclosures? Yet we're supposed to feel sorry for her for her time in prison."
Looks like the NYT hasn't brainwashed all their readers just yet.
Image Credit: torbakhopper on Flickr
