Dana Priest says of Bill Bennett:
[H]e seems to be of the camp that the government and only the government should decide what the public should know in the area of national security. In this sense, his views run contrary to the framers of the Constitution who believed a free press was essential to maintaining not just a democracy, but a strong, vibrant democracy in which major policy is questions are debated in the open.
The framers believed that partisan government officials should have the right to disseminate classified information to partisan journalists?
Or, as Allah writes in his tip about this story: “After all, why should the government decide when Dana Priest and Mary McCarthy are available to do so?”
P.S. The L.A. Times still isn’t reporting anything of the partisan ties of either woman. There are no new stories about Mary McCarthy since their last deceptive bilge, which implied that she is nonpartisan (by repeating quotes asserting that she is not an “ideologue”), while failing to report the evidence that she is indeed very much a Democrat partisan. You still pretty much have to be in tune with the blogosphere to know about McCarthy’s extensive Democrat partisan ties.
Hey, Dana Priest: if the framers were around today, the First Amendment would have an explicit protection for bloggers:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the blogosphere . . .
If they read the L.A. Times, they might even be tempted to do away with the bit about the press . . .
UPDATE: Read Jeff Goldstein. Which you should be doing anyway . . .