The NY Times defines Chutzpah

This is pretty unbelievable.

The New York Times, writing like a spoiled 14 year old, cracks its gum, rolls its eyes and proclaims:

Given the Bush administration’s appetite for leak investigations (three are under way), this seems a good moment to try to clear away the fog around this issue.

Huh?

Do you know what the definition of chutzpah is? It’s when a man kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

It is also when a newspaper which, as Gateway Pundit ably notes, has supported ONE DEMAND FOR AN INVESTIGATION AFTER ANOTHER by the Democrat party over the past 12 months, suddenly, in snotty revisionism declares, “well, since the Bushies want all these investigations….”

Perpetual adolescents. Incredible snot-noses, too. The out-of-control New York Times needs some adult supervision.

I’m still waiting for one credible journalist to stand up and call them on their churlish childishness.

Related:
Rick Moran at RightwingNuthouse calls it breathtaking arrogance and notes that the Times insists the WH now has to “PROVE” that their reportage has hurt national security.

Writes the Times: The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance – only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law.

Clearly they all graduates of the Mary Mapes school of journalism, where the press can do as they please and whoever is targeted by them must prove the negative. Just appalling. Unprofessional, too.

Mac’s Mind’s source says there were donkeys supporting the president’s request of the Times to pull the story.

What’s this? The NSA acted alone at first? and Nancy Pelosi spoke up, even as she comforted the sheep?