home

Sticking Up for the New York Times

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:09:34 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Bush rabel-rouses and calls the actions of the New York Times, in writing about the secret Operation Swift program that used national security letters to obtain records relate to international banking transactions, "disgraceful." Conservatives are rallying to his cry.

Who's sticking up for the Times?

Froomkim is a must read.

As far as I can tell, all these disclosures do is alert the American public to the fact that all this stuff is going on without the requisite oversight, checks and balances. How does it possibly matter to a terrorist whether the government got a court order or not? Or whether Congress was able to exercise any oversight? The White House won't say. In fact, it can't say. By contrast, it does matter to us.

This column has documented, again and again , that when faced with a potentially damaging political problem, White House strategist Karl Rove's response is not to defend, but to attack.

Arianna who has hardly been a pal to the Times this year comes out strongly in its camp:

To this list of things we wouldn't have known about if it weren't for the media, you can add the CIA's secret black op prison system (Washington Post), the horrors of Haditha (Time) and Abu Ghraib (New Yorker), Bush's unparalleled use of 750 signing statements to circumvent Congressional legislation -- including the ban on torture (Boston Globe), that Alberto Gonzales found the Geneva conventions "obsolete" and "quaint" (Newsweek) the Abramoff-DeLay connection (Washington Post), the details of Cheney's involvement with Plamegate (Murray Waas), and the stunning news that 50,000 Iraqis have been killed since Shock and Awe (Los Angeles Times).

No one -- not even the mouth-breathers like Peter King calling for the Times to be prosecuted -- can really believe that the country would be better off not knowing these things.

Glenn Greenwald has a great post putting the lie to Bush's rhetoric and the idea that somehow the Times' reporting put us all in danger.

Message to the Times and Bill Keller: We got your back on this one.

< Rush Limbaugh: Was There a Legal Violation? | No Decision in Hamden Today >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sticking Up for the New York Times | 85 comments (85 topical)
    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#1)
    by aw on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 09:50:45 PM EST
    The resemblance to Nixon has to be setting off alarms in more people. And maybe they're noticing Bush has seized powers Nixon only dreamed of. I think the Republican majority will be over soon. If Lamont wins the primary in CT maybe more Democrats will get the message that we've got their backs, too.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:26:56 PM EST
    It is utterly, completely insane that it is a great sin to ask for transparency in government or for the press to try to take the government to task for hiding critical information. Plus, let's be friggin' pragmatists here: does anybody think that people who are effective at doing Bad Things (terrorism, fraud, etc) aren't already assuming that programs like SWIFT are in place?

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 10:58:30 PM EST
    Transparent, accessible government, in all but the most time-sensitive areas? Shocking. Outrageous. Democracy. Shouldn't that be "rabble-rouses"? Rabel looks like it should be... I dunno, bagels from India. ;)

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:14:52 PM EST
    bush rabel-rouses and calls the actions of the New York Times... "disgraceful." They act, as usual, like whiney spoiled children stomping their feet and throwing tantrums when they don't get their way. But there is a sick inhuman-ness about them like something that crawls, oozing, out of Pet Sematary.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#5)
    by Andreas on Tue Jun 27, 2006 at 11:35:24 PM EST
    Bush, Cheney threaten New York Times over exposure of surveillance programs By Patrick Martin, 28 June 2006

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 02:45:56 AM EST
    i fear the republic may be reaching a tipping point. consider: the majority of the adult populace favors passage of the flag desecration amendment, and probably the marriage amendment as well. of course, the majority of the adult populace had no problem with slavery either. just because a majority favors something, doesn't make it right. jefferson was correct, the only thing holding govt's feet to the fire is a free press. otherwise, we'd have no clue. that they are screaming so much tells me a nerve has been struck. i'd like to thing any attempt at prosecution would be met with judicial disapproval. i'd like to think. what separates nixon from bush, i believe, is bush's sense of entitlement: he's a rich, frat party boy, used to getting what he wants, when he wants it. nixon didn't grow up with that, he always considered himself an underdog. bush is far more dangerous than nixon ever dreamed of being. who'd a thunk it? a president that makes nixon look good, by comparison.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#7)
    by Aaron on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 04:57:00 AM EST
    Download video from crooks and liars Scarborough on George W. Bush and the Bush administration attacking the Free Press. "Does great harm to the United States of America" (George W. Bush). Is this true? If the president believes his own statement, doesn't he have a responsibility to the country to take action? How long will it be before the Bush administration moves to gain control of a Free Press, who apparently can't be trusted? According to Dick Cheney, all journalists should be condemned for awarding the New York Times the Pulitzer Prize... that's all journalists. Numerous people on Fox news have repeatedly used the terms Traitors and Treason in reference to the New York Times or any news provider who acts against the wishes of the government. Yes I can feel the hand of Karl Rove behind this, I think he gleaned this tactic from Genghis Khan. If the press starts exposing the Bush administration's treason by stating the facts, just turn around and accused them of treason in return. Hey, it worked in elementary school so the average Bush worshiping simpleton will suck it down like mother's milk. I wonder how long it will be before the new media czar seizes absolute control of the New York Times and every other little hometown paper that gets out of line. Will we see journalists being made to reveal their government sources with espionage charges hanging over their head? Will journalists be sent to federal prison if they fail to reveal their sources? Will we begin executing journalists at some point? If this weren't America, this crap would actually be funny. It's the kind of thing gives me that sick sinking feeling. I'm beginning to genuinely wonder if the United States is going to survive the Bush administration. In Vegas the betting odds are shifting as we speak. I'm hoping to clean up on the long odds, come on Empire! I've gotta get mine because in the new America, only the wealthy will be able to afford free speech.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#8)
    by Aaron on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 05:18:28 AM EST
    cpinva Christ, Nixon today would be branded a liberal, and hounded out of the Republican Party. And I don't think Richard M. ever had aspirations to be Emperor, he at least was a loyal though misguided American. George W. Bush is no American, not even close. He is descended from Kings, and apparently feels himself destined to rule us all. Sic Semper Tyrannis

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#9)
    by jazzcattg1 on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 05:55:25 AM EST
    Gee and all that water carrying that Keller, Sulzberger, and Miller did for this cabal - there's thanks for you...

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#10)
    by dutchfox on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 06:09:30 AM EST
    cpva @ 6:18 am, 6/28: And I don't think Richard M. ever had aspirations to be Emperor, he at least was a loyal though misguided American. I was young then, but I remember stories in magazines talking about Nixon's trappings of a WH "Imperial" presidency, but nothing like what we have with the current resident.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#11)
    by roger on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 06:18:17 AM EST
    Does anyone here honestly believe that W will leave office in '08?

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#12)
    by azportsider on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 06:47:00 AM EST
    I'm deeply ambivalent about the whole issue of the NY Times. On the one hand, any government attempt to curtail freedom of the press is inimical to democracy, antithetical to the Constitution, and entirely unacceptable; thus, yes, I must support the Times on this. On the other hand, the Times is the 'news' paper that published Judith Miller's WMD fantasies above the fold on Page 1, while burying saner and better-researched opposing articles as deeply as possible; and it's the same courageous entity which sat on the NSA's illegal domestic spying and Bush's flouting of FISA for over a year, until the author of the stories announced he was going public in a book. Do I respect the Times? Not a bit of it. Will I support them *this* time? Absolutely.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 06:49:36 AM EST
    I'm not sure where to come down on this issue. While it's certainly important for the public at large to be able to peer into most aspects of our government, some things lie outside the public domain. My visceral reaction is that programs, such as the monitoring of SWIFT, fall in that category. And while I don't think publishing the report is "treasonous" or taht Keller and Co. should face criminal penalty, I do feel they should excerise a greater degree of caution. Considering the (personal and institutional) pleasure they take from "getting" President Bush, caution is the last thing they will exercise. Roger: I agree. There is no way in hell he will leave office in 2008. My money is on 2009.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 06:56:57 AM EST
    David Eads writes:
    aren't already assuming that programs like SWIFT are in place?
    The NYT articles details some of the successes, so it is evident that the program worked. It will no longer because of the exposure and because the details are known. i.e. The terrorist knew that money racing was going on. They just didn't know how. Aaron writes:
    According to Dick Cheney, all journalists should be condemned for awarding the New York Times the Pulitzer Prize... that's all journalists.
    That's about it. The arrogance of the NYT is beyond belief, yet it is real. Consider this. The program is not illegal, and the NYT doesn't even claim it to be. Yet it, even after being asked repeatedly to not publish the details of this program that it had asked for in 2001, it does so. What we have is a cabal of MSM and various government officials conspiring to bring down an administration. If they succeed we will be little better than a Banana Republic.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:26:37 AM EST
    Croc, And in '09, you'll be telling us why W is still in office for our own good, and that we are traitors for complaining about it.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:38:52 AM EST
    Roger: Oh will I? Trust me, I wouldn't want that any more than you would. I, for one, am happy there are presidential elections every 4 years. I'm a little dubious about the necessity for presidential term limits (but even if there weren't any, I cannot forsee any reason I would vote for President Bush anyway).

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#17)
    by Al on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:42:52 AM EST
    Bulletin for simpletons: Most intelligence operations are secret. (PBRman)
    Yeah, except when they are conducted by a CIA agent whose husband Karl Rove dislikes.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#18)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:43:17 AM EST
    PPJ where's your outrage for the WSJ

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:50:33 AM EST
    If they succeed we will be little better than a Banana Republic.
    Some would say we reached this point already with the inauguration of this administration after the election fraud of 2000 and repeated in 2004.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:50:45 AM EST
    It is illegal for the CIA to perform domestic intel surveillance. that is the job of the DOJ. The CIA is only supposed to be working on international surveillance programs. There is a reason for that, which bushlickers seem to forget.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:56:31 AM EST
    Che - Can you remind me where the CIA has been involved in purely domestic intelligence gathering lately? If I recall, the programs in question involve the NSA, DOJ and Treasury. Possibly I'm mistaken..

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#22)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 08:36:25 AM EST
    PPJ where's your outrage for the WSJ
    Soccerdad, Nice try. The WSJ only printed the story after being notified that it was going to be published in the NYT. They had initially agreed not to print it at the WH request.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 08:51:01 AM EST
    Patrick, please provide links because the WSJ claimed that the wh never got in touch with them.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#24)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:05:56 AM EST
    Soccerdad, Nice try. The WSJ only printed the story after being notified that it was going to be published in the NYT. They had initially agreed not to print it at the WH request.
    contrary to what I've read please supply a link

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#25)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:20:51 AM EST
    "The Wall Street Journal had been working on the banking story for a long period of time but did not reach the point of having enough information to publish until Thursday afternoon, according to a staffer who declined to be identified because the newspaper is making no public comment. The Journal does not know why Treasury officials made no appeal against publication in that paper, but editors assume that by then the officials were resigned to the fact that the details were coming out, the staffer said."
    My bad for repeating what I heard on the radio this morning, but the effects are still the same. No sense asking one paper not to print something two others have already decided they were going to.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:32:37 AM EST
    ``There have been public references to SWIFT before," said Roger Cressey, a senior White House counterterrorism official until 2003. ``The White House is overreaching when they say [The New York Times committed] a crime against the war on terror. It has been in the public domain before."
    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:40:01 AM EST
    No sense asking one paper not to print something two others have already decided they were going to.
    Damage control not an issue considering the extreme charge? Why are you being an apologist for WSJ, Patrick? Oh right, I forgot, you are also a water carrier for the admin.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:45:17 AM EST
    Sailor, if it wasn't a secret, what was the justification for reporting it, above the fold? And the "this is nothing new" is not the explanation that Keller and Co. are advancing.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#29)
    by desertswine on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:47:27 AM EST
    A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. ~Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#30)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:48:23 AM EST
    Sq, Not if the stories already out there. In fact, since the WSJ is considered a "conservative" paper, I think they'd be less concerned about how they were going to spin it.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#31)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:49:29 AM EST
    hmmmm, last time i checked, congress hadn't declared war on anyone lately, period. there is no "war" on terror, so stop repeating that fallacy. at this point, i believe the bush cabal is in violation of the "war powers" act, in spite of the congressional resolution. one doesn't supercede the other.
    i.e. The terrorist knew that money racing was going on. They just didn't know how.
    and you know this how, jim? of course, given the millions, possibly billions, of transactions involved, who exactly are they focussing on? i remain unconvinced that all the illegal activities of this administration have resulted in the thwarting of even one terrorist attack on U.S. soil. prove me wrong.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    Shorter ppj: Dont form "cabals" against my cabal. When you attempt to hijack foreign policy and pull it down the trillion dollar rabbit hole of never ending war without anything approaching an overwhelming mandate from the people and all the while attempting to render the system of checks and balances as inoperative as possible, you can expect an equal and opposite reaction to organize itself. As with The Church Committee, two words: Tough T*tty.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:19:10 AM EST
    You are right, there was no explicit declaration of war by Congress. This does not diminish the President's "War Powers". The President has "war powers" either in the event of a Congressional declaration (rare) or when there is a "de facto" war (in the case of hostilities). Need more? See Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), and Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (particuarly Jackson's concurrence in light of the 2001 AUMF). Good try though.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:37:19 AM EST
    Al writes:
    Yeah, except when they are conducted by a CIA agent whose husband Karl Rove dislikes.
    What secret operation are you speaking of? Mr. Wilson was sent to Nigeria. He was not an agent, and the CIA didn't even have him sign a non-dosclosure agreement. Oh well, I guess Mrs. Wilson just assumed hubby wouldn't kiss and tell. This allowed him to write/talk about it, etc., etc. It was the first of many leaks and attacks from opponents of the administration that have followed. Let me blunt. The NYT's actions are hurting the country. Someone needs to grasp them in certain tender placdes to assure their attention and say. Stop it. Show some class. Show some patroitism to the country. Quit worrying about getting on the A List in Washington, dummy.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:38:06 AM EST
    The President has "war powers" either in the event of a Congressional declaration (rare) or when there is a "de facto" war (in the case of hostilities).
    There are lots of ambiguities there, Croc. What is the meaning of de facto? What defines a hostility? How many hostilities? Who is responsbile for the hostilities? Need more? Please Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), and Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (particuarly Jackson's concurrence in light of the 2001 AUMF Why not provide some specific support from these cases. What was said in regards to wars, congress, and executive powers? I don't have access or time to look these cases up and I am sure others here share in this. Good try though. What a pompous statement. And completely unjustified. Your post cleared up nothing.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:42:57 AM EST
    Pabst - As I said before, when you dont have an overwhelming mandate from the people in a country that supposedly aspires to democracy, you should expect this. The original theory behind checks and balances was formulated with the view towards preventing govt policy being hijacked by "interests" who neglect the needs and wishes of the whole.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#37)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    PBRMan said:
    Bulletin for simpletons: Most intelligence operations are secret.
    only to the rest of us, congress is supposed to be made aware of them. apparently, this came as a surprise to them as well. i'm not yet convinced it's intelligent. PBRMan said:
    Further bulletin: Richard M. Nixon was forced from office for criminal misconduct. George W. Bush will remain in office for the next two and one half years, and the moonbats are powerless to do anything about it.
    wow, you read a book! you're probably right about bush though, in spite of what appear to be criminal acts, on his part. the current crop of republicans lack the ethics of their predecessors, who reached the point where even they couldn't stomach nixon. the only batty one here is, well.................you. lol Croc said:
    The President has "war powers" either in the event of a Congressional declaration (rare) or when there is a "de facto" war (in the case of hostilities). Need more? See Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), and Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (particuarly Jackson's concurrence in light of the 2001 AUMF). Good try though.
    nice try yourself. pitiful, but kind of nice. the "hosilities" envisioned in those cases were by a foreign power, not some group of miscreants. the u.s. hasn't been attacked by a foreign power, there has been no "de facto" war, and hence, no "war making powers" devolve to the president. i find it interesting that you managed to come up with two cases which were decided against the president, not in his favor. whatever were you thinking? did you even bother to read them? thank you for playing, do come again.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    ppj - "stop worrying about getting on the A list." Speaking of dummies.. As if this going to get them on any "A lists." Checks and balances pal. Dont like 'em? Move to one of those "Banana Republics" which would never have existed without the kind of greed-based, mercenary foreign policy embraced by your Chimperor and his pals.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:51:41 AM EST
    My apologies for the pompousness - often it sneaks out. There are two kinds of war: war de facto and war de jure. War de facto is when there is actual war going on, that is shooting, violence, etc. (the SCOTUS has used the phrase "armed conflict") without the benefit of a formal declaration. War de jure, at least in the US, is when there is an accompanying congressional declaration of war. The SCOTUS has opined that presidental war powers are not reduced when there is war de facto (The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1863)). With the AUMF of 2001, Congress gave us this:
    That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
    Taking the above in the Constitutional light of Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown, the President's power is at it's "zenith" when pursuing terrorists. As for not having the time to look up or read the cases, my apologies. That will not entice me into doing the leg work for you. Having trouble finding links? May I suggest Google.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:52:03 AM EST
    et al - Here was the NYT's position in 9/01 when it was politically correct to attack the President for not doing enough.
    Washington should revive international efforts begun during the Clinton administration to pressure countries with dangerously loose banking regulations to adopt and enforce stricter rules. These need to be accompanied by strong sanctions against doing business with financial institutions based in these nations. The Bush administration initially opposed such measures. But after the events of Sept. 11, it appears ready to embrace...... New regulations requiring money service businesses like the hawala banks to register and imposing criminal penalties on those that do not are scheduled to come into force late next year. The effective date should be moved up to this fall, and rules should be strictly enforced the moment they take effect. If America is going to wage a new kind of war against terrorism, it must act on all fronts, including the financial one.
    This shows it all, laid bare and plain for all to see. The NYT is concerned only with being on the favorite side of the Left. Politics. Disgustinly plain, shamefully displayed.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    cpi:
    ...the u.s. hasn't been attacked by a foreign power...
    Your failure to accept reality is shocking. The above reduces the credibility of your argument to nil. PS. Little and Youngstown provide insight into the current case. Your reduction of the cases to "winner" and "loser" reflects your lack of legal understanding.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 10:57:14 AM EST
    Someone needs to grasp them in certain tender placdes to assure their attention and say. Kinda like when John Mitchell told the folks at the Washington Post that Katherine Graham would have a certain body part in a wringer if they published the truth about CREEP and the Watergate burglary? The more things change, ............

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    Hypocrisy thy name is Jim.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#44)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:15:50 AM EST
    I had to renew my driver's license today, which meant half a day spent in various lines. Getting a new photo license means "personal appearance required". Next to the DMV is a fast food joint, where I repaired with a copy of the NYT (urban survival lesson #207: bring copious reading material to DMV) I sat there, going through the editorial page, where today's lead editorial defended the paper against the attacks being leveled over the SWIFT surveillance/data mining, and more generally about their recent change of heart to offend the admin.
    As I was finishing my lunch, the man seated in the next booth asked my opinion on the Times publishing this latest article.
    My response: I think it was the right and appropriate thing to do.
    Him, a little taken aback: but even if it was secret?
    Me: it turns out it was not secret after all. The Times notes there was at least one report on the UN's open-to-the-public website discussing this program (even though maybe not in detail).* It wasn't a secret. Moreover, they're doing it in our name, with our money. I want to know what they're doing and it's my right to know. Besides, one would have to be moronic to believe the government wasn't looking at this.
    Him: It wasn't secret?
    Me: Nope.
    Him: I think we underestimate them (the terrorists).
    Me: They ain't moronic.
    I left feeling that, if I hadn't persuaded him that the Times was right, he at least recognized the stupidity of the admin's position, and that it was not nearly as cut and dried as the Unit would have us believe. Frankly, attacking the Times is one of the oldest Rethug schemes - Buckley was doing it back in the 50s and 60s. It's just another Rover scheme to stir up the base. N.B. You want to wade through all the stuff the UN publishes, go ahead. Below are two links which talk about progress in fighting money laundering and terrorist financing. You want to dig deeper, you'll find more.A report mentioning it obliquely (40 page pdf)at paras 115-116 and an addendum at paras 7-8.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#45)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:18:50 AM EST
    Now, after surfing further, I find Michelle Pilecki has done the digging for you. Here's a link.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:19:04 AM EST
    Peaches:
    If they succeed we will be little better than a Banana Republic.
    Some would say we reached this point already with the inauguration of this administration after the election fraud of 2000 and repeated in 2004.
    I think he meant to say "If they don't succeed we will be little better than a Banana Republic."

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    PPJ wrote:
    This shows it all, laid bare and plain for all to see. The NYT is concerned only with being on the favorite side of the Left. Politics. Disgustinly plain, shamefully displayed.
    Maybe. But I have to ask, where is your outrage over such partisan news outlets as Fox News who have been doing for the Right what you claim the NYT is doing (favoring the Left) for years? Oh, wait . . . This is just hypocrisy on your part. Sorry, almost missed that. Maroon.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#48)
    by Peaches on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 12:53:07 PM EST
    Croc, Thank you for providing me with some of the foundations for which you base your opinions. I have had questions concerning the power of the presidency to declare war for some time. I accept your apology for the pompousness, but you continue with your suggestion that I use google. Of course, I know I could have googled these cases, but I would not have known what to look for without some suggestion of your reasoning. Now that I can see the dots I attempted to connect them. I don't mind doing some legwork (and I wasn't attempting to entice you to do any for me). From my brief research (please excuse me I am not a law student, attorney or a legal scholar)on google, Little and Younstown appear to have been used as support for legal opinions which limited the powers of the presidency during wartime. They essentially were used to suggest that congress had sole war making powers. cpi questioned whether we were really at war and you cited the AUMF of 2001 which gave the president the authorization to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." This wording addresses the concerns of Little and Younstown in that congress cedes broad military decisions in regards to fighting terrorists to the president, or so you, the administration and its supporters believe (and you may be right, I might add). Although there is no declaration of war in the AUMF you conclude this covers a de facto war which you define as: War de facto is when there is actual war going on, that is shooting, violence, etc. (the SCOTUS has used the phrase "armed conflict") without the benefit of a formal declaration. curiously, you have not provided legal support fot the de facto and de jure definitions other than a vague reference to the SCOTUS and its use of armed conflict without providing us a context. the fact of whether or not we are at war in terms of the de facto definition seems trivial to me when, in fact, our military is involved in extensive armed conflict around the world. There seems to me to be more pressing concerns to be debated (such as whether or not are making any progress in reducing acts of terrorism around the world.) But, that is neither here nor there. I can see your reasoning and undersand now how you have connected the dots to conclude that we are in fact at war despite no formal declaration from congress. I am still undecided if I agree with this reasoning. Although, I can see how the president would want to use the AUMF as justification for all cases of armed conflict he believes is necessary to pursue those responsible for the acts of 911, I don't believe congress intended for the president to make unilateral decisions in all cases without ever consulting with congress again in the future. The AUMF does not grant indefinite powers to the Presidency forever to engage in armed conflicts to fight terrorism at its own accord.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#49)
    by Slado on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    The NYT's was not justified in reporting this story. Their lame retorts condradict their own reporting. First they say some had concerns but they say in their own article that the program was legal. Then they say the program was already known about. So if that is the case why publish a report? So because they can't defend their actions they keep moving the question around in a circle. Now it's simply the tired old "freedom of press" arguemnt that isn't even relevant. The right to know something is not arguable. The need to know is and this didn't pass that test. The fact is they don't like President Bush and they put their own agenda ahead of the WAR ON TERROR. If you don't think there is a real war you defend the Times because you want to beleive that Bush is a bigger threat then AQ. You ignor the facts and prejudge the administration based on your own beliefs. Pretty ironic since this is a legal defense site. If you actually want to keep another attack from happening you criticize the Times because yet another tool that has kept us safe for the past 5 years has been taken away by a press corps anxious to find the next Watergate. Left = Living in a civil liberties fantasy world. Right = Living in the real world where the terrorists want to kill you. This is why we have a republican controlled government and we'll keep having one until Democrats and their liberal allies in the press take this WAR ON TERROR seriously. Politically speaking this plays great for the president and the more the lefties and press corps get all uptight about this issue and drag it out the better it plays for the president and republicans in the long run.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    looks like the problems raised by the "disclosure" of the Bush administration's manipulation of SWIFT are a little more complicated than i was initially led to believe: Not only is Pat Robts following up on the damage that the NSA exposure may have caused at this late date, but it appears that 32 countries are seeking to sue SWIFT for allowing BushCo for breaking certain privacy laws: In London, meanwhile, a human rights group said Tuesday that it had filed complaints in 32 countries alleging that the banking consortium, known as Swift, violated European and Asian privacy laws by giving the United States access to its data. link

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    Slado, I just checked under my bed and there were noo terrorists. I did however find a bug planted by a republican who suspected that I might be renting hard core porn. Now the bug was not intended to track hard core porn buyers or pot smokers, it was actually approved under the anti-terror laws and was placed because I made 38 calls to afghanistan. But my calls to Afghan were customer service calls for my pc that were routed there because that is where my pc company decided to outsource it to. So while I wait for the Helms brigade to knock down my door so they can seize my porn for their own usage, I think I will fire up a joint in order that I can be relaxed when I greet them. Big bad scawwy tewwowists are evewywere. How many people have been killed by terrorists in the US since 2001? How many were killed by Drunk Drivers, Homicides, Speeders and hate groups? I can think of Zero on the tewwowist side and nearly 125,000 on the other. Want to protect me? Figure out how to prevent drunk drivers from killinr, speeders from killing (selfish pricks) senseless homicides, and hate groups. Start there and then get back to me.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#52)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 02:26:06 PM EST
    PPJ: What secret operation are you speaking of? Jim, do try to keep up. This stuff is years old. Brewster-Jennings, the company created by the CIA for the single, solitary purpose of giving Ms. Plame (and perhaps others in the same WMD field) an excuse to be where she was, pretending to be a private citizen, on foreign soil, doing secret work for the government. Once Rove or whomever dropped the dime on Plame, the entire history of that fictitious company was exposed, and any work Plame had done in other countries in previous years working against the spread of WMD was exposed as a CIA operation. That compromised covert operations that had been secret for the entire duration of the cover company, and there is no way of knowing whether this exposure led to the exposure of any other agents who might have been using the same cover, because any information on that would be, you know, secret. Everyone who had come into contact with Brewster-Jennings now knew that what they had communicated was compromised, and that allowed them to take appropriate action. Now, please give us the BEST reason to expose a CIA cover company used to work against the spread of WMD. How did that help our national security?

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 02:30:26 PM EST
    Yeah but Valerie started it.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 02:36:13 PM EST
    Left = Living in a civil liberties fantasy world. Right = Living in the real world where the terrorists want to kill you.
    And who do you want to kill? A red blooded American like you all talk... yellow. Put your words into action tough guy. Or are you one of those on the RIght who feel entitled to have lower class servants fight for what you believe?

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    I almost forgot "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" So if I am extrapolating "Finances don't kill people, people kill people" Or "telephones don't kill people, people kill people" See, we don't need to ban guns or make the laws surrounding gun ownership any stricter because that is a violation of our constitutional rights. Privacy however, that is another matter altogether. As someone who will never own a gun but supports the right to; i have to say that I would forego that constitutional right long before the right to privacy. Not because I don't care for guns, but because they cause more deaths annually than terrorists due in a decade.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#56)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    Want to protect me? Figure out how to prevent drunk drivers from killinr, speeders from killing (selfish pricks) senseless homicides, and hate groups. Start there and then get back to me.
    So focus on a single issue to the detriment of others, is that your policy decision? Come on, you can do better. If that's the way you want to do it, which of the three (Drunks, speeders, or homiciders) would you choose to focus on first? I think we can manage programs that balance the needs of many issues all at the same time.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#57)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 03:54:53 PM EST
    Sailor, if it wasn't a secret, what was the justification for reporting it, above the fold?
    Reverse the question: if it wasn't a secret, which is an established fact, why is bushco trying to distract the discourse of his illegal program by acusing the NYT of treason? (Psst, the answer is contained in the question;-)

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#58)
    by Patrick on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 04:14:21 PM EST
    Sailor, Or playing politics...Not pretty but both sides do it.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 04:25:24 PM EST
    Sailor - I'll answer your question once you've answered mine. Nevermind, I'm impatient. I have yet to see anyone in the administration call the Times article anything other than "disgraceful" (which is a far cry from "treasonous"). The talking heads on cable news have tried to play the "treason" card and much to their chagrin, the administration isn't running with it. So again: why report on something that is well-reported upon, above the fold? Oh yeah! To provide previously undisclosed details obtained through disgruntled leakers.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 04:38:47 PM EST
    croc, there is no answer to your question because the premise is proven wrong. Patrick, maybe they both do it, but I can't remember dems accusing newspapers of treason. If you have links I'd be happy to follow them.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#61)
    by roger on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 04:54:42 PM EST
    Croc, Your knowledge must be incomplete

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#62)
    by Aaron on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 05:10:56 PM EST
    croc_choda This statement made in response to the New York Times article. Second time I've posted it here. "Does great harm to the United States of America" (George W. Bush). ---------------------------- The Bush administration has yet to produce any evidence that the New York Times or any other journalist for that matter, has harmed American interests, or compromised security in any way, there's a reason for this, it hasn't happened. Because if it happened, they would surely be trying to prosecute anyone and everyone. But of course they can always fall back on the assertion that such evidence is secret, and can't be revealed. Thus the tyrant and his administration are relieved from any responsibility to support their statements. Face it it's all make-believe on the part of a GOP desperate for a bump leading into the election. Interesting how the Bush sycophants continue to swallow whatever lies this administration produces. But you guys have never really been concerned with evidence or facts, now have you? Who needs evidence, substantive fact or or sound reasoning when you got faith, faith in your new Messiah God Emperor Bush. Anyone want to produce a link to some evidence supporting the Bush administration's assertions? I didn't think so.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#63)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 05:11:53 PM EST
    To provide previously undisclosed details obtained through disgruntled leakers.
    gee fella, then tell us the identities of these leakers working for bushco? I'm impatient too, so please tell me what 'details' weren't already public!?

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 05:14:37 PM EST
    One of the modus operandis of Bushco from the beginning is to let the Swift-Scum like Rush, Coulter and Hannity make the outrageous, propagandistic public statements which it can then "plausibly deny" being any party to. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 05:28:29 PM EST
    P - I named 4 issues all of which pose a much greater threat to me and my family than terrorism. In fact, I have a greater likelihood to be killed in an airplane accident than to be injured or killed by terrorists adn I reside in Chicago, one of the larger cities. The cowardice of "spooky terrorists" is laughable. Had our gov't paid attention to a few fbi agents that thought planes were going to fly into buildings, just maybe it might have been prevented. I want to be protected from things that are a more clear and present danger, such as murderers, speeders, drunk drivers, hate groups etc. Fewer laws, stricter enforcement. Release non violent drug offenders and stop arresting them. Give violent offenders longer sentences. That prosecutor got 18 years for guns and drugs and didn't physically hurt anyone, how many rapists get that kind of time? Terrorists do not scare me any more than a plane and I fly frequently. 16000 homicides a year scares me. More importantly, the lack of security at our ports and the combined iq of airport security workers scares me a hell of a lot more than the intelligence of a terrorist. They do not have to be geniuses, only smarter than those employed to protect us and that ain't that hard.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#66)
    by roger on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 06:51:16 PM EST
    Croc, PPJ and Patrick scare me much more than OBL in my daily life.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 06:59:38 PM EST
    Repack writes:
    excuse to be where she was, pretending to be a private citizen, on foreign soil, doing secret work for the government.
    Problem is, to be covert you must be outside the US.... She had been inside for more than five years...
    Everyone who had come into contact with Brewster-Jennings now knew that what they had communicated was compromised, and that allowed them to take appropriate action.
    Actually she was brought home because it was felt that Aldridge Ames had exposed her and she was no longer effective as a covert operator. Keep up? Heck, I have lapped you. And if the CIA thought she was important, why didn't they tell Novak not to publish????

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:02:31 PM EST
    et al - I love it. After a few days the consensus is that the NYT didn't even publish on the day in question... Gesh.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#69)
    by Sailor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:13:57 PM EST
    Problem is, to be covert you must be outside the US.... She had been inside for more than five years...
    the CIA doesn't think so, and they have more credibility than you do.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:29:28 PM EST
    Reality and truth are infintely plastic things for Jim.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#71)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 07:59:35 PM EST
    I think at this point and for the next few months pretty well everything that issues from bush and the WH has to be seen against the backdrop of November. Attacking the press and saying that it puts the country in danger with responsible reporting, or implying that the press is a bunch of traitors supporting 'terrism', trying to raise the specter of crazed bogeymen under every bed... are all strawmen. They will do everything possible from now on to avoid a referendum on the bush presidency. Desperation Politics US News & World Report
    So what's ahead for the rest of us? A midterm election, it seems, in which each party will operate in a parallel universe: That is, the Democrats will try to nationalize the election as a referendum on the president; the Republicans will instead try to localize each race. "If it's a referendum on the president, we lose," one top House Republican tells me. "We have to make sure we run good local races, and then we'll survive. Which is all we can ask for."
    Attacking the press more than anything else holds up the fears and insecurities of bushco and the right. Truth and a free press terrifies the kids. Their attempts to shift debate to questions about the press are the same diversionary tactics right wing trools use here, but on a larger scale. They just cannot accept that no one is buying their WOT bs anymore. Sad.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 08:44:03 PM EST
    I've read tha opposing opinions, watched tha cable tv pundit shows and yet I sit here in wonderment. That modern Americans either don't know (because they weren't taught it) or they choose not to remember (prefering to follow blindly like Lemmings rushing towards tha cliff). Tha reason that Freedom of tha Press is guaranteed is because in tha 40 or so odd years leading up to our American Revolution, it was tha news media of tha time that convinced tha Colonies that tha excessive practices of tha Executive (King George) and His Parliament were oppressive and unjust. Seems to me that history is repeating itself yet again as example after example of oppression (torturing prisoners) and unjust decisions (Executive appointments to positions of authority with orders to look tha other way and never prosecute any corporate political contributor for anything illegal)has been presented by both tha Executive (King George) and His Legislature (Congress). Speaking of tha legislature....these guys if Americans have guts enuff, should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail. History has shown a very definite pattern when it comes to Conservative governments and a Free Press, tha Conservatives try to shut down tha Free Press to keep it from revealing tha oft hidden truths (behind tha lies) that conservative regimes want to remain hidden. Examples include Hitler's Nazi Party, Tojo's Imperial Army Party, USSR, Red China, tha Shah's Iran, some of the coalition allies such as Uzbekistan, Kazahkistan and other such former Iron Curtain countries that still retain their former Soviet Politburo puppet gov'ts and let us not forget our neighbor to tha South Cuba. I wonder, if certain conservatives have their way and tha NY Times is persecuted and Editor Keller is tried and imprisoned, can we still call America a Democracy? If it is done as tha conservatives demand won't we then be included in tha illustrious Hall of Infamy that I illustrated in tha paragraph above?

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:01:57 PM EST
    June 28, 2006 - GALLUP NEWS SERVICE Democrats favored on most issues
    A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds that Americans rate Iraq as the top issue to their vote for Congress this year and see the Democrats in Congress as better able to handle it than the Republicans in Congress at this point. Corruption in government, terrorism, the economy, and healthcare are also issues rated highly in terms of their importance to the vote. Terrorism remains a relative strength for the Republicans, but is the only issue of 11 measured in the poll on which the GOP has an advantage over the Democrats.
    emphasis mine

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 28, 2006 at 09:09:03 PM EST
    billmon clears the whole leak thing up simply by comparing two National Review articles. Bottom line: Delay- Leaks are OK during time of War.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#75)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 05:47:02 AM EST
    The previous posts only make my point for me. The left is more worried about the Bush administration then terrorists. They don't take the threat seriously and would rather move to their talking points of minimum wage, civil liberties BS etc... That's fine. If that is were the democratic party wishes to make its stand I say "BRING IT ON". Never mind that this strategy failed to work in 2002 and 2004. Nope, they're convinced they're right so I say keep doing what you're doing and repulicans will keep winning elections. Episodes like this make quite clear to the American people that democrats can't be trusted to protect them. That's why republicans control govenment. Simple as that.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#76)
    by Slado on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:04:39 AM EST
    Squeaky since I'm a yellow coward I'll let one of the soldiers in Iraq tell you what they think. Letter to NYT's... Your recent decision to publish information about a classified program intended to track the banking transactions of possible terrorists is not only detrimental to America but also to its fighting men and women overseas. Terrorism happens here every day because there are rich men out there willing to support the . . . terrorist who plants bombs and shoots soldiers. . . . Without money, terrorism in Iraq would die because there would no longer be supplies for IED's, no mortars . . . and no motivation for people to abandon regular work in hopes of striking it rich after killing a soldier. Thank you for continually contributing to the deaths of my fellow soldiers http://www.boredsoldier.blogspot.com/

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:17:03 AM EST
    The left is more worried about the Bush administration then terrorists. Well! Slado, you've finally figured it out. Now with a bit of simple arithmetic and reading you'll understand why. It's vey simple. bushco has killed and maimed many many more people than what you refer to as 'terrorists' ever have. Why? Even simpler. When you and bushco label someone as 'terrorist' you are simply doing what you guys do with every othe issue or problem that you cause. Projecting. Yes, there are 'terrorists', slado. But the most dangerous ones are not sitting in caves in Afghanistan or running around in Iraq. They are in the white house. They are in the congress. They are in the senate. And like you, they are sitting at keyboards supporting the real 'terrorists'. "There's a terrist behind every bush"

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:33:57 AM EST
    A bit of simple arithmetic and reading: USA Today - Posted 6/27/2006 1:02 PM ET Poll favors Democrats in fall elections
    WASHINGTON -- Americans are paying unusually close attention to the congressional elections in November, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, and they are more inclined to deliver big gains to Democrats than in any year since Republicans swept to control of the House and Senate in 1994. The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, indicates that voters are more concerned about national issues than local ones -- a situation that favors Democrats hoping to tap discontent over the Iraq war and gas prices -- and prefer Democrats over Republicans on handling every major issue except terrorism. • Americans are increasingly likely to identify themselves as Democrats. Including those who "lean" to one party or the other, 55% call themselves Democrats, 38% Republicans -- the biggest edge for Democrats since 1998. By 54%-38%, those surveyed say they'd vote for the Democratic congressional candidate over the Republican one in their district if the election was held today.
    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:59:31 AM EST
    THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3 by Richard E. Sprague
    • Chapter 9 - Control of the Media This Chapter is intended to enlighten readers and to remind them of the control exercised by the intelligence community and the White House over the 15 organizations from whom the public gets the vast majority of its news and opinions.


    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 07:08:54 AM EST
    Gosh Slado not only do you offer others up to do your killing but they write your letters too. How pathetic. Yellow, Chickenhawk and Keybaord Kommando don't come close to describing your cowardice. Hope you are comfy while you cheer on the troops. They would spit in your face to know that you support a war but are too 'important' to fight it yourself.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#81)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 07:17:49 AM EST
    Message from a Vet of My Lai time: "Our Descent Into Hell Has Begun" --Tony Swindell
    In Iraq, our descent into hell, our "Apocalypse Now" moment, has begun. First there was Gitmo, then the global rendition program, then Abu Ghraib, then the pulverizing of Fallujah, and now trigger-happy raids that are filling multitudes of sandy graves with men, women and children. Has "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" become the mission in Babylon? Can't anyone remember Vietnam, where we left behind more than a million dead civilians? In Iraq, we've way past the half-million mark, probably the million mark, if you count the 1990s sanctions. Are the American people as blind and deaf as they seem? Don't we see ourselves walking through the gates of hell and can't we hear the doors clanging shut on our country?
    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 07:20:38 AM EST
    edger writes:
    Why? Even simpler. When you and bushco label someone as 'terrorist' you are simply doing what you guys do with every othe issue or problem that you cause. Projecting
    First you toss out some psychobabble, and then you comment that the real terrorists are in the US. Excuse me while I laugh at you. And comments like that is why the Demos, who have embraced the Far Left, will not win in the Fall. Zebm1 - What you fail to understand is that freedom of speech is not absolute. You can't, for example, yell fire in a crowded theater. You can't advertise a harmful product in a newspaper. You can't advertise cigarettes on TV. There are words you can't use on TV an radio. All of these actions are government censorship, and with the exception of yelling fire, are based on laws that restrict the so-called freedom of the press. The NYT is guilty of terrible misconduct and Kellor's comments have placed it, and himself, up as judge and jury on what is, and is not, acceptable. His lack of judgement should be addressed in court, along with the reporters and so-called leakers who enabled him.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edger on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 07:58:22 AM EST
    Babble by Psychos:
    Posters at right-wing board threaten to kill Times editors, reporters
    Yes, there are 'terrorists'... But the most dangerous ones are not sitting in caves in Afghanistan or running around in Iraq. They are in the white house. They are in the congress. They are in the senate. And like you, they are sitting at keyboards supporting the real 'terrorists'. "There's a terrist behind every bush" Obituaries...

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#84)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 08:02:13 AM EST
    PPJ being the good brown-shirted fascist he has proven himslf to be wants all negative stories about The Great and Powerful Leader to be squashed. He agrees with Bush who said everything would be easier if he were dictator.

    Re: Sticking Up for the New York Times (none / 0) (#85)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 08:20:25 AM EST
    But the important thing here is the principle, is that we don't let Congress tell the press what they can and cannot publish. You know, I -- I lived in Eastern Europe for five years during the 1990s and reported there. And I know what happens in countries where the government tries to suppress or intimidate or censor the press, because that's what the communists did to my friends. ~ Susan Milligan, Boston Globe
    That's the point; that this is not Eastern Europe, not yet anyway.

    Sticking Up for the New York Times | 85 comments (85 topical)