The New York Times

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 26 2006, 02:06 PM) [snapback]276902[/snapback]</div>

ARE YOU KIDDING.... play by the rules like other administrations, What are u talking about name one administration other than Reagan that layed by the rules. The News Media are so biased they have not reported the truth in 25 years. The news media is so far left they fell off the scale, they lead blind liberal sheep who hate and spew hate and always blame it on the right. That a person can even think what you say in your response proves my point

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dogtrainer @ Jun 26 2006, 08:11 PM) [snapback]277083[/snapback]</div>

I'm curious about the specifics of what you mean exactly by not reporting the truth in 25 years. If they're not reporting the truth then you think that they're lying and what have they lied about in 25 years? 25 examples, one for each year at least and we have to be able to verify them. And by the news media, you mean Fox News too, right? Thrill us with your command of history and your ability to tell which are lies and which are truths. Show us how you have been able to ferret out these lies by the news media as you've prowled the globe in search of the truth. Or was everything you said above just extreme right, vitriolic rhetoric that is based on your opinion and, therefore, not worth the spit that you got on your computer screen as you banged it out?

 

Yes, dogtrainer, I look forward to your examples, too.

 

Good op-ed by Michael Barone

Why do they hate us? No, I'm not talking about Islamofascist terrorists. We know why they hate us: because we have freedom of speech and freedom of religion, because we refuse to treat women as second-class citizens, because we do not kill homosexuals, because we are a free society.

No, the "they" I'm referring to are the editors of The New York Times. And do they hate us? Well, that may be stretching it. But at the least they have gotten into the habit of acting in reckless disregard of our safety.

Last December, the Times ran a story revealing that the National Security Agency was conducting electronic surveillance of calls from suspected al-Qaida terrorists overseas to persons in the United States. This was allegedly a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But in fact the president has, under his war powers, the right to order surveillance of our enemies abroad. And it makes no sense to hang up when those enemies call someone in the United States -- rather the contrary. If the government is going to protect us from those who wish to do us grievous harm -- and after Sept. 11 no one can doubt there are many such persons -- then it should try to track them down as thoroughly as possible.

Little wonder that President Bush called in Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and top editor Bill Keller, and asked them not to run the story. But the Times went ahead and published it anyway. Now, thanks to The New York Times, al-Qaida terrorists are aware that their phone calls can be monitored, and presumably have taken precautions.


Last Friday, the Times did it again, printing a story revealing the existence of U.S. government monitoring of financial transactions routed through the Brussels-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which routes about $6 trillion a day in electronic money transfers around the world. The monitoring is conducted by the CIA and supervised by the Treasury Department. An independent auditing firm has been hired to make sure only terrorist-related transactions are targeted.

Members of Congress were briefed on the program, and it does not seem to violate any law, at least any that the Times could identify. And it has been effective. As the Times reporters admit, it helped to locate the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing in Thailand and a Brooklyn man convicted on charges of laundering a $200,000 payment to al-Qaida operatives in Pakistan.

Once again, Bush administration officials asked the Times not to publish the story. Once again, the Times went ahead anyway. "We have listened closely to the administration's arguments for withholding this information, and given them the most serious and respectful consideration," Bill Keller is quoted as saying. It's interesting to note that he feels obliged to report he and his colleagues weren't smirking or cracking jokes. "We remain convinced that the administration's extraordinary access to this vast repository of international financial data, however carefully targeted use of it may be, is a matter of public interest."

This was presumably the view as well of the "nearly 20 current and former government officials and industry executives" who were apparently the sources for the story.

But who elected them to make these decisions? Publication of the Times' December and June stories appears to violate provisions of the broadly written, but until recently, seldom enforced provisions of the Espionage Act. Commentary's Gabriel Schoenfeld has argued that the Times can and probably should be prosecuted.

The counterargument is that it is a dangerous business for the government to prosecute the press. But it certainly is in order to prosecute government officials who have abused their trust by disclosing secrets, especially when those disclosures have reduced the government's ability to keep us safe. And pursuit of those charges would probably require reporters to disclose the names of those sources. As the Times found out in the Judith Miller case, reporters who refuse to answer such questions can go to jail.

Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? They say that these surveillance programs are subject to abuse, but give no reason to believe that this concern is anything but theoretical. We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?

Michael Barone is the Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jun 26 2006, 09:35 PM) [snapback]277114[/snapback]</div>

The press in this country LIES by omission! It LIES by inferrence! It LIES by forgery (Dan Rather)! It has an anti-Bush slant to all its reporting. It is and they are despicable!

 

What recognized country did we declare war against?

What legal government did we declare war against?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 27 2006, 02:21 AM) [snapback]277249[/snapback]</div>

I don't think its necessary to declare war when we have been attacked. And what is your point?

 

The one thing that we may be forgetting, though, is that this isn't news to the terrorists. They expect bank transactions to be monitored. It's the American sheeple who don't know about this kind of thing and it's the American people in general that the bushies don't want aware of this kind of it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Jun 27 2006, 06:47 AM) [snapback]277281[/snapback]</div>

When "The War" is used as an excuse to punish people who talk about things being done about it, perhaps having all the I's dotted and T's crossed on the War Declaration paperwork is appropriate.

Treason-talk should have some good foundation under it...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jun 27 2006, 09:18 AM) [snapback]277307[/snapback]</div>

So that makes it OK? I think the Sheeple already know or at least hope this kind of thing was being done. And it does not affect 99.99% of Americans, except to make them more vulnerable to enemy attacks. Thank you New York Times and Bill Keller. And who are you calling Sheeple? Are you that far above the rest of us?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Jun 27 2006, 05:47 AM) [snapback]277281[/snapback]</div>

I think you need to declare war against somebody when you keep using "war" as an excuse.

And that would be Osama bin Laden...right? How are we doing in that war against Osama. Is he in custody yet? Dead? Do we even know where he is?

Kinda like the "War on Drugs". And that's been such an overwhelming success.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 27 2006, 04:33 PM) [snapback]277530[/snapback]</div>

Excuse? For what kicking Saddam out? As far as Osama goes, I'm sure we'll wake up some morning and find him and Zawahiri X'ed out. Remember Eric Rudolph was able to hide in the Carolina hills by himself for five years. OBL has much more terrain and a lot of outside help - but he is a dead man walking!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Jun 29 2006, 07:13 PM) [snapback]278919[/snapback]</div>

As are we all, in the fullness of time.

There is no question that when bin Laden finally succumbs to old age or disease, and al Jahzeera broadcasts the funeral, Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld or whichever of those doddering, senile fools is still left alive will release a statement claiming that were it not for the Bush administration's hard work so many long decades ago, bin Laden would still be alive, menacing our freedom.

Proof, I suppose, that while all men are mortal, lunacy is eternal.

 

now this is funny...

yet again, the libs tend to whine about Bin Laden, ONE person...

yet when al-zarq-whatever-the-fk was iced, they whined about how unimportant ONE person actually is, rather the organization behind him...