NYT Retaliates against Cheney and Rumsfeld

Patriotic

Adj. 1. patriotic - inspired by love for your country
loyal
loyal - steadfast in allegiance or duty; "loyal subjects"; "loyal friends stood by him"
disloyal, unpatriotic - showing lack of love for your country

Liberal

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.


Anti-American

Phrase. Commonly used by people without the ability to think who need an insult to throw at someone.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
FOX News has alerted the terrorists to the number of people who will be traveling over the July 4th weeknd!

The roads and airports will likely be pretty crowded this weekend. AAA over 40 million people will travel over the Independence Day weekend. That's a record.

How dare they print this information that plays right into the terrorists' hands! I won't be surprised if FOX News' blatant message to the terrorists showing how vulnerable the travelers are costs the lives of many of these American travelers this year. :shk:

FOX News should be charged with treason, in my opinion...

[/satire]

[edit on 3-7-2006 by SilentLucidity]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And this indication of this is...?

Too me it is an indication they have no morals or ethics when it comes to what they publish when it comes to national security issues

That they print stuff that's already known? They print stuff that's easily available to anyone who wants to know?

Sure they knew some of the details but not all of them. Also this is not specifically regarding war secrets, this pertains to national security issues.

In essence what they did was fill in the blanks for terrorists by releasing all the details on who, what etc., were used to track the information.

I haven't seen nor heard of any war secrets printed by the NY Times...

hmmmm Valerie Plame comes to mind here Or did you miss that story? that too was regarding national security.

this is similar to what the Rosenbergs did during WWII, up until they furnished the plans for nuclear weapons Russia did not know exactly how to build nuclear bombs either and in that case they filled in the missing blanks which then allowed them to complete nuclear bombs.



[edit on 7/3/2006 by shots]

So, you dont want free media?

On 4th July you will be celebrating independence from the British Empire, but those who fought for their freedom are now turning in their graves due to the modern Government is selling out the rights they faught for.

Its sad to see that Americans are blinding accepting that their media should be targetted like the Chinese media, oh but this is different, right?

The media should be limited. They should not be permitted to have the freedom that they have; they are an incredibly corrupt organization and a hateful one at that. They manipulate information and are fearmongers.

If the media had a clue as to what they were doing and actually cared about reporting the truth for BENEFIT to the U.S. population, you would see much different headlines.

Media freedom is NOT supposed to be complete freedom. That is one of the problems with this modern American society. Everyone assumes that the media should have the ability to inform the American people of EVERYTHING secretive the government is doing in the fight against terrorism, which is wrong. The media should not be allowed to report such things, as it allows too much information to go out to the terrorists, and too much mis-information to go out to the population.

They over-exaggerate minor things, under-exaggerate good things or ignore them completely ,try to spread fear, and are anti-American. That is FACT. They even say they are not patriotic, that to them, "patriotism" is something below them, that they are "global" citizens.

The media reported about soldiers supposedly using the Koran as toilet paper, something based on one unreliable source and that cause the deaths of people from the riots that ensued.

The New York Times claimed that Bush was doing illegal wiretapping. The fact is the wiretapping was perfectly legal; Bush would've been impeached if it wasn't. The wiretapping allowed the government to foil a plot by terrorists who were going to blow up a public monument. Clinton did the same type of wiretapping when in office as well.

The NYT wrote a report about the movie, "The Day After Tomorrow," and in the first two paragraphs, the ones most people read when glancing at the newspaper, they had scientists saying things like, "This isn't fiction. It has happened before." By the end of the article, they tell how the movie IS fiction, but people just glancing at the paragraphs don't notice that.

Yet, the NYT wrote a scathing report on Bush's meeting with Michael Crighton on his anti-global warming book, "State of Fear." They claim it was "science fiction" the President is relying on; YET the only "science-fiction" of the novel was in how the environmental extremists in the book eattempt to control the weather, not in the facts presented on global warming.

Yet the media is writing wonderful reviews on Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," saying it shows, without a doubt, that global warming is a true threat (never mind the HUGE amount of evidence to the contray, which unlike Gore's little movie, is displayed in Crighton's 600+ page novel; Crighton also gives all the sources on environmental science he used to write the book, and many of them DO NOT agree with his views).

Biased media, I tell you.

The media claims the Iraq War was/is illegal (no shocker there).

The majority of the mainstream media does NOT report on the 500 found WMDs and the ones that did, claim they aren't the WMDs we went into Iraq for. We went into Iraq for many other reasons, and those WMDs, by the UN, are WMDs.

The major news networks show over and over and over when that one soldier shot and killed an "innocent" terrorist soldier; they focused vehemently on the Abu Ghraib cases. Yet, they don't seem concerned at all about the brutal acts committed by the terrorists

In some cases, censorship of the media IS required and needs to be allowed. They did it plenty in WWII, there were no problems then. You cannot fight a war and have a completely free media.

Back in the days when investigative journalism wasn't frowned upon in the US a certain administrations involvement in Watergate happened to be pointed out.

Then there was the Iran-Contra affair, which was reported extensively.

Neocons and republicans took great delight at the reporting of Bill Clintons accidental stain on Monica Lewinski's character.

But now Bush corp comes under fire, those same people all cry "foul"

It seems the land of the free doesn't want to be free anymore. Why is that?

Those are COMPLETELY different. Watergate did not pertain to national security, it pertained to Nixon's people breaking into the Democratic party's headquarters, and it dealt with the Presidential campaign. Clinton's little scandal with Monica didn't pertain to national security either.

The Iran-Contra affair also was okay reporting, but the point is, those were things pretty much okay to report.

Reporting on something like wiretapping that was perfectly legal and claiming it is illegal (i.e. NYT) is wrong and if it had been stopped, the terrorists would have succeeded in blowing up a public monument.

Reporting the Iraq War as wrong and focusing solely on WMDs, is wrong.

Saying censorship of the media regarding certain issues of national security, that to do such a thing is outright blasphemy, is not true. Censorship is required at certain times. It is only temporary.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by WheelsRCool]

It sure is fun to read these threads where those who don't have a clue go on their mindless attacks against those who understand what's going down.

Thomas Jefferson, on the necessity of a free press (1787)

The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

Source

"A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." Indeed, as society has grown increasingly complex, people rely more and more on newspapers, radio, and television to keep abreast with world news, opinion, and political ideas. One sign of the importance of a free press is that when antidemocratic forces take over a country, their first act is often to muzzle the press.

shouldn't we know all the background of the people in office?

isn't the idea of open government still valid?

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Those are COMPLETELY different. Watergate did not pertain to national security, it pertained to Nixon's people breaking into the Democratic party's headquarters, and it dealt with the Presidential campaign.

And a corrupt administration that accepts breaking in toi a rival parties headquarters is condjucive to national security and the nations interests how?

Clinton's little scandal with Monica didn't pertain to national security either.

Wasn't one of the angles put forward in that case to do with potential pillow talk, and there was also the angle of the president lying under oath ?

The Iran-Contra affair also was okay reporting, but the point is, those were things pretty much okay to report

Iran Contra was ok? So funding weapons to Iran, part of the "Axis of Evil" was ok to report?

Reporting on something like wiretapping that was perfectly legal and claiming it is illegal (i.e. NYT) is wrong and if it had been stopped, the terrorists would have succeeded in blowing up a public monument.

If the required orders for the wiretaps were in place then yes, they would be legal, and stopping a potential terrorist act is a great thing, but reporting them isn't a breach of national secruity

Reporting the Iraq War as wrong and focusing solely on WMDs, is wrong.

Why is that? Because it makes certain people uncomfortable? Unlucky for them. Its a big world, a real world and people are dying because of decisions that have been made on all sides. Reporting it isn't unpatriotic, its informative. It may just lead to people not making the same mistakes again

Saying censorship of the media regarding certain issues of national security, that to do such a thing is outright blasphemy, is not true. Censorship is required at certain times. It is only temporary.[edit on 3-7-2006 by WheelsRCool]

Yes. And the concentration camps in Germany were only temporary. And Gitmo is only temporary.

Such things are only temporary until they drop below the radar. Then they become permanent, and then another "temporary" step is taken. Read up about hopw the Nazi party came to power.

Originally posted by shots
This kind of reporting is totally uncalled for, it is like giving a road map to terrorist organizations around the world as to where they can find and attack either Cheney or Rumsfeld's family. :shk:

Well if thats the case then i want to sue the phone company for listing my name, phone number, and address all in a convenient book with hundreds of thousands of other people


I side with you completely,
Evil terrorist corporations such as ATT, SBC, Google, Whitepages.com, and any others that supply information about people's personal lives should all be shut down immediatly

With nothing more than a phone number you can track down anyone
Remember that guy who cut you off the other day?
Witha bit of effort and social engeneering you can goto the DMV and get his informaiton with nothing more than his liscence plate number.

In a country this insecure, where the entire populace is compromised, why should our leaders be any different?

Edit:
go try this yourself, go type your phone number into google and hit search

[edit on 3-7-2006 by wondernut]

Freedom of the press issues again?
With those NYTWYTS again?

Looks like it's getting personal now.
Which goes a long way in proving that the NYT publisher has a vendetta against this admin.

News quality suffers when this happens.
Here is one example:

a FRONT PAGE STORY, that was either NON-News, because it was already "out-there" (you know what I am talking about). Or it was NEWS containing War Secrets.
Either way, it DID not belong on the front page.

I don't belive the Publisher of the TIMES will be at the helm much longer.
It has become personal, and that it blinding to any journalist. Even the ones that lack a conscience.

1. Someone wishing to carry out an attack against them could find the information regarding where they live regardless of this article.

2. It's so obvious there's a camera in that birdhouse, anyone seeking to attack those individuals would see it while conducting surveillance.

3. Donald Rumsfeld gave them permission to take the photograph for the article.

As a result, I wrote e-mails yesterday to Linda Spillers (the photographer) and Peter Kilborn (the reporter) bringing these accusations to their attention and asking for a response.

Although I haven't heard yet from Kilborn, I received an e-mail from Spillers this morning, in which she said:

"Ironically, photos were taken with Secretary Rumsfeld's permission."

Source

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
The media should be limited. They should not be permitted to have the freedom that they have; they are an incredibly corrupt organization and a hateful one at that. They manipulate information and are fearmongers.

If the media had a clue as to what they were doing and actually cared about reporting the truth for BENEFIT to the U.S. population, you would see much different headlines.

Media freedom is NOT supposed to be complete freedom. That is one of the problems with this modern American society. Everyone assumes that the media should have the ability to inform the American people of EVERYTHING secretive the government is doing in the fight against terrorism, which is wrong. The media should not be allowed to report such things, as it allows too much information to go out to the terrorists, and too much mis-information to go out to the population.

They over-exaggerate minor things, under-exaggerate good things or ignore them completely ,try to spread fear, and are anti-American. That is FACT. They even say they are not patriotic, that to them, "patriotism" is something below them, that they are "global" citizens.

Excuse me? Are you suggesting an amendment to the constitution?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people ... "

www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html


When their rights end, ours will be next.


I'm sure there's already legal teams building cases for this one, but the press damn well knows what it's doing in their Rights Dept, doncha worry about that.

Originally posted by Shots

Too me it is an indication they have no morals or ethics when it comes to what they publish when it comes to national security issues

Kinda like Ann Coultergeist, eh?

Valerie Plame was a WMD expert. She knew where they are around the world and that Saddam had none. Of that you can be quite sure. She just can't say (what her husband proved) because then she'll be violating her oath of employment.


Judith Miller's stint in jail is a complicated version of a reporter protecting her rights even when it was disinformation that was being planted by her sources. So leaks that are good for the administration are OK for the NYT's to print, but when they are shown to be lies...?

This kind of double standard gains no respect when the POTUS goes back on his word (to fire the leaker). At least the NYTs acknowledges when it's been bamboozled, and prints how it came about.


From a journalists' pov:

Topping today’s Blue…



The Rant: Red meat for the right-wing

As a journalist, I am offended by the latest Republican assault on The New York Times and freedom of the press. As an American, I am afraid for the future of my country when politicians so casually discard our founders' belief that a free press is a necessary Constitutional guarantee. The last time an American president went after the press with such a vengeance was during Richard Nixon's second term. We all know how that one ended.

NewsMax, the original source in this thread, printed Cheney's and Rumsfeld's property information in its paper LAST YEAR!

NewsMax

Vice President Cheney is buying a house in posh St. Michaels, Maryland
...
According to the Washington Post, it's set amidst nine lush bayfront acres and includes extensive gardens, ornamental pools and spectacular views of the bay behind it - and it boasts among its neighbors Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld....

So with this, along with Rumsfeld's permission to take the picture, I think even the most devout Bush-supporter can agree that this is another non-story.

In other News:

Right-Wing Blog Asks Readers to "Hunt Down" Info About NYT Editors' Children

So, in the school of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so if you are interested in joining the "freedom of speech" brigade, you can go to the Autonomist Web page and help the blogosphere in locating the homes (perhaps with photos?) of the editors and reporters of the New York Times.

Let's start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen.

Do you have an idea where they live? Go track them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where they shop, anything you can dig up, and send it to the Autonomist. This is your chance to be famous - grab for the brass ring.

Link to Actual Blog

What the hell has this country come to? Their children??? This is slime at its best. I would be ashamed. I am ashamed.

So, why is NYT printing all of these NON-Stories?

There is bound to be some news happening somewhere, correct?

What is the point of all this regurgitation, of items that have all been "out there" before.
Did they lay off all of their reporters?

I don't know why, it's still a free country, but there's nothing 'wrong' with it! We have people here charging the NYT with treason! Because they reprinted some information???

The NYT probably never has seen such circulation. They're probably all happy they're getting so much attention for absolutely nothing!

Do you not see the hypocrisy in the original source printing the information last year and calling the NYT a "weapon against Bush" for doing the very same thing they themselves did a year ago???

[edit on 3-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by spacedoubt
So, why is NYT printing all of these NON-Stories?

There is bound to be some news happening somewhere, correct?

nah... all the good stories have gag orders and treason threats on them...
very little meat out there to pick with all those bear traps...

I Do tend to think that maybe these papers were pointing out "we are the overseers, dont push us"
and if that is all they were saying, well then.... more power to them...

if that is how papers remind us of power, i would prefer it over a tax audit, or black van following me anyday...

BH, the blog you quoted should be investigated by law enforcement.
And anyone checking out CHILDREN should be prosecuted for child stalking crimes. And whoever wrote the paragraphs you cited gotten for conspiracy if anyone were to take such action.

It's always been a netiquette rule that any criminal activity advocated on internet postings was the biggest no no online. His blog host may want to look into it also? It's usually in the agreement you make when you sign up.

I know it sounds like a breach of free speech, but I'm pretty sure there are laws against it when it comes to children.



[edit on 3-7-2006 by psyopswatcher]