• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

New York Times: Guilty Of Treason

Caine said:
I demand the title of this thread be changed!
Click to expand...


Mountains of evidence proving ten times over that O.J. was guilty also justifies me calling O.J. guilty-despite him not being FOUND guilty by a jury of illiterate retards.
 
aquapub said:
Mountains of evidence proving ten times over that O.J. was guilty also justifies me calling O.J. guilty-despite him not being FOUND guilty by a jury of illiterate retards.
Click to expand...
What the hell does OJ have to do with this?
Mountain of evidence?
So ignore the fact that the LA times, WAshington Post, and Wallstreet journal all came out with the same story on the same day and you're not calling them treasonous? Why is that aqua? I have yet to see your "evidence" and sources.
 
jfuh said:
What the hell does OJ have to do with this?
Click to expand...


Caine is acting like until there is a verdict, no one has a right to call the NYT guilty. I'm pointing out that anyone who looks at the evidence against O.J. knows he was guilty...

Hence demonstrating that verdicts don't determine validity.
 
jfuh said:
So ignore the fact that the LA times, WAshington Post, and Wallstreet journal all came out with the same story on the same day and you're not calling them treasonous? Why is that aqua? I have yet to see your "evidence" and sources.
Click to expand...

"The New York Times, followed by The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times, began publishing accounts of the program on Thursday evening. "

The New York Times June 27, 2006. Section A; Column 1; Foreign Desk; Pg. 1
HEADLINE: Bush Condemns Report on Sifting Of Bank Records. By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG


The other reason they are focusing on them is that the NYT led the charge in investigating the matter.
 
aquapub said:
"The New York Times, followed by The Wall Street Journal and The Los Angeles Times, began publishing accounts of the program on Thursday evening. "

The New York Times June 27, 2006. Section A; Column 1; Foreign Desk; Pg. 1
HEADLINE: Bush Condemns Report on Sifting Of Bank Records. By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG


The other reason they are focusing on them is that the NYT led the charge in investigating the matter.
Click to expand...

If they knew it was wrong, why did the other newspapers mock the NYT?
They are just as guilty.
 
ah cain...you are THE dude in my book......i find myself agreeing with everything you post:mrgreen:
 
ah cain...you are THE dude in my book......i find myself agreeing with everything you post:mrgreen:
 
ah cain...you are THE dude in my book......i find myself agreeing with everything you post:mrgreen:
 
Caine said:
If they knew it was wrong, why did the other newspapers mock the NYT?
They are just as guilty.
Click to expand...

Caine, how can you say that? If you hit aquapub over the head and subsequently I hit him over the head (which I did only because you did it first), I am FAR LESS CULPABLE than you are. How can you not see that? *sarcasm*

If a story is wrong to publish--it is wrong to publish.
 
aps said:
If a story is wrong to publish--it is wrong to publish.
Click to expand...

Omigod! Something on which aps and I agree!!!!

Oh, but wait, the premise behind aps' statement is that the WSJ did something wrong. Oh, well, maybe we will eventually find something to agree on.

aps, it is by now well known (except by you, I guess) that the WSJ was invited in to be briefed by Treasury (cites provided on the other thread). Treasury did this after they were told by the NYT that the NYT was going ahead with publication of the story. Treasury's motivation? Their opinion on the feedback from the NYT was that the NYT was going to present the information on the program in a slanted, incomplete and unfair manner. Hence, Treasury's goal was to seek a publication that would present the material in a more complete and more accurate way.

Why did the WSJ print the story? When a gov't agency invites you in and briefs you on what appears to be a fairly major story, and gives you the ok, what newspaper wouldn't?

You "if it is wrong to publish, it is wrong to publish" sentiments are better addressed to the NYT and Bill Keller.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Omigod! Something on which aps and I agree!!!!

Oh, but wait, the premise behind aps' statement is that the WSJ did something wrong. Oh, well, maybe we will eventually find something to agree on.

aps, it is by now well known (except by you, I guess) that the WSJ was invited in to be briefed by Treasury (cites provided on the other thread). Treasury did this after they were told by the NYT that the NYT was going ahead with publication of the story. Treasury's motivation? Their opinion on the feedback from the NYT was that the NYT was going to present the information on the program in a slanted, incomplete and unfair manner. Hence, Treasury's goal was to seek a publication that would present the material in a more complete and more accurate way.

Why did the WSJ print the story? When a gov't agency invites you in and briefs you on what appears to be a fairly major story, and gives you the ok, what newspaper wouldn't?

You "if it is wrong to publish, it is wrong to publish" sentiments are better addressed to the NYT and Bill Keller.
Click to expand...

LOL What? So the Treasury Dept. thought that the WSJ would be able to present the material in a "more complete and more accurate way." WAS THIS SO THAT THE TERRORISTS COULD HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY HOW THE SWIFT PROGRAM WORKS?

That rationale seems a little counterproductive--would you agree?
 
aps said:
Caine, how can you say that? If you hit aquapub over the head and subsequently I hit him over the head (which I did only because you did it first), I am FAR LESS CULPABLE than you are. How can you not see that? *sarcasm*
Click to expand...


Caine goes to jail for murder and you get a few months for corpse mutilation.

If he wasnt initially dead then you get murder as well.

Thats pretty simple.
 
akyron said:
Caine goes to jail for murder and you get a few months for corpse mutilation.

If he wasnt initially dead then you get murder as well.

Thats pretty simple.
Click to expand...

Who said he was dead?
I can hit someone over the head with a newspaper, although still falls under the elements of an assault charge, they won't die from a newspaper.

DEE DEE DEEEE.
 
Caine said:
If they knew it was wrong, why did the other newspapers mock the NYT?
They are just as guilty.
Click to expand...

Re-revealing classified national defense secrets after the damage has already been done is NOT just as bad as being the one who pioneered the move.
 
aps said:
Caine, how can you say that? If you hit aquapub over the head and subsequently I hit him over the head (which I did only because you did it first), I am FAR LESS CULPABLE than you are. How can you not see that? *sarcasm*

If a story is wrong to publish--it is wrong to publish.
Click to expand...

:liar2

This is such a typically dishonest smokescreen from you. The NYT's culpability in needlessly revealing the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program is not mitigated one freaking bit by the fact that other papers later parroted their article.

Have some integrity. :roll:
 
oldreliable67 said:
Now you're just being obtuse.
Click to expand...

Then help me out, oldreliable. If the White House didn't want the terrorists to know about the SWIFT program, why would they want the WSJ to provide an accurate report?
 
aps said:
Then help me out, oldreliable. If the White House didn't want the terrorists to know about the SWIFT program, why would they want the WSJ to provide an accurate report?
Click to expand...
:spin:

If your cover's blown, and blown with a lot of bs spin attached to it, it's better to set the record straight than to let the person blowing your cover get a way with falsely vilifying you as well.

Not rocket science.
 
aquapub said:
:spin:

If your cover's blown, and blown with a lot of bs spin attached to it, it's better to set the record straight than to let the person blowing your cover get a way with falsely vilifying you as well.

Not rocket science.
Click to expand...
And you have evidence that the NYT has done so?
 
aps said:
Then help me out, oldreliable. If the White House didn't want the terrorists to know about the SWIFT program, why would they want the WSJ to provide an accurate report?
Click to expand...

First, you keep referring to the White House. Treasury was responsible for this program and for briefing the NYT, LAT, and the WSJ. While the WH was no doubt kept advised, Treasury was directly responsible for management of the program and the situation.

Second, Treasury's objective, as has been stated more than once on both this and at least one other thread (hence, my suggestion that you are being obtuse), has been to ensure that the same information that was briefed to the NYT is briefed to another media source that will treat it and present it fairly. According to the accounts that I have read, there was no information briefed to others that was not briefed to the NYT.

The NYT decided to publish in spite of appeals from a bi-partisan list of officials. Countering such by briefing other journalists on the same info has been a well-known tactic of administrations down thru the years.
 
oldreliable67 said:
First, you keep referring to the White House. Treasury was responsible for this program and for briefing the NYT, LAT, and the WSJ. While the WH was no doubt kept advised, Treasury was directly responsible for management of the program and the situation.

Second, Treasury's objective, as has been stated more than once on both this and at least one other thread (hence, my suggestion that you are being obtuse), has been to ensure that the same information that was briefed to the NYT is briefed to another media source that will treat it and present it fairly. According to the accounts that I have read, there was no information briefed to others that was not briefed to the NYT.

The NYT decided to publish in spite of appeals from a bi-partisan list of officials. Countering such by briefing other journalists on the same info has been a well-known tactic of administrations down thru the years.
Click to expand...

Okay. That makes sense. I wasn't consciously being obtuse. If you noticed, I ignored your insult, as they are getting more common now, which is pretty sad because it tells me that you aren't as diplomatic as I first thought you were.
 
aps said:
Okay. That makes sense. I wasn't consciously being obtuse. If you noticed, I ignored your insult, as they are getting more common now, which is pretty sad because it tells me that you aren't as diplomatic as I first thought you were.
Click to expand...

Insult? What did you consider an insult? Was it my 'obtuse' observation? I hope you didn't consider that as an insult - it was intended as an observation on your debate/discussion technique/tactics, nothing more, nothing less. It was certainly not intended to be anything remotely personal.

"Diplomatic"? I have never, at least not conciously, tried to be diplomatic in these debates/discussions. Rather, I have always conciously tried to be pragmatic and to have at least an understanding, if not an appreciation of all points of view. You have labled me as a conservative; I object to that - I have always, if for on other reason than pragmatism, viewed myself as a centrist, with neither a strong liberal nor strong conservative bias.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Insult? What did you consider an insult? Was it my 'obtuse' observation? I hope you didn't consider that as an insult - it was intended as an observation on your debate/discussion technique/tactics, nothing more, nothing less. It was certainly not intended to be anything remotely personal.
Click to expand...

Shall I define what obtuse means? It means slow in comprehension. Is that supposed to be a neutral observation and not personal to me? Give me a break, oldreliable.

"Diplomatic"? I have never, at least not conciously, tried to be diplomatic in these debates/discussions. Rather, I have always conciously tried to be pragmatic and to have at least an understanding, if not an appreciation of all points of view. You have labled me as a conservative; I object to that - I have always, if for on other reason than pragmatism, viewed myself as a centrist, with neither a strong liberal nor strong conservative bias.
Click to expand...

My definition of diplomatic is tactful, which no longer applies to you. You are officially on ignore. I think you're an a$$ (and an insecure one at that).
 
aps said:
Shall I define what obtuse means? It means slow in comprehension. Is that supposed to be a neutral observation and not personal to me? Give me a break, oldreliable.



My definition of diplomatic is tactful, which no longer applies to you. You are officially on ignore. I think you're an a$$ (and an insecure one at that).
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:


And I think we're not in the basement. oldreliable, don't call aps obtuse, it's rude. aps, don't call oldreliable an a$$, not only is it flaming and against the rules, it's childish.

If I have to tell you two again, you'll be sitting in a corner.
 
oldreliable67,

I have always, if for on other reason than pragmatism, viewed myself as a centrist, with neither a strong liberal nor strong conservative bias.
Click to expand...

Anyone that says they are a centrist seem, at least to me, to lean conservative. I always thought that you were one. My mistake. :mrgreen: Love your post!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom