New York Times: Guilty Of Treason

[aquapub]

1) If this was a democrat administration that did this, (especially if it was Clinton,) the same Bush apologists here would be cutting Clinton to shreads if this shoe was on the other foot. Don't let 'em fool ya. :roll:

More partisan BS.

But Bush is right for covertly following the money trail.

2) But when you got all his minions on TV talking about it, as they have done countless times before the NYT ever made it a story, you can hardly call it covert.

1) Hint: When you try this feverishly to portray anything compelling your opponents say as "more partisan BS," it clues people into the fact that you are desperate and know you're wrong.

And Clinton was exactly the kind of career-criminal we need to worry about having expanded powers. Thus far, Bush hasn't even had a single accusation of abuse of this kind of power...Clinton abused his power routinely.

Example: Gennifer Flowers being audited by Clinton's IRS during her testifying against him even though her income was well beneath the bracket they ever bother with.

So yes, we probably would have been worried (justifiably), but if 9/11 had happened on his watch, I'm sure Republicans would side with tougher defense (as they ALWAYS DO), and it would be LIBERALS who would change their tune-because the person asking would be a Democrat.

2) This lie has been addressed multiple times on this thread. Please have some integrity and stop trying to perpetuate it. AGAIN, post #31 details the things that WEREN'T public knowledge until the NYT ran this story. It was in fact covert, and the NYT even called it that.

 

[Caine]

James Rage is a fascist? For calling the needless revealing of the inner-workings of a classified anti-terror program to the enemy treason?

So, if correctly interpreting the law makes you a fascist, then what do you call someone who hurls mindless smears at anyone who thinks, reads, bases their opinions on facts, evidence, substance?

Oh wait, I know this one...a liberal.

Thanks for proving #4 of my signature right again.

It has absolutely nothing to do with this thread alone.

If it doesn't agree with him, it should be banned, check around.
Only dictators act that way.

 

[aps]

I suppose you think these gay, infantile labels make you look witty? They just make you look hysterical and fanatical. :roll:

And I know you guys keep repeating this same invalid point because your liberal websites have mass emailed you your rhetoric for the day, but the WSJ (and L.A. Times) reported this AFTER the NYT, and they were following their lead, as the media always do-you know, following the lead of a paper that hasn't endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Ike?

This smokescreen argument you sheep are making in unison is ill conceived.

So what if the WSJ published the story AFTER the NYT? Why does that make them any less ethical/culpable than the NYT? Really, if it was so wrong for the NYT to publish this, why wouldn't the WSJ refuse to publish the story based upon its feeling that the release of this information was wrong? Sorry, but they aren't any better than the NYT.

 

[Deegan]

So what if the WSJ published the story AFTER the NYT? Why does that make them any less ethical/culpable than the NYT? Really, if it was so wrong for the NYT to publish this, why wouldn't the WSJ refuse to publish the story based upon its feeling that the release of this information was wrong? Sorry, but they aren't any better than the NYT.

Well duh, because it's already out there!:doh

 

[aps]

3) Her being "covert" is the only way that story would matter at all. Thanks for deflating this for me. :mrgreen:

Umm, wrong. I have a friend who is a republican and worked for the CIA. I think I trust her assessment of the leaking of Plame's name over your assessment.

 

[aps]

Well duh, because it's already out there!:doh

Deegan, just say you cheated on your wife and someone published pictures of you with this other woman. I own a local newspaper in your area and could publish the story as well; however, you are a friend, and I wouldn't do something like that because I have integrity. And it's more important for me to show you loyalty than to publish some juicy story.

 

[mpg]

Treason? No. Bad judgement? Very bad.

 

[Deegan]

Deegan, just say you cheated on your wife and someone published pictures of you with this other woman. I own a local newspaper in your area and could publish the story as well; however, you are a friend, and I wouldn't do something like that because I have integrity. And it's more important for me to show you loyalty than to publish some juicy story.

My point is this, the leaker came to the NYTimes, not the WSJ, nor did they go to the LATimes. This is the point, the NYTimes is obviously in bed with traitors to our country, and it's much too big a story for other papers not to pick-up. I don't blame them for conveying information that is already out there, but I don't know how any of us can defend the leakers of secret information!

 

[aps]

My point is this, the leaker came to the NYTimes, not the WSJ, nor did they go to the LATimes. This is the point, the NYTimes is obviously in bed with traitors to our country, and it's much too big a story for other papers not to pick-up. I don't blame them for conveying information that is already out there, but I don't know how any of us can defend the leakers of secret information!

If information threatens our national security, why would the WSJ publish the information? I just don't get it.

 

[Deegan]

If information threatens our national security, why would the WSJ publish the information? I just don't get it.

Because they owe it to their readers to get the story, and this one was already out there, thanks to the NYTimes. My anger is more directed to the leakers, then to the times, but this has become a habit for them, and obviously a political one, and to hell with our security. I think they should give the names of those who leaked, and they should be hung by the neck until dead!

 

[aps]

Frankly, the right is blowing this thing way out of proportion so that people won't think about what a horrendous job this administration is doing (and has done) in Iraq. They (the administration) suck.

 

[Deegan]

Frankly, the right is blowing this thing way out of proportion so that people won't think about what a horrendous job this administration is doing (and has done) in Iraq. They (the administration) suck.

So our countries secrets are not important?:shock:

Some might say you are trying to minimize this, because you are more angry about the war, and Bush?

 

[Stinger]

Frankly, the right is blowing this thing way out of proportion so that people won't think about what a horrendous job this administration is doing (and has done) in Iraq. They (the administration) suck.

Frankly that has to be one of the lamest excuses one could make.

 

[aps]

So our countries secrets are not important?:shock:

Some might say you are trying to minimize this, because you are more angry about the war, and Bush?

I read two articles today that a terrorist expert said he found it hard to believe that al Qqeda was not aware of what we were doing. I am rather disgusted that the Bushies are attacking the NYT. Why not go after those who leaked the story to the NYT? I support the NYT's publishing the information--it's called a free press and is in the Constitution. I am sick and tired of Bush claiming that all these invasions are in the name of the war on terror. He hasn't even secured our borders. Does he really think he's tough on terror? LOL

 

[Deegan]

I read two articles today that a terrorist expert said he found it hard to believe that al Qqeda was not aware of what we were doing. I am rather disgusted that the Bushies are attacking the NYT. Why not go after those who leaked the story to the NYT? I support the NYT's publishing the information--it's called a free press and is in the Constitution. I am sick and tired of Bush claiming that all these invasions are in the name of the war on terror. He hasn't even secured our borders. Does he really think he's tough on terror? LOL

Well I agree, and that is what I suggest, finding the leaker's, and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[aps]

Well I agree, and that is what I suggest, finding the leaker's, and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law.

Ahhh, finally. :cheers:

Regardless, I raise my glass to the NYT. Expose the Bush Administration for what it is, my lovable newspaper.

 

[Stinger]

Ahhh, finally. :cheers:

Regardless, I raise my glass to the NYT. Expose the Bush Administration for what it is, my lovable newspaper.

Actually this is "expose the United States", this is a program of the UNITED STATES. It is about OUR foreign policy. This will make defeating our enemies that much harder, and that much more dangerous.

So we see where your sentiments are.

 

[aps]

*sitting here wondering whether I should remove Stinger from my "ignore" list*

Who thinks I should?

 

[mpg]

Frankly, the right is blowing this thing way out of proportion so that people won't think about what a horrendous job this administration is doing (and has done) in Iraq. They (the administration) suck.

I'm dissatisfied with this administration, but the left is pursuing this story more than the right.

 

[aps]

I'm dissatisfied with this administration, but the left is pursuing this story more than the right.

WHAT? :shock: How so?

 

[Deegan]

*sitting here wondering whether I should remove Stinger from my "ignore" list*

Who thinks I should?

Of course you should, you know how I feel about that, I couldn't believe you put me on!

 

[aps]

Of course you should, you know how I feel about that, I couldn't believe you put me on!

You disappointed me tremendously, and I hated feeling such disgust towards you. I got over it, though. You're on my "okay" list now (although you used to be on my "worship" list. )

 

[Caine]

You disappointed me tremendously, and I hated feeling such disgust towards you. I got over it, though. You're on my "okay" list now (although you used to be on my "worship" list. )

Bah, Deegan is actually one of the only rational Conservatives on this site.

Except for his little stint in the flag burning thread :2razz: (You should give that one up)
But, that is for another thread.

 

[Deegan]

Bah, Deegan is actually one of the only rational Conservatives on this site.

Except for his little stint in the flag burning thread :2razz: (You should give that one up)
But, that is for another thread.

Will you just accept my strong feelings for the flag as my defense, even though some think those are not good reasons, and that emotions cloud your judgment, I just can't help the way I feel.

But thanks anyway, I have been very pleased to hear that lately, it's a great compliment IMHO.:3oops:

 

[Caine]

Will you just accept my strong feelings for the flag as my defense, even though some think those are not good reasons, and that emotions cloud your judgment, I just can't help the way I feel.

But thanks anyway, I have been very pleased to hear that lately, it's a great compliment IMHO.:3oops:

Yep. I understand.
It isn't something I would enjoy seeing myself.
But, I get over it and move on.