Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The Fall Of The New York Times?

Hey folks,

It is continuing to look worse and worse for the New York Times. All day yesterday, people after people added their names into the whole "Treason" charge of the paper. For those of you who may not have heard, lol, or those dedicated and completely BLIND folks that follow the NYT like the Religious Right follow the Bible, here’s the deal.

The New York Times leaked information about a top secret banking operation, which was aimed at tracking and stopping terrorist financing and money transfers. This WAS a top secret program that netted MANY arrests and convictions, and prevented and unknown number of attacks. No money, no attacks. But the NYT decided it was no longer needed and declassified the program.

President Bush implored the Times, Washington Post, and other news outlets, not to run their story, but the editors of the NYT decided to disregard the President’s request. Of course I am wondering if it were Clinton, would the NYT held the story? I bet they would have. The Washington Post and others ran with it only AFTER the NYT "broke it. You know as well as I why. Their extreme hatred of President Bush and the fact they are nothing but a tool for the LWL.

Now more and more people are calling for their fall. Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., is just the latest to add his voice to those charging that the New York Times committed treason. He said,

"That the press wouldn’t have better sense than to leak critical information on terrorists so that they know what we’re doing – that scares the devil out of me. In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, therefore it is an act of treason. What you write in a war and what is legal to do for the federal government, or state government, whoever it is, is very important in winning the war on terror."

He is calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to empanel a grand jury to decide if the Times’ publisher, editors and writers who were involved in the story should be indicted for treason. This according to the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Homeland Security Chairman, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., is urging the Bush administration to seek criminal charges against the NYT for its reporting on the secret financial-monitoring program. After all, it was the NYT who demanded this type of program back in 2001. Now it destroys it?

On May 17th , 2006 I posted a whole article on the NYT. I pointed out how they are violating their own ethics polices. I even told you where to find them. NYTethics I posed the question, "Why does anyone read this paper anymore?"

I love this one,

And second, no one may do anything that damages our news staffs' reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government; in particular, no one may wear campaign buttons or display any other form of political partisanship while on the job.

No, but destroy the security of millions of Americans must be OK. Right?

This is just another example of how they continue to be a vehicle of the LWL. It is clear that their agenda is to attack Bush, further the LWL agenda, and for us to FAIL in the war. This, they think anyway, would guarantee the Left taking over.

Are they guilty of treason? I believe that if you truly analyze this situation out, you will see that this is more than just making stuff up, which they have been known to do, or printing inaccurate stories. This is purposely risking the security of this country, just to attack the Bush Administration. They were either purposely doing so, or too ignorant to help themselvves.

Either way, it could very well be seen as treason.

Peter
Posted by at

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree whole heartedly with your assessment. The New York Times has shown over and over that it has been engaging in trying to bring down the Bush administration.

They continuously publish stuff that they know will be detrimental to the administration and actively, and gleefully in my opinion, identify programs that undermine the war on terror.

On ETP we see the liberals even going so far as to deny the war on terror or making lame claims that even in " an inexistent war" people have the right to know what the government does at all times but if the president were a democrat I would hazard a guess that many of those same liberals would be just as adamantly defending the president with only a few liberals still criticizing the democrat president.

I see that you do not post often on ETP because I am positive you have come to realize that the site is predominately liberal and democrats even though few have the courage to admit it.

I guess that after seeing these same posters over my four years on the site refuse to criticize a democrat it can be reasoned out what their true ideology is.

Since I came on to your site I have noticed that you seem to be to use the phrase "fair and balanced" in your posts and t hat I admire because I am so tired of seeing those like ETP who claim to be nonpartisan who display their ideology with their every post.

The left wing loonies keep claiming that the media is not biased and that there are no biased papers or shows.

One thing that I notice when I search the internet for information I find that the liberal links seem to be more prevalent than the nonjudgmental ones and still the liberals claim that they are being denied a voice and are being restrained.

12:23 PM
Peter said...

Hey Sam,

“They continuously publish stuff that they know will be detrimental to the administration and actively, and gleefully in my opinion, identify programs that undermine the war on terror.”

Yes. Along with incorrect, or just plain made up stuff all the time.

“On ETP we see the liberals even going so far as to deny the war on terror or making lame claims that even in " an inexistent war" people have the right to know what the government does at all times but if the president were a democrat I would hazard a guess that many of those same liberals would be just as adamantly defending the president with only a few liberals still criticizing the democrat president.”

These are those that the NYT caters to.


“I see that you do not post often on ETP because I am positive you have come to realize that the site is predominately liberal and democrats even though few have the courage to admit it.”

EXCELLENT question and observation. One of the main reasons is simply time. I do not like to start a conversation if I do not know I will have time to continue it. I hate to hit and run. But your point of the LWL there, is partly on target as well. I try to post various topics there and at News Times Live as often as possible. I’ll admit that from time to time I do get tired of the same old mindless “hate Bush” “hate the War” garbage. Most of it is twisted, mis-understood by the mindless drones that blindly follow the LWL and MMD, or just plain lies. It does get tiring at times.

“I guess that after seeing these same posters over my four years on the site refuse to criticize a democrat it can be reasoned out what their true ideology is.”

Without a doubt.

“One thing that I notice when I search the internet for information I find that the liberal links seem to be more prevalent than the nonjudgmental ones and still the liberals claim that they are being denied a voice and are being restrained.”

Yea, I love that also. They say that the “New Media” is unfair because there is no balance to all the “Right Wing” outlets out there. The New Media IS the balance. They are simply upset about the fact that they no longer have the monopoly on what is fed to the American people. The New Media is telling the TRUTH. They can no longer say whatever they want. In their mind, they ACTUALLY believe that it is NOT that they are clearly agenda driven, nor that THEY are doing anything wrong, nor that the American people can now ACTUALLY see them for who and what they are, but in their mind, It MUST be those evil Right Wingers that are just out to get them.
Peter

1:54 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)