Who Are YOU More Pissed At? Bush Or The NY Times?

100% serious here. You more pissed at Bush for his subverting the Constitution (we KNEW he was/would) or the NY Times for SITTING on the story during an election year when exposure for this COULD have stopped this murderous regime?

am REALLY interested in your thoughts on this.

If he didn't subvert the Constitution in the first place, the NY Times portion of this argument would be moot.

what about the 'checks and balances' our FREE media is SUPPOSED to provide?

if the 4th estate is lost....

With a few rare exceptions, the media is completely irrelevant.

different things would be if Gore was president...

We are supposed to have a free press to protect us from this kind of shit. Who on DU is surprised Bush would do something like this? Not me, and I guess I am still shocked that the media is so worthless. I wonder if Judy Miller had anything to do with them sitting on this story?

They're all guilty. One thing for sure, the Times did not act in our best interests.

thumb its nose at the environment, or cause the USA to be hated around the world. No contest.

is that complacency?

I am no fan of the NYT, but we're talking about the US Constitution and who is subverting it. Who is the country more in danger from? Bush.

Unfortunately, without leaving the country, I cant get away from the Fuhrer

vote more pissed at the NYT..

That's the slogan of Scripps, an outfit that runs a bunch of newspapers who are no better than the NYT, btw.

robbing us of our rights, sending us to die in an illegal war, etc.

Forgive me for my rant, but I was under the mistaken impression that a "free" press was supposed to hold any President's feet to the fire.

I remember my Dad telling me, in the 1970's, that the NY Times and the Washington Post were the two best newspapers in the world.

Thank God, Daddy's not around now to see how far both of these publications have fallen.

:mad: :mad:

I guess I'm more pissed at the NYT. I mean most of us probably figured bushCo. was pulling shit like this anyway so it comes as no surprise and I have more of a sense of vindication than outrage. The Times however knew about this but sat on it, thus allowing it to continue unchallenged. (It did wipe the Iraq election propaganda off the front page so the timing wasn't all bad.)

So all in all I'm more pissed at the Times, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are just as bad as bushCo.

they wouldn't have had a story to sit on if he hadn't given the order to spy on us. With that said...SHAME ON THE NYT FOR SITTING ON THIS STORY FOR A FREAKIN' YEAR! AND AN ELECTION YEAR AT THAT!!! Shame, shame, shame on them. They should be sued for negligence or something. Think about it...the idiot PROBABLY wouldn't be prez right now had they printed that story. Actually, the paper should be laid to rest. They have lost all credibility.

exactly right.

that has been in effect long before Bush came along...I also find this noteworthy...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

he did the crime, so its him....but i'm just about equally pissed off at the NYT....but, Bush...by far, his response to Katrina, his invasion of iraq...shit, you know the list...

who else is hiding and shielding bush's lies?

without an informed electorate. When the press/media does not find and report the truth, it is complicate in the overthrow of democracy which follows.

The Congress betrayed a sacred trust. They did not hold themselves to be an equal branch of government. They accepted a subservient position. When one branch of the government forfeits it's rights to oversight, it is complicate in the overthrow of democracy that follows.

The Supreme Court betrayed a sacred trust. They did not allow for the votes of citizens to be accurately and openly counted. The overthrow of democracy was the result of their rush to judgment for political rather than lawful reasons.

Personally, I would like the NYT to come clean, tell us what else they dragged their heels on and take responsibility for their part in allowing evil men to co-opt the government.

Then, hang the bastards who made those decisions! OK OK, give them a trial, I will abide the decision of a jury, provided the prosecution is honest and free.

covering for the cocksucker Bush is another story...As the liars on the right keep trying to shove the notion that the NYT is a liberal paper, what bullshit!!!!

pissed off at bush -no. i expect him to be dishonest. i do expect the new york times to do their job as a 4th estate. the new york times and washington post became the official newspaper of the neo conservatives as soon as bush was promoted to run for the presidency.

:kick:

Should the Times have held back the story? No. But does that in any way approach the magnitude of the crimes of George W. Bush? Don't be stupid.

And look at it this way, by publishing it now they've not only helped to doom the fascistic so-called "Patriot Act," they've also helped to blunt whatever effect Bush's current propaganda efforts might have given him. Even Republicans (well, a few of them) are starting to stand up for the Constitution now.

Besides, Bush doesn't pay the salaries of Maureen Dowd or Frank Rich.