Did the NYTimes know about the spying BEFORE the election?

liveoaktx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 05:33 PM
Original message

Did the NYTimes know about the spying BEFORE the election?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sabra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 05:34 PM
Response to Original message

1. Yep. They also knew about the CIA Leak case

and prolly stuff related to pre 9/11 warnings...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

liveoaktx

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. Reference?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sabra

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #2

7. Judy Miller didn't she work for the Times

and was supposed to give testimony in 2004, which was delayed for over a year. Now why would she do that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

indepat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 05:42 PM
Response to Original message

3. If the MSM had revealed to the people what they knew before the election,

the election IMHO would have not been close enough to have been stolen.

:grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sonsera

(60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 05:42 PM
Response to Original message

4. Did the NYTimes know about the spying BEFORE the election?

And you can bet the monkey spied on John Kerry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

VolcanoJen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #4

9. Which would make the operation not unlike Nixon's CREEP...

... and which led to his ultimate impeachment... hmmm...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kevinmc

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 05:43 PM
Response to Original message

5. If they sat on that story for a year......

it sure sounds like they knew. The NYT's needs to become a newspaper again and do something about reporters using their jobs too investigate material for thier books. The story should come out before the Book.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Bumblebee

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 05:44 PM
Response to Original message

6. of course

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

gratuitous

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 05:54 PM
Response to Original message

8. It certainly looks like it

Which bolsters my case for them being indicted as co-conspirators with the Bush administration for their crimes against humanity. My guess is that the Times' defense will be that they didn't want to influence the outcome of the 2004 election by publishing. My response is that they saw the lesson doled out to CBS over Bush's National Guard non-service, and they didn't want to risk incurring similar wrath. And by not publishing, they did indeed affect the outcome of the 2004 election. Is the Times' primary obligation to publishing all the news that's fit to print, or currying favor with power?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seafan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Dec-16-05 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #8

10. Agree. The Times certainly did influence the outcome of the 04 election.

By violating journalistic ethics and responsibility to keep the people informed about what its government was doing, the New York Times, under orders from the Bush Administration, kept secret the fact that our own government was spying on us illegally.

And they directly contributed to another illegitimate term for this charlatan.

The New York Times will likely never regain credibility in the eyes of Americans. The people responsible for this decision to lie to the American people by deliberate omission are enemies of this country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat Apr 20th 2024, 09:35 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.