Rush detained

[Geoff_M]

The only reason the NYT was singled out was because it fires up the conservative base to light up their torches. The WSJ just doesn't evoke the same battle cry.

Sorry, no banana on that one. The WSJ published the story with approval and blessing from the Treasury Department. They were part of a press briefing the Department conducted as a result of the NYT informing them that they were publishing the story and when it would be published. The Treasury Dept. wanted to try and counter some of the "spin" that they knew would come out in the NYT piece and wanted their side of the story out too. If the NYT hadn't run with their piece, there would have been no Treasury briefing and no WSJ piece. The story broke solely at the whim of the NYT.... Thus they are taking the political flak.

 

[eclectics]

Sorry, no banana on that one. The WSJ published the story with approval and blessing from the Treasury Department. They were part of a press briefing the Department conducted as a result of the NYT informing them that they were publishing the story and when it would be published. The Treasury Dept. wanted to try and counter some of the "spin" that they knew would come out in the NYT piece and wanted their side of the story out too. If the NYT hadn't run with their piece, there would have been no Treasury briefing and no WSJ piece. The story broke solely at the whim of the NYT.... Thus they are taking the political flak.

The WSJ and the LAT both said they were going to print regardless. The blessing, permission, or whatever you want to call it was a moot point from the get go.

 

[Charade]

It's so funny you say that, because I see it the exact opposite. I see ya'll as generally stupid and dishonest. Look at this thread and this post as an example

Boy, you're really batting the insults out of the park tonight. Nice work.

 

[Charade]

The WSJ and the LAT both said they were going to print regardless. The blessing, permission, or whatever you want to call it was a moot point from the get go.

So the leaker was triple dipping buy selling the story to 3 newspapers??

 

[Geoff_M]

The WSJ and the LAT both said they were going to print regardless. The blessing, permission, or whatever you want to call it was a moot point from the get go.

You're right about the LAT... The other half of the "Times Two". See if you can spot the difference:

The Times Two published their stories against the Governements wishes... The WSJ published theirs after being told about the program during a Treasury briefing triggered by the Times Two telling the Administration to "pucker up!"

The Times Two developed their stories during a lengthy investigation that used anonymous sources in off-the-record interviews... The WSJ write the story using named officials, who knew the Times Two stories were about to break, at on-the-record interviews.

The Times Two were asked by the Administration to not blow their covert, legal, and effective program... The Administration, having been told "Sorry, Charlie... we're blowing the program!" by the Times Two, told the WSJ to run the story in an effort to set the record straight in their eyes.

I think an average person would find those differences less than trivial.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

You're right about the LAT... The other half of the "Times Two". See if you can spot the difference:

The Times Two published their stories against the Governements wishes... The WSJ published theirs after being told about the program during a Treasury briefing triggered by the Times Two telling the Administration to "pucker up!"

The Times Two developed their stories during a lengthy investigation that used anonymous sources in off-the-record interviews... The WSJ write the story using named officials, who knew the Times Two stories were about to break, at on-the-record interviews.

The Times Two were asked by the Administration to not blow their covert, legal, and effective program... The Administration, having been told "Sorry, Charlie... we're blowing the program!" by the Times Two, told the WSJ to run the story in an effort to set the record straight in their eyes.

I think an average person would find those differences less than trivial.

Very well said.

The NYT, the "Terrorists' Paper of Record."

 

[dcentity2000]

To be honest, if you disagree with the philosophies of a newspaper, that's as far as it goes - doesn't automatically make them terrorists

Now, if there was a Jihad Times calling for all brothers in arms to join the holy army in a struggle against a country that's very different to yours, that would be a different matter.



Rich::

 

[TCPluto]

The only reason the NYT was singled out was because it fires up the conservative base to light up their torches. The WSJ just doesn't evoke the same battle cry. Even the Republican pundits couldn't keep a straight face trying to deny this one. Just add it to the Flag Burning, Gay Marriage, and all the other "pressing" issues the congress has decided needs immediate attention before election day.

Nice attempt at the spin, it's just factually completely false!

Do not, for any reason, let the facts get in the way of your agenda. Just keep doing, and hoping for, anything that can put our troops in harms way.

 

[Galahad]

The likes????

I've never made a comment like that.

Oh for cryin' out loud! I didn't "make a comment like that" either!

 

[Charade]

Oh for cryin' out loud! I didn't "make a comment like that" either!

I posted my response before I read all of yours. Sorry. But I still don't like being accused of something like that as much as you do.

But honestly, that's the impression I got when I read your reply. I know different now.

No worries!!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Do not, for any reason, let the facts get in the way of your agenda. Just keep doing, and hoping for, anything that can put our troops in harms way.

So sayeth The Limbaugh Letter...so let it be written, so let it be told!

Can we please get back to Rush's "Impotent Neo-con's Go Wild" weekend?!?! I wonder who had to pay more for the company of the Dominican prostitutes: el Blob-o or the goat? I'd have to guess that the smart money's on Rush paying the lion's share.

 

[georgia4now]

So sayeth The Limbaugh Letter...so let it be written, so let it be told!

Can we please get back to Rush's "Impotent Neo-con's Go Wild" weekend?!?! I wonder who had to pay more for the company of the Dominican prostitutes: el Blob-o or the goat? I'd have to guess that the smart money's on Rush paying the lion's share.

Wow. Rush really gets to you doesnt he? There's no way he could incite that much malice in you unless he really chips away at your core lib beliefs and makes you doubt yourself.

I have not listened to Rush in years, but I will today! You hate him that much and he doesnt even know you exist! I love it!

 

[georgia4now]

It's so funny you say that, because I see it the exact opposite. I see ya'll as generally stupid and dishonest. Look at this thread and this post as an example

I say you are lakcing in wit, you say I am stupid and dishonest. Thanks for proving my point!




--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

To be honest, if you disagree with the philosophies of a newspaper, that's as far as it goes - doesn't automatically make them terrorists

Need I remind anyone of the "You're either with us or against us" speech. Our beloved President set the tone for those kind of ridiculous attacks from the right.
Sad really, seeing that our Constitution actually protects us from our own government, and sets not only Congress and the Judiciary as watch dogs to preserve the Union from an imperial president, but a free press as well. Somehow, because of 9/11, President Bush has convinced his diehard worshipers that to save us all from evildoers, he can basically do whatever, whenever with no oversight, and the rest of us should just shut up and take it.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Wow. Rush really gets to you doesnt he? There's no way he could incite that much malice in you unless he really chips away at your core lib beliefs and makes you doubt yourself.

Uh...no. Just like laughing at him and those of you who seem to get so irritated that I'm picking on el Blob-o...but thanks for the therapy session, Dr. Freud.
Actually, using your simplistic logic, since you're jumping to poor Rush's defense, you must be in love with him. Got your Rush Limbaugh limited edition blowup doll full inflated and ready for action this morning, do you?

 

[DawnCt1]

To be honest, if you disagree with the philosophies of a newspaper, that's as far as it goes - doesn't automatically make them terrorists

Now, if there was a Jihad Times calling for all brothers in arms to join the holy army in a struggle against a country that's very different to yours, that would be a different matter.



Rich::

The NYTs did not write the article to expound on their philosophy or editorially disagree with the war, the Bush administration or government policies. In writing the article they revealed top secret information that totally compromised a very effective program of blocking terrorists funds. The same kind of funds that blew up the WTC, that bombed the London subways, that promote terror around the world. They compromised those bankers and those countries that cooperated in that program. They put those individuals who cooperated at serious risk and made them all potential targets for Al Queda. So it isn't a matter of, are you for us or against us. Its a matter of providing critical information to the enemy in a time of war. It was shameful.

 

[georgia4now]

Uh...no. Just like laughing at him and those of you who seem to get so irritated that I'm picking on el Blob-o...but thanks for the therapy session, Dr. Freud.
Actually, using your simplistic logic, since you're jumping to poor Rush's defense, you must be in love with him. Got your Rush Limbaugh limited edition blowup doll full inflated and ready for action this morning, do you?

"el Blob-o, Dr. Freud, blow up doll"... your posts speak for themselves, (make it through the 7th grade yet, cool guy?) and so do mine. You'll recall I said he was in the wrong. You on the other hand are either obsessed with hating Rush or an ornery agitator. Either way, you are very entertaining...like Rush.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

The NYTs did not write the article to expound on their philosophy or editorially disagree with the war, the Bush administration or government policies. In writing the article they revealed top secret information that totally compromised a very effective program of blocking terrorists funds. The same kind of funds that blew up the WTC, that bombed the London subways, that promote terror around the world. They compromised those bankers and those countries that cooperated in that program. They put those individuals who cooperated at serious risk and made them all potential targets for Al Queda. So it isn't a matter of, are you for us or against us. Its a matter of providing critical information to the enemy in a time of war. It was shameful.

But Dawn, can you not see that some of us feel what's shameful is that this Administration simply didn't go through the proper channels for Congressional/Judicial oversight to see if the program was legal under the Constitution? If they would have, this entire situation could have been avoided. President Bush bears much of the responsiblity for not taking the legal steps to protect and defend the Constitution, as he promised when he took the oath of office. Hell, the man's got secret courts that he can take this kind of operation to get the proper warrants, and he blows them off as well. That's why this whole operation doesn't sit well with many Dems and some Republicans.

 

[yeartolate]

In writing the article they revealed top secret information that totally compromised a very effective program of blocking terrorists funds.

Although this is not the point, didn't you already ASSUME we were tracking their funds in any way we could? I would have thought that this would have been one oftheir first actions.

 

[DawnCt1]

Although this is not the point, didn't you already ASSUME we were tracking their funds in any way we could? I would have thought that this would have been one oftheir first actions.

It was well known that we were tracking their funds. That wasn't the secret. The precise methods, the countries, banks, etc involved was top secret and seriously compromised the program if not, down right destroyed it.