Did the NYTimes make a deal with the "leaker"?

As part of the deal, they would not expose the information for a year? Why? Because the person (leaker) may have still been in the government at that time? Isn't that a possibility?

Colin Powell

it was intentional - disinformation as in - look over there (so they won't look here). Don't know how accurate of a report it is - but suggesting they were given the okay by the administration.

me at all that the NYT was involved in some kind of bait and switch on their behalf. Could you give more detail? What was being baited/switched? Related to the ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR new "defense" appropriation (for which ANWR, I think, is the diversion)? Torture? Rendition? Something WORSE than spying on Americans?

I actually think there's a "cartel" behind the "cartel"--a government that is running Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice. Perhaps just the parties to Cheney's secret energy meetings. (He wasn't meeting with them. THEY were meeting with HIM.). Anyway, that's who I really mean--the backroom "cartel"--that the NYT is taking its orders from. Oil and war profiteering interests. And I was thinking today that the orders were to REMOVE Bush, Cheney & Co., get them impeached; their usefulness is over, and they are balking at being removed. They were "the hammer" (completely unscrupulous as to lying and war crimes) to get the entire US military machine into the Middle East, but now the war profiteers need a War Democrat to competently administer a widened war, get the Halliburton/CACI, etc. looting under control, get a military Draft (which Bush can't do), and prepare for "Gulf of Tonkin II" --the excuse to invade Iran and Syria.

OR, that the Bushites have something on the NYT managers/owners (re: Miller's skulduggery, AIPAC/Franklin, 9/11, who knows? Something ba-a-a-d, that will completely discredit them. And they are moving to counter it by trying to get Bush/Cheney impeached (who will believe their smear of the NYT when they are in the dock?).

Or maybe both things are true. Bush/Cheney too dirty and too greedy to carry out the whole war plan, AND they've got something on the Times (among their many NSA and other dossiers), which the Times is trying to head off or mitigate or cover up.

Thieves, murderers, traitors, the whole lot of them.

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

Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

for your perusal - who knows, but I think you've probably got it all about right in your thread.

http://rense.com/general69/nbc.htm

http://rense.com/general69/trst.htm

http://rense.com/general69/more.htm

Here's a link to "supposedly" all the Executive Orders issued by GWB.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/

I admit, I didn't look at each one, but I checked 2002 after Sept and I didn't see anything that could be interpreted as OK to spying.

Can Shrub issue EO's that aren't on this list?

This from a story on msnbc on Friday:
"The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10473310/

I see Christmas continuing all through 2006. Investigations--the gift that keeps on giving.