Chew on this: if NYT had released SPY story 1 yr ago, Kerry would be Pres

The thought of it makes me REAL mad at the New York Times.
The fact that * tried to have the story suppressed proves his guilt.

First time was concerning Libby and the Plame Story. Had Judith Miller given his name when Fitzgerald asked for it, it would have changed a lot of things as well.

You can wonder what was the Times' agenda.

report it if it were happening. i lost friends insisting they were being uninformed and to go out and get info before they voted. oh no, the news wouldn't do that. brother just a couple nights ago with a comment from bush in 1988, the news would have had it. the affairs of bush 1 and 2, oh the news would have it

BULLSHIT

yes, we knew then and certainly know now, the news is culpable

really and the realization that Kerry would be president took about 2 seconds to sink in when this story was released.

Wake up America time to IMPEACH!

i think's an important question that requires an answer. in public.

...didn't even occur to me.

Recommended.

...might be a good way to protest their editorial decisions.

any business who places ads with the rag.

How much different would the world be today if NYT had run that story promptly? How many lives not lost? How many lives not ruined? How many rights not trampled?

Boycott NYT advertisers? Might be something to let them think about.

How dare they decide what is appropriate for us and what is not? When did we ask the MSM to screen our news?

All the news thats fit to print - Bah. When did they discard the word 'All'?

The Emperor's New Hump
The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election --
because it could have changed the election

By Dave Lindorff


continued....
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012

Why didn't Kerry himself make that an issue? Wouldn't he have been close enough to Shrub to see it? Why didn't he expose him right there on the spot?

the RW'ers think the NYT is a nest of lefties and liberals.

I am not sure that your average American cares about this as much as your average DUer.

That's why it was so negligent of them not to print stories that are detrimental toward bush before the election. They ended up calling the shots. A newspaper simply should not wield that much power, to decide what we know and what we don't know.

Try to imagine how ignorant all of us would be now without the Internet. We would never know the extent of the culture of corruption.

I just have yet to see evidence of most Americans caring about this issue. I think most Americans say "well, they won't spy on ME so who cares?" and go back to reading People Magazine or whatever. Regardless, NYT should have reported it, and we should keep the issue alive in MSM.

But, addressing the issue of whether the average American cares or not, I believe they do care, very much. After all, if bush decides he can break the law and spy on us, what's to keep him from imposing martial law and taking away our guns if he thinks it's his duty to do so to "protect" us?

That's how I would frame it. And if people say he would never do that, well, there were lots of good German people who were surrounded by fascists before they knew what had hit them.

And they didn't TRY to have the story supressed, they did have it supressed.

I have made my opinion on this known...I do not blame the NYT for respecting a request to withold information for national security reasons. I blame the Bush admin for making the request, but media needs to respect such requests.

Kudos to the NYT for continuing to pursue the story and deciding that it can be released without compromising national security.

a war on terriers holding us all hostile. They'd likely have given him the benefit of the doubt.

That was half a dozen major scandals, some obviously anti American legislation, and the loss of a major US city ago.

They're not in a forgiving mood right now.

Hindsight is 20/20. Many voted for the walking human escrament cause they felt he was "strong on defense" and Kerry was weak. Look at how many wingnuts are drooling all over themselves to applaud this regime for admitting its criminality.

Yes, a year ago, we were barely at 1,000 dead and the scope of the dead-end nature of this invasion wasn't obvious to that many people. There were many who thought the "insurgents" were in "death-throes" and were more scared shit about having some A-rab fly an airplane into their building than their own civil liberties.

Also, there really weren't any major blots on this regime. The corporate media whitewash was so solid, dust would show up. Terri Schaivo ended all that. It unleashed the right wing hate machine to go completely off the logic and human radar...so that anything they said in the past is "in-operative" and their concept of "rule of law" now is as solid as mercury. Many who had no reason to be concerned with abuse of power and a tilt too far in one direction suddenly saw a Congress and Executive willing to stick their noses in private life and death decisions...and other very basic civil liberties. The seed was planted.

Plame showed this regime would break laws and destroy lives to get even with their opponents and enemies, foreign and domestic. Be damned if it's a CIA agent...this rivaled the best work of the plumbers during Watergate. And while we're on that sorid topic, the latest outrage of spying on citizens rings of the Enemies List. We're just learning about these abuses...it'll take years for the extent and scope to be understood.

Right now, without any real political power, Democrats are best served to keep handing rope and work within to create a positive message that can be taken to 435 Congressional Districts this fall and make the most important change we can. It was the Gingrich "revolution" of '94 that started this country on the road to ruin...it'll require retaking the House to start on the road back to sanity.

Cheers...

Repeat after me............John Kerry IS PRESIDENT, preceded by Al Gore. Bush has never been the LEGAL POTUS !! (for all intents and purposes) But I agree he would have won by a higher margin if the press had been more forthright! Love ya anyway!:banghead: DC

you are absolutley 100% spot on Big John.

control of people who wanted *, so * is pRes.

No Dem candidate can win under any circumstances unless the votes are cast and counted fairly.

...they can fiddle their dials as much as they want, when a big enough majority votes against the Chimp, and exit polls show -huge- majorities for Kerry, what do you think will happen if Stupid is declared the winner?

A year ago would have been in the last days of the election. Would have liked to see Stupid get all choked up trying to explain it away.

:bounce:

- 75% or more, and they had stolen the election, then they would have been more likely to have been detected. They still could have stolen it - it is *just* as easy to electronically turn a 70/30 vote into a 30/70 vote as it is to turn a 48/52 into a 52/48.

When a little over half (?) of the population votes we are unlikely to 'detect' even the most obvious fraud.

IMHO, they would have Swiftboated them just like they did to 60 minutes.... Both true storied but one was abled to be Swiftboated before the election.

have so much faith in them, now not so much. I don't want to pay for someone to lie to me, I can turn on a Whitehouse Press Briefing and get it for free. I don't mind paying for insight and information, I just ask that it is truthful, and informative. I'm not getting another subscription until they're back on the wagon for good. I'm really pissed about the situation my country is in, and I'm even more pissed that they could have prevented it.

I really do. x(

Somehow any such events fail me.

a story like that - i think there's going to be a big problem... unless the NYT comes out with it soon. very soon.

:kick: :dem:

No doubt NYT sat on it to help W, but ultimately, the BFEE stole it anyway.

Which is where our brush-hog cowboy is heading.

not want Kerry for Prez..they'd rather go with a deranged chimp..go figure.

gave me the inspiration to go ahead and email the Times with a complaint.
Thanks,
emdee

...another deep sixed column that could have swung the election.

My note to the NYT:

The NYT has lost its credibility. Once, the Grey Lady was a beacon of truth,
and now it has become a mouthpiece for the most corrupt administration in U.S.
history. Judy Miller, Jason Blair, the delayed NSA story... I shudder to think
what lies I have read and believed in your pages.

There are no epithets adequate to describe my revulsion at the groveling
obeisance the Times has fallen to. FUCK YOU, your newspaper, your website,
magazine, reporters, journalists, editorial board, advertisers, printers,
deliverymen, and all who have anything to do with your sad-ass, piece-of-shit
asswipe of a publication.

Post 9/11, I was an avid West Coast reader of the NYT. No more. I've been had.

I fart in your general direction.

LFR

Without Katrina and another year of failure in Iraq, I bet Bush would be riding high in the polls even if his thugs were caught red handed raping Quaker peace activists' babies.