Conservative Posters call for the murder of NYT's editor, reporters

Yeah but wouldn't people in general be better off?

 

Who knows. They might be under a benvolent but all powerful leader at first. But if the new leader was different, or the old one changed then no they wouldn't be.

If security was the only thing that mattered they might be. But if freedoms really matter then they wouldn't be. Some people might want or be willing to liven under that kind of leadership. For them they might be better off. For others of us we prefer our freedom, and oversight, and value our voice.

 

Its all the same government. The government you don't trust spending your money is the same one secretly surveilling you.

 

Al Qaeda isn't limited to the Middle East. The idea that by fighting in the Middle East contains Al Qaeda doesn't work. Just look at what happened in Madrid, London, and recently the group busted in Toronto.

 

Yep.

I think it could work under a system with no executive branch.

Republic?

 

It's not that I don't trust.. it's that I don't want.

 

The burning of the Reichstag was a deliberate, political act of terrorism by Hitler's Nazis to enable them to seize power, and was blamed on communists and Jews, which was used by the same group to brutalize them and seize their property, as well as "rally" Germany behind Hitler and his party, against the dastardly "enemies of the state." Cold blooded lies used to get a grip on power and to discredit those "enemies," when the real enemies were, of course, Hitler and his party.

The attack on the World Trade Center was a deliberate, political act of terrorism used, in my opinion, not only to attack the so-called "Great Satan," but to spur the United States into acts that would promote the political agenda of the terrorist group behind them. I think they were hoping for a reaction like Bush gave them with Iraq, but never dreaming Iraq would be the target. I don't think they wanted Afghanistan invaded, and may not have realized we would do such a thing, and pull it off. After all, the USSR had had a disastrous war and occupation there, not that long ago, so they may have felt relatively secure from anything more than air strikes and special forces raids. Big mistake, and the one act by George W. Bush that I have supported.

To their amazement, Bush invaded and occupied Iraq, an act they must have thought highly unlikely. Almost all the 9/11 actors were from Saudi Arabia. Their main bases and training facilities were in Afghanistan. Why on earth would the Bush Administration invade Iraq? It didn't make sense. Sadly, it played into their hands beautifully, from their perspective. Instability in the Middle East. A huge percentage of the American military bogged down fighting Muslims. Thousands and thousands of people radicalized by the death and maiming of relatives and friends in Iraq, and tens of thousands enraged by the occupation of an Arab state in the heart of the Middle East. Radical groups like al-Queda must be delighted with the resultant chaos and damage to the United States and it's interests around the world... serious damage to Israel's strongest ally.

Meanwhile, here at home, we see the deliberate, political act of the Bush Administration to use the conflicts resulting from 9/11, and 9/11 itself, to justify an assault on our Constitution, an assault on the separation of powers that has, because of Republican control of Congress and their supine response, gone unchecked. We've seen lies and deliberate distortions, as well as fear, being used to keep a grip on power in our own country.

The more the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress continue these policies of distorting traditional American policies abroad, and promoting division based on fear, lies, and distortions at home, unchecked, the more we lose of ourselves as a country, a country that is a beacon to most of the world for hope and freedom, and for a future anchored on the rights of the individual, regardless of the power of the state. Rights anchored by that unique document, the Constitution of the United States. That unique document that is, today, under assault by an Administration and Congress out of control.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

This board is an example of why we have the first amendment.

I'm withholding my main reaction to this, btw.

 

Bush administration previously told reporters FAR MORE about US efforts to track terrorist finances than the NYT reported last week
This is what we call explosive stuff. Reporters are coming forward to document just how much the Bush administration already told journalists about their supposedly super secret spying they do on financial records in order to catch terrorists. We now know that the Bush administration already told reporters FAR MORE about this program than anything the New York Times reported last week. Yet Bush and his surrogates are accusing the NYT of treason.

Well, get in line. It appears the Bush White House is once again at the head of the line when it comes to making classified leaks.

 

I'm not sure why you quoted me to say all that.... Anyway, I agree with you.

 

Video showing W putting his foot in his mouth ...

Keith Strikes Back Against NYTimes Bashers

Enjoy.

 

I guess should stop being amazed when the whitehouse makes up crisis that don't really exist.

That is hilarious that not only did SWIFT have a public website, they also had a magazine that people could subscribe too.

I wonder if any future pro-franchise teams will be playing in SWIFT stadium, or if there will be a college Swift.com bowl in the future.

I feel bad for people like basso who bought into the hoopla surrounding the attack on the Times, only to end up standing their with nothing to complain about. The administration lead them on on a wild goose chase, and they bought it. I would get tired of that happening to me if I were a Bush supporter. You would think that at some point they would say enough is enough.

 

This is so clearly just a staged attack to intimidate the the Press and punish the NY Times. I'm sure they got an attack plan together and was just waiting to use the next time the Times reported on something the Admin could claim endandered national security.

Have noticed how the Wall Street Journal has gotten a free ride on this, and the LA Times to a lesser extent.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606270010

Coulter: "[T]he safest place for Osama bin Laden" is "in the New York Times building"


Melanie Morgan, radio talk show host: "I see it as treason, plain and simple, and my advice to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at this point in time is chop-chop, hurry up, let's get these prosecutors fired up and get the subpoenas served, get the indictments going, and get these guys [Keller and The New York Times] behind jail

William Kristol, editor, The Weekly Standard: "I think the Justice Department has an obligation to consider prosecution. ... This isn't a partisan thing of the Bush administration. This is a U.S. government secret program in a time of war, willfully exposed for no good reason by The New York Times." [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, 6/25/06]


L. Brent Bozell III, president, Media Research Center: "The New York Times needs to be reminded ... that on September 11, 2001, something really awful happened right down the street from the newspaper. ... And the last thing we need is The New York Times aiding and abetting the terrorist movement. And that's exactly what they're doing by divulging these secrets." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 6/27/06]


Rush Limbaugh, syndicated radio host: "I think 80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists. If you look at The New York Times and the kind of stories they're leaking and running and the information they're getting, it's clear that they're trying to help the terrorists. They're trying to help the jihadists." Limbaugh added that he thought that "80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists." According to the latest circulation statistics, the Times sells more than 690,000 copies of its daily edition, and more than 1.1 million subscribers to its Sunday edition, via home delivery. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/27/06]

Andrew McCarthy, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies: "Yet again, The New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda. Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda." ["The Media's War Against the War Continues," National Review Online, 6/23/06]

Newt Gingrich, former House speaker (R-GA) and Fox News political analyst: "You would think that The New York Times, located on the same island where the World Trade Center once existed, would have some residual memory of 9-11. You'd think that The New York Times ... would have some sense of survival. ... [M]y sense is that they hate George W. Bush so much that they would be prepared to cripple America in order to go after the president." [Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, 6/26/06]
Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report senior writer: "Why do they hate us? Why does the Times print stories that put America more at risk of attack? ... We have a press that is at war with an administration, while our country is at war against merciless enemies. The Times is acting like an adolescent kicking the shins of its parents, hoping to make them hurt while confident of remaining safe under their roof. But how safe will we remain when our protection depends on the Times?" ["Why do "they" hate us?" syndicated column, 6/26/06]
Morton M. Kondracke, Roll Call executive editor: "And for God's sake, The New York Times ought to look down the street and remember where 9-11 happened. It really happened in New York City, you know? And they act as though it never happened." [Fox News' The Beltway Boys, 6/24/06]
Heather McDonald, contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute's City Journal: "By now it's undeniable: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives." ["National Security Be Damned," The Weekly Standard, July 3 issue]

 

Sadly because the charge of disclosing classified information has been exposed as a completely phony attack on the NY TIMES, everyone who bought into the administration's plan comes out looking all the more foolish. All of those people quoted ended up looking petty and willing to jump the gun.

I am glad that at least people in the media had the professionalism to check the facts, provide oversight, and expose this as the trumped up hogwash that it turned out to be.

 

Conservatives are rallying their base by publisizing gay marriage bans, flag burning, illegal immigration, liberal media aka NYT, etc.

Nothing to see here, move along.

 

Did you know that Bill O'Reilly's ratings were higher than Keith Olbermann's were last week?

 

So Rush's radio listeners have finally figured out how to operate a TV? Shocking!!!

 

Nah.....they were all at the pharmacy getting their Viagra prescriptions refilled (under someone else's name....privacy protection, ya know) and booking their sex tourist trips to the Dominican Republic.