Oh yeah, if it is true that the President has done that, he needs to be impeached and removed ASAP. Right now, though, it seems to be rumor and speculation. I certainly hope it isn't true.
via TMP cafe Note from Flynt Leverett: Most Important Parts of Bush Speech About Iran -- Not Iraq I asked former CIA and Bush administration National Security Council senior official Flynt Leverett for a quick summary of his thoughts on President Bush's Address to the Nation. Here is Flynt Leverett's response: Leverett's views are consistent with many others I have spoken to over the last day. He has also been in a battle with National Security Council staff who have insinuated themselves in the "secrets clearing process" managed by the CIA Publications Review Board. Here is Flynt Leverett's and HIllary Mann Leverett's recent op-ed in the New York Times that was published with the CIA's "blacked out"/redacted lines. What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/opinion/22precede.html?ex=1168750800&en=ba85b0b9d0bcf81c&ei=5070
From Andrew Sullivan, of all people... John Burns provides, as usual, indispensable analysis. But this paragraph, buried by the NYT, leapt out at me this morning: If this is the case, this president is lying to us once again. It's one lie too far. If all of this is a ruse to depose Maliki and attack Iran, the constitutional consequences of a runaway, duplicitous president are profound. http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2007/01/meanwhile_in_ba.html
With all due respect, McMark, a great many readers -- including me -- rate the credibility index of the N.Y. Times right up there with the National Inquirer. One never knows what is true and what they are making up as they go.
Didn't he just bomb Somalia without Congressional Approval? He can do the same thing to Iran and Syria if he feels like.
The NY Times and the Enquirer? You can equate the credibility of the two if you like. But it is the same as saying that a Danielle Steel novel is as great a work of fiction as Don Quixote. The Times isn't perfect but they have a far better record of being accurate and insightful than papers such as the NY Post, the Washington Times, or Fox News. You can look at a tree and say you don't believe it is a tree, but that doesn't make it so. It also doesn't mean that folks should accomodate you with that opinion.
As the honorable Senator from New York, Daniel P Moynihan once quipped "You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." God bless em'
the nuclear winter is part of Bush's envirmental program, it will help to off set the affects of Global Warming.
This is so appropriate for the N.Y. Times! FranchiseBlade: The New York Times is responsible for its own loss of credibility. The Times once was a mighty oak, but now its just a weeping willow in comparison with its former stature. Don't shoot the messenger.
You might be able to argue that it doesn't map up to its former stature but to compare it to the Enquirer when it is far more reputable than most other news agencies is laughable.
Have you never heard of hyperbole? Besides, the Times has become laughable because they never let facts get in the way of a good story!
Yeah, I'm sure the Times is looking over it's shoulder and worried about that bastion of critical reporting, the Houston Chronicle. thumbs do you read the Times? Or just parrot Fox news talking points? Anyway, if you don't want to believe the Times, just go to PNAC's website. I'm sue you can find all the info you want there about the neocon plans for Iran.
Iraq war is just a stepping stone to destroy Iran govt. These 20,000 + troops are going to get there.. Israel will start it by bombing their facilities.
No argument on the Chronicle point. On the second, I no longer read the New York Times. Although I do watch Fox News, I also watch MSNBC, CNBC and HDLN. Also, whereas I do read The Houston Chronicle, I also read four other regional newspapers and AP wire to get perspective of viewpoints around the country. I admit I had to google to find out what PNAC is -- not my kind of website.
index. a very small pre-scripted text with blanks where you can insert countries and peoples names and rinse and repeat.
In defense of thumbs, besides Reuters, it's the best news wire left. Think of it as being similar to a news reader in Britain, who doesn't have flashy graphics, pulsing lights, a "cute" face, perky smile, and little else but an empty suit with cleavage (or not). Like thumbs, I get my news from a wide variety of sources. Unlike thumbs, I read the Times, but agree that it, like Time Magazine, is a shadow of what it once was. In my opinion, it may be a shadow of what it was, but the present state of print media allows it to tower over most of it's competition. D&D. More news Equals an Opinion based on broader Source Material.
