Does the New York Times Wish the President Dead?

Toogood Reports ^ | 1 December 2003 | Nicholas Stix

[Quix]

LESS

SLAGGED

SLAVE/SERFS

are easier to manage for the globalist power mongers . . . among whom, Shrillery is one of the most rabid.

[eleni121]

You may be right...there are fools in the military too.

[Paleo Conservative]

Does the New York Times Wish the President Dead?

Yes!

They would also wish everyone who voted for President Bush dead too.

[Cagey]

...there are fools in the military too.

Don't ask, don't tell.

[arasina]

Toogood Reports really are! Excellent.

[Prodigal Son]

It isn't just the President's life that would have been in danger if the trip had been announced. It would have been the troops on the ground trying to eat their Thanksgiving dinner. I think it is obvious it would've been a disaster. The jihadis would have had an enormous incentive to attack with great numbers all gatherings of troops everywhere in Iraq in the hopes of killing the President.

[MarkL]

Is this a rhetorical question? Of course they (the editorial board of the New York Times) do!

Mark

[luvbach1]

Good job Leni. In summary: Good news for America is bad news for the libs. True more than ever before!

[vpintheak]

Yes they do, and all the rest of the cowardly leftists do too. Oh yeah, you can darn well bet those gays that joined the Army just to get caught getting it on were not in an Infantry Basic Training. There wouldn't have been much left of them if they were. The sickness and depravity of the left amazes me.

[John Lenin]

The New York Times was left out of the loop.

[livius]

One picture is worth (etc.) And six pictures really get the point across!

[vladog]

I wish the NY Times would just go away. Sadly like Fat Willy & The Thing they will just go on and on and on and.................................

[Pharmboy]

And, IIRC, didn't the Times publish an absoeffinlutely insane editorial a day or two afetr 9-11 yelling at Bush for flying around in AF1 and not letting them know where he was?

[mrustow]

And, IIRC, didn't the Times publish an absoeffinlutely insane editorial a day or two afetr 9-11 yelling at Bush for flying around in AF1 and not letting them know where he was?

They tried to make it look like he panicked, ignoring the fact that it was his national security duty in such a situation, to engage in evasive action.

[mrustow]

I think you'll want to see this.

[nicmarlo]

And it was not his prefernce to fly around....he allowed his security to dictate that he remain in flight for a period of time, until he had enough of that...to their protest.

[wolficatZ]

 

 

.

          Arthur Sulzberger Jr

 

Tom Rosenstiel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       Richard Berke

[Pharmboy]

Of course; the Times threw a hissy fit then just as now.

Can anyone imagine them complaining about x42 for something similar? That sumb*tch held up air traffic at LAX for a haircut and they were silent...

[NJJ]

There were also cries from the left that Bush did not meet with the people of Baghdad (showing cowardice?). Had the word gotten out that he was at the airport, is there any doubt that the bad guys would have initiated an impromptu, all out, get him at any cost, attack with any weapons available effort? Even if it did not get Bush, can you imagine the number of innocent lives that would have been lost. The need for secrecy was to save more than just Bush's life.

[mrustow]

Wow! Great work!