Posted on 12/17/2005 8:12:48 PM PST by baystaterebel
A Republican senator on Saturday accused The New York Times of endangering American security to sell a book by waiting until the day of the terror-fighting Patriot Act reauthorization to report that the government has eavesdropped on people without court-approved warrants.
''At least two senators that I heard with my own ears cited this as a reason why they decided to vote to not allow a bipartisan majority to reauthorize the Patriot Act,'' said Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. ''Well, as it turns out the author of this article turned in a book three months ago and the paper, The New York Times, failed to reveal that the urgent story was tied to a book release and its sale by its author.''
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
GOD bless President Bush, our troops, and America.
Has to be done.
Also who on the Senate Intelligence Committee has been leaking this national security stuff and when do they get put in jail?
I'm from NY and have called Sen. Cornyn office several times to thank him for speaking out...
But you should be apprised of the fact that not only has the N.Y. Slimes lost a massive amount of readership, but that their advertising is also waaaaaaaaay down too. :-)
The United States is not in a state of war. Everyone clamoring for President Bush to use the war power must understand that Congress did not declare war on Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, or Iraq, and that the use of the war power to punish our domestic enemies is not possible without that.
I'm beginning to like Cornyn more and more.
It would be better if every advertiser immediately pulled all the ads.....by associating with the NYTimes, the advertisers are as equally traitorous as the Times itself.
Was at it's profile page when it was banned...what a shame, didn't even get to call the Viking Kitties to play with a moonbat!
"This is all crap."
Thanks for cutting to the real issue. /s
"I think it's a crying shame ... that we find that America's safety is endangered by the potential expiration of the Patriot Act in part because a newspaper has seen fit to release on the night before the vote on the floor on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act as part of a marketing campaign for selling a book," Cornyn said.
GOTCHA SLIMES !!!
that may be technically true, although I think a good argument can be made that ever since WW2, the Congressional declaration of war has been superceded by the War Powers Act and Authorizations for use of force. They're de facto the same thing, if not de jure. For whatever reason, the United States no longer declares war on anyone, it's become an outdated/obsolete notion. Nowadays, the Congress just authorizes the use of force, it's the same thing.
Nah that happened a long time ago. 1971, Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg was the "leaker", but the NYT published them.
You could not be more wrong.
First of all, it is the People of the United States who declare war, acting through their representatives in Congress assembled.
Here's the punch line of the December 8, 1941 declaration: " the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."
"All the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress..."
THAT is precisely what has been missing from our military actions since June 25, 1950, and it is also what is missing in Iraq today.
By George, I think we finally found a Republican with a spine!
Cornyn for Majority Leader? Or at least NRSC chairman? Maybe he can find some other Senators With A Spine.
"The New York Times is America's Al Jazeera."
That's a spot on statement.
Very unfortunately, news outlets around the world think that the Slimes is gospel...
I can't escape it: I was in a taxi yesterday evening, and Channel News Asia was selected on mobile TV, and the "news" story started out "According to the New York Times, the Bush Administration..." [blah, blah, blah]; I had to get the cab driver to turn it off.
Jayson Blair was unavailable for comment.
>Time we did something about the Times.<
God forbid, should another terroristic act happen in this country, we would sue the NYT and the author of the treasonous book they are advertising.
Are heads ever gonna roll over this garbage? The Slimes and other fishwraps continue to print hateful, treasonous bile again and again and again. Nothing happens.
* James Risen, NY Times :
In what has to be the sleaziest attempt yet by the New York Times to attack the Bush administration, Sunday's edition quoted a host of unidentified Clintonite sources in the CIA as claiming the administration was pressuring the agency to slant intelligence analysis to bolster their policies on Iraq.
In a lengthy hatchet job by someone named James Risen, not one single source is named. And in one instance, a vitally important fact is omitted, creating a completely false impression unfriendly to the administration.
The story hinged on "the recent disclosure that reports claiming Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger were based partly on forged documents." This, the Times reports, "has renewed complaints among analysts at the CIA about the way intelligence related to Iraq has been handled," but the so-called analysts are never once identified.
According to the Times, "The forged documents were not created by the CIA or any other United States government agency," but the Times fails to note their source.
Moreover, anonymous CIA officials, the Times claims, were always suspicious of the documents. What the Times failed to report that source of the documents is known, a fact disclosed by the Washington Post, which revealed that they "came to British and U.S. intelligence officials from a third country." The Post added that the identity of the third country, however, was not known.
The Times article also neglects to report if any of the allegedly suspicious anonymous CIA analysts ever related their alleged suspicions to the White House or anyone else.
The Times goes on to report that these anonymous sources claim that for months a few anonymous CIA analysts have been "privately" voicing concerns to colleagues and congressional officials that they have been pressured to emphasize links between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda in writing their intelligence reports.
"Several people have told me how distraught they have been about what has been going on," one anonymous government official, who said he had talked with several CIA analysts, allegedly told the Times. Not surprisingly, the Times says that the anonymous government official claimed that none of the anonymous analysts are willing to talk directly to news organizations.
Another anonymous senior CIA official told the Times that none of the agency's analysts has told CIA management "that they were resigning in protest over the handling of Iraqi intelligence." The Times then informs its readers that at the State Department, "by contrast, three foreign service officers have resigned in protest over Mr. Bush's policies."
The same anonymous official is said to have told the Times that some anonymous analysts felt frustration because administration officials had frequently been asked the same questions over and over again about their intelligence reports concerning Iraq. Many of these questions concern sourcing, the official said, adding that the anonymous official admitted, however, that the anonymous analysts had not been pressured to change the substance of their reports. They just intuited that they had been pressured, it seems.
"As we have become an integral component informing the debate for policy makers, we have been asked a lot of questions," the anonymous senior CIA official said. "I'm sure it does come across as a pressured environment for analysts. I think there is a sense of being overworked, a sense among analysts that they have already answered the same questions. But if you talk to analysts, they understand why people are asking, and why policy makers aren't accepting a report at face value."
Not satisfied by its attack on the Bush administration, the Times apparently felt the need to take a swing at another hated target: the Reagan administration. It goes out of the way to report that another of those anonymous intelligence officials said that many anonymous "veteran analysts were comparing the current climate at the agency to that of the early 1980s, when some CIA [anonymous] analysts complained that they were under pressure from the Reagan administration to take a harder line on intelligence reports relating to the Soviet Union," a nation for which the Times often showed great affection.
An anonymous source, formerly an editor an at anonymous supermarket tabloid, told NewsMax.com: "We would never have been allowed to run a slanted piece like that, especially when we would have had to rely on nothing but unidentified sources with an axe to grind. That's not journalism; it's out and out propaganda." [* LOL! ] --------- "N.Y. Times Finds Anonymous CIA Sources to Attack Bush Administration," by Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, NewsMax.com, 3/23/03, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/873501/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.