Time we did something about the Times.
If anyone ever doubted that the dems and their media arm, the NYT, would sacrifice all of us to their lust for power, this should put that doubt to rest.
>>>I think the Gray Old Hag jumped the shark with this latest stunt.<<<
She's been jumping the shark repeatedly since the Jayson Blair episode...she just don't know she's dead yet.
Wow, if this is related to a book promotion, all hell should break loose.
Agreed, but will ANYTHING happen to them because of this, is the burning question.
The New York Times is America's Al Jazeera. they have utter disdain for the rank and file citizen. In fact, they can't even seem to rise above their pettiness and address the President as anything other than Bush.
"Bush on Saturday also attacked the disclosure. ''As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have,'' Bush said in his weekly radio .."
I'm from NY and have called Sen. Cornyn office several times to thank him for speaking out...
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 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 !!!
Nah that happened a long time ago. 1971, Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg was the "leaker", but the NYT published them.
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.
Jayson Blair was unavailable for comment.
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
Senator Cornyn is My senator and has consistently shown he has a set of cajones
The traiterous scum that released this story should be frog marched into Gitmo so they can commune with their brethren. The want to destroy this country and we will not allow that to happen.
There's a related thread on this: 'NY Times' Hits Back after Bush Criticizes Story