NYT: Get Your NSA Stories Straight

Newbusters ^ | Dec. 20, 2005 | Mithridate Ombud

[I_like_good_things_too]

Big Bump. And the comment section has a lot of good info too.

[Fenris6]

I don't understand why some think the NYT's can be shamed into reform. They know exactly what they are doing. Its deliberate propaganda.

[meyer]

Heard something of this today on both Boortz and Rush. Seems that the DNC/NYT prefers sensationalization to facts.

Of course we already knew that!

[in hoc signo vinces]

time for some PO'd SOF guys on leave from Iraq/Afgahnistan to burn the NYT building to the ground...it is an instrument of the terrorists.

Those Bozos probably thing they are bring the light of truth to the masses, when those of us who know the facts...see their darkness.

NYT journocrats, those clowns...should move to Cuba.

[Southack]

"I don't understand why some think the NYT's can be shamed into reform. They know exactly what they are doing. Its deliberate propaganda."

The NYT is still in denial that their Abu Ghraib fabrications didn't bring down the Presidency.

A "scandal" a month no longer has the impact that it once had, due in no small part to alternative sources of news such as talk radio, Fox News, and the Internet.

A long time ago, the NYT could break a Presidency by publishing lies or by lying via omission of pertinent facts.

No longer.

[Froufrou]

I know, it's really no big surprise, is it? But the thought of NYT getting a little - oh, it's Christmas, make it a LOT - of come-uppance is truly delicious to me! And easy on the calories, too! ;o)

[Froufrou]

Thanks for identifying that silver lining!

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely!"

[MNJohnnie]

Dear New York DNC Times Staff, You have crossed a line here. This is not a matter of different opinions. You are currently KNOWINGLY lying to the American People. Please visit your achieve are read what you wrote about in 1994 when the Clinton Administration made the same NSA Law case. You had a completely DIFFERENT spin when it was a Democrat President arguing for these powers.

A Democrat President who, it might be added, was not actively commanding world wide combat operations against a foe who had all ready committed mass murder on American soil. This is NOT just tough partisanship you have engaged in here. Your story is a KNOWINGLY told lie that actively aids the enemies of the USA. That is treason. You no longer are a credible source of news. Frankly you really ought no longer be afforded the protections of US Citizenship. You are our enemy. Your actions will be neither forgotten nor forgiven.

[Praetorian42]

No, offense, but the question is not whether the NSA is allowed to spy on these communications, but whether they are allowed to do it without a warrant.

[paul51]

NYT: Another swamp that needs to be drained

[paul51]

Antennae up

[paul51]

Ozone alert

[aligncare]

Today Rush showed how every action President Bush took after 9-11 was not only legal, but necessary to the War on Terror.

I expect my president to do no less to protect my country.

The dems are playing politics with my family's safety, and I won't put up with their despicable behavior much longer.

[Froufrou]

I heard that argument, too. However, I also heard that of the 1900 times the matter was brought forth for such warrants, there were only four or five times they were denied. Moot point, I'd say.

[Froufrou]

Thank you, Lizarde! Good to see you!

[GloriaJane]

Welcome to Free Republic! 12/20/2005

[ez]

No, offense, but the question is not whether the NSA is allowed to spy on these communications, but whether they are allowed to do it without a warrant.

They are if either end of the conversation involves a "foreign agent." They are technically spying on the foreign agent.