Replies

Allow me a few words about that Lisa Myers interview...

That interview was going to be aired in the normal course of events BEFORE the impeachment process. Of course, the MSM, in this case NBC, sat on the story. News of the story leaked (via the new media and in particular, Drudge) and the phone calls, email and letters poured into NBC. According to stories at that time, the stonewalling by NBC garnered the most volume of critical response that they had ever had. I don't know if that is true or not, but I could certainly believe it given the atmosphere of the country at that dark time. My personal experience was that the NBC call center had a lot of busy signals and they didn't respond to emails.

Now Ms. Myers was a tad miffed about this transparent ploy by NBC as well. She stated that that story was all ready to go after exhaustively being checked and double-checked; in a phrase, it was in the can. In fact, if you download and watch the interview (as you should) you'll see that she (Ms. Meyers) played it right down the middle and gave Ms. Broaddrick no softballs or easy-out treatment so common for the MSM and favored subjects. It was done and ready to go according to all SOP in NBC reporting coverage. But, no-o-o-o-o-o-o! NBC maintained that they had to be certain that all the facts were correct because of the explosive nature of the report and the possible damage it could do to the reputation of the Presidency.

Uh huh. I really love the vigor of MSM journalism.

Well, they sat on if for something like nine weeks beyond the expected airtime (if memory serves) doing their phony and nonexistent fact checking. In any event, it finally aired after the impeachment vote (duh). Amazingly, all the RAT whores never saw or heard or knew a single thing about Juanita Broaddrick. I believe the official record shows that only two RAT legislators ever showed up and logged in at the Ford Building where the Starr Commission housed the investigation materials on krinton and his criminal cabal. Those two heroes of freedom were logged, I believe, for something around 10 minutes total time. Exhaustive research by elected representatives of the people. Must've been a terrible burden to bear on account of the people, staying up all those late hours and pouring over the evidence in pursuit of justice and defense of the Republic.

For me, the Jaunita Broaddrick travesty was a turning point.

I no longer allow any RAT any excuse about their Party, goals, intentions or any other pretext for claiming patriotism or any other American virtue or concern. These people and that Party are out and out subversive scum. Only two possibilities exist for any innocence in RAT membership or Party support: 1) The individual is retarded or in some way mentally diminished; 2) The individual is ignorant. Good intentions, general stupidity, ancestral loyalty, etc. make no difference. The RAT Party, and their whores in the media, are flat out enemies of America.

bump! will comment later....

Word at the time was that Tom Brokaw fought tooth and nail to keep the interview off the air.

And we all know it would have been a very different story had a Republican President been caught with his pants down. For example did Dan Rather and CBS spend 9 weeks checking their facts? Facts uncovered on FreeRepublic within hours. Don't think so.

Yet, still, the pompous, professional press claim to have no bias.

During the impeachment trial, Sen. Dale Bumpers (D, AR) proferred the Democrat argument for not removing the rapist from office: "He has less than two years left. What harm can he do?"

WAR AND TREASON AND THE NEW YORK TIMES

by Mia T, December 29, 2005

inch Sulzberger scurried to the C-SPAN confessional even as the fires raged under the mammoth heap of ash and twisted steel that was once the Twin Towers and 2801 human beings. He had to make certain no one would blame The New York Times.

The Times' 1996 endorsement of bill clinton¹ was the problem. The endorsement, you may recall, was contingent on clinton getting a brain transplant--specifically of the character lobe.² How could The Times square that shameful, irresponsible endorsement with this monstrous failure³?

Sulzberger quickly explained that The Times was able to endorse clinton by separating clinton's "policies" from "the man."⁴ (Did he actually buy into the clintons' 'compartmentalization' con⁵? Or was this apparent credulousness simply another cynical expedient for The New York Times?)

Probing questions by the host, Brian Lamb, followed, eliciting this damning historical parallel from Sulzberger: "The Times dropped ball during Holocaust by failing to connect the dots."

It appears that The New York Times doesn't learn from its mistakes.⁶ Will it take The Times another 50 years to understand/admit that by having endorsed for reelection a "documentably dysfunctional" president⁷ with "delusions" -- its own words -- it must bear sizeable blame for the 9/11 horror and its aftermath⁸?

Sulzberger's carefully worded rationalization of the clinton endorsements points to clinton "policies," not achievements; is this tacit acknowledgement that clinton "achievements" -- when legal -- were more illusory than real -- that The Times' Faustian bargain was not such a good deal after all?

If we assume that the clintons are the proximate cause of 9/11 --- a proposition not difficult to demonstrate --- it follows that The New York Times is culpable, too.

Elie Wiesel makes a distinction between "information" and "knowledge."⁶ Information is data; it is devoid of an ethical component; it is neutral. Knowledge is a higher form of information. Knowledge is information that had been internalized and given a moral dimension.

At a minimum, The Times' failure -- whether concerning clinton endorsements, or classified leaks or the Holocaust -- is a failure to make this distinction. More likely though, it is a failure not nearly so benign.

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

Dear Concerned Americans,
Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.
We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?
In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?
Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.
What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.
COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH FOOTNOTES