Posted on 01/19/2006 3:55:26 AM PST by saveliberty
|
January 18, 2006
The Times Can't Define a "Whistleblower," But It Knows One When It Sees One
by John Hindenraker The New York Times reports on David Barrett's investigation into alleged misdeeds by Clinton cabinet officer Henry Cisneros. Barrett's report will be made public tomorrow, but in the meantime someone leaked it to the Times. The Times' angle on the story is that Barrett's eleven-year investigation exemplifies what went wrong with the independent counsel statute, "an important post-Watergate law." (So important that it has been repealed, to pretty much everyone's relief.) What most struck me about the Times story was how they characterized the person who leaked Barrett's report to them, thereby enabling them to beat most of their competitors to the story: A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Barrett investigation who wanted his criticism of the Clinton administration to be known. Isn't that delightful? This particular leaker was no whistle-blower and no patriot; just a partisan with an axe to grind. But after the Times has printed dozens (hundreds, probably) of stories critical of the Bush administration based on leaks by Democratic bureaucrats, we're still waiting for the paper to write: "A copy of the report was obtained by The New York Times from someone sympathetic to the Democrats' position who wanted his criticism of the Bush administration to be known." The day that explanation appears, Beelzebub will be sending out for mittens and a fur coat. Posted by John at 09:55 PM
|
Or modern liberalism demands compliance. The NYT consistently covers for the Clintons, even if they don't believe in them. Heck, even the deranged and undisciplined Maureen Dowd doesn't believe them.
The real problem is that the Times can no longer define the word "truth."
From "All the news fit to print" to "All the spews and fits in print"
This "New York Times" everyone keeps talking about, is it a some kind of newspaper?
LOL LOL LOL!
I am SICK of these " leaks " --in any situation--but espcially here.
When they are talking about worrying that the HARMONY project of Documents found in Iraq will be " Cherry Picked " too and then leaked will have the SAME EFFECT as this thread points out--
--it gives the libbies too much time to prepare to twist and slant the real story they want to--and so it FIRST before ALL the information gets put out!
DAB
They can say what they want about whats in the report because until, or if, the redacted segments are released no one will really know.
I am hoping that it will come out.
Easy. For the Times, a whistleblower is a person who exposes a Republican or a group Republicans support (the military, police, churches, families, heterosexuals, etc...)
A person who is NOT a whistleblower is someone with negative information about a liberal or liberal groups (gays, black radicals, antiwar shills, nonprofits, Hollywood weirdoes, homosexuals et al....
See how easy?
Absolutely.
:)
Me, too! I suspect that it will create enough interest that it will have to. Then those hiding it will look worse.
bump
The good news is that Lord Hildemort has very thin skin and no sense of humor. This has to come out.
:-)
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.