Posted on 06/30/2006 8:08:55 AM PDT by IrishMike
It is time for the U.S. Justice Department to squeeze the Old Gray Lady until she squeals.
New York Times Editor Bill Keller and some of his reporters need to be hauled before a grand jury and forced to reveal who told them about a secret U.S. government program designed to detect financial transactions among al Qaeda terrorists.
If they refuse to cooperate, they should go to jail.
If liberal friends of the Times complain, they should encounter a simple refrain: Remember Valerie Plame.
When columnist Robert Novak revealed that Plame, wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson, had worked for the CIA and had a role in sending her husband on a secret CIA-sponsored trip to Niger that resulted in Wilson’s eventually writing a misleading anti-war op-ed for the New York Times, liberals screamed that a great crime had been committed.
Contempt of Court
In fact, it turned out, no law prevented government officials from revealing Mrs. Wilson’s place of employment to reporters.
Nonetheless, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft announced a criminal investigation. He recused himself and named bulldog prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel.
Fitzgerald subpoenaed New York Times reporter Judith Miller to appear before a grand jury to discuss whether any administration official had mentioned Plame to her. When Miller refused to comply, a federal judge sentenced her to up to 18 months in jail for contempt of court.
The Supreme Court refused to hear her appeal and she went to prison.
After three months, Miller decided to testify after all. She named I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, as the person who told her about Plame (even though she had never written about Mrs. Wilson and in her notes incorrectly identified her as “Flame”).
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
Ping for later.
Are you saying we should put the pinch on Pinch??
"(... Close your eyes and picture that !!!)"
Ugh! I just got an image in my mind of Helen Thomas.
Good for the goose...
I agree with this. Don't back down from these basta*ds.
I would love to see some of the other news outlets having roundtable or panel discussions on the topic, "Does advertising in or subscribing to the New York Times, help fund terrorism?"
Seeing as how I would have my hands around "her" neck and squeezing mercilessly, "she" wouldn't be able to squeal!
I can hear the Libs crying already.
"Does advertising in or subscribing to the New York Times, help fund terrorism?"
YES.....
BY AIDING THE NATIONS ENEMIES.
FREEPER LETTER CAMPAIGN TO SPONSORS/ ADVERTISERS OF THE NEW YORK SLIMES ????
This is from the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday by Jon Carroll:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/06/29/DDGS0INI2G1.DTL
From the article (it gets worse):
[Apparently President Bush, as titular leader of the Republican Party, has started campaigning in earnest now. His coattails are just a wee bit short this year, so he's had to pick his opponent carefully. He has chosen to campaign against the New York Times.
The Times is a good target. People who believe in the "left-wing media" believe that the New York Times is the leftiest of them all. The people who believe in the "mainstream media" believe that the Times is the mainest of them all. Hardly anyone has a good word to say about it, except that it's the best newspaper in the country. But really, how important is that?
Also, the name of the New York Times contains the word "New York." Many members of the president's base consider "New York" to be a nifty code word for "Jewish." It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word "Jew" and (b) without irritating the Israelis. A number of prominent Zionist groups think the New York Times is insufficiently anti-Palestinian, so they think the New York Times isn't Jewish enough.]
If an agency says advertise in the New York Times; this controversy doesn't mean squat, the agency is takeing a big risk. If the Clients sales go down there is trouble for the agency. Even if the client gets a few letters from people ticked that they advertised in the Times, the Client may go to another agency. I didn't buy advertising to get nasty letters from customers.. the client will say.
The safest thing and agency can do is tell the client lets pull your ad dollars until we see if it is hurting sales. Wait at least until it blows over they will say.
Then the situation feeds on itself. News stories or even rumors will start that say the Times ad dollars are way down. Other advertisers will stop buying ads.
I will be quite surprised if this does not cost the times a bundle of money.
Never happen! Bush doesn't want the bad press. They scare him!
It seems that they work for al Qaeda... but their hearts belong to Marx.
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.