[el_texicano]

I searched and did not see this. A bit of an indictment on the Bush Adminstration. What say you?

[el_texicano]

One interesting point made in this article was this one:

"George Bush was not elected to shower his enemies with magnanimity, particularly when they imperil America’s security. Neither was he elected to nominate wavering attorneys general who step aside or blink confusedly when confronted with treasonous acts."

I would hope that Bush is not doing this. But from the first day of Bush in office this new tone I know royally has irritated many conservatives.

[ansel12]

The writer wants the administration to be more hard nosed.

[Graymatter]

I trust the administration will take care of this matter to our satisfaction. Sometimes, it takes them a while to hear the Who.

So we'll keep hollering.

[LtKerst]

First the Plame,Fitzgerald,crap was more a distraction than a problem. Rove is off the hook, and probably did his job even while answering questions etc.

As for Bush As President, he looks better by not being drug into the gutter to risk saying or doing something these Scumbags could use against Him. It is always better to let others fight for him and Stay above the fray.

So I would say the article is mostly correct except for these points made.

Bush and his Administration will come out on top and history will win out just as it has for Reagan.

Every time Pelosi, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy and the rest of the Morons open their mouths they look more and more like the Bitter Drunks they are.

[RAldrich]

The article is strong - maybe in places unfair - but I think it's necessary. Pressure needs to be applied to this Administration. I think we need to exert all the pressure we can on our elected representatives otherwise we'll all wind up like on 9/11. The NY Times is very powerful and intense, relentless pressure is needed to defeat them.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

A bit of an indictment on the Bush Adminstration

. . . and entirely justified. It's true that Atty General Ashcroft choked when he allowed an independent counsel to be named over a trifle like Valerie Plame; everything that counsel did afterward is Ashcroft's fault.

Even in the SCOTUS ruling on the Gitmo detainee: the administration should have put the court on notice that they had no jurisdiction, and that any attempt on their part to meddle would receive no cooperation or respect from the admistration than if were Daily Kos which announced that the administration was required to treat al Qaeda as a state, and its clandestine operatives as POWs.

[WhiteGuy]

The New York Times apparently sees nothing wrong with disclosing the existence of two vital national security programs, but deems the non-outing of a non-undercover CIA agent a grievous threat to this nation’s survival.


Just trying to make sense of this.


"Someone" a government insider, leaks "top secret" information to the media. (in this case that NY paper)

And it's the newspaper that is at fault.

Where am I missing the point? Whomever divulged the "secret" info is the traitor, no question.

[roses of sharon]

LOL, more like an indictment on Times ruthless partisanship.

Had this been Clinton, they would have had headlines naming the Republican who dared to try to leak classified info to them, and would have called the DOJ immediately to turn him in.

Then we would have had months of stories on evil Republicans, who are traitors to their country, a witch hunt to find more, a trial, and a hanging of said Republican who tried to leak.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Aiding, abetting, and giving comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason!

Somebody once said: "Treason never prospers, for if it prospers, none dare call it treason."