Old Gray Lady Does Not Look So Hot in Red
‘All the news that’s fit to print,‘ has long been the slogan of the New York Times, once a proud, respected news source relied on by people all over the globe.
Regrettably, liberalism has infected the brains of some very powerful folks at the paper. Out- of -control liberalism has in turn spawned raw, unrestrained hatred for George Bush, and that has driven the old Gray lady into the gutter.
Indeed, the old Gray lady has taken to the streets like a tramp in the night, one who sells her soul and journalistic integrity for the Holy Grail of the corporate news world —-the scoop.
Like any other despicable person of the street, the Lady in Red cares not one whit about those who subscribe to her services.
So what if national security is weakened?  How is that my concern, the Lady in Red cries?
After all, her sole responsibility is to inform the public, even if doing so threatens the health and lives of the very people she is obsessed with informing.
If America loses the war on terror because of treasonous behavior by street tramps like those at the New York Times, at least we the people can take comfort in the knowledge that we were well informed.
Even Bill Keller can not really believe that that makes one lick of sense.
John Lillpop is a recovering liberal, "clean and sober" since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are considered reasonable! | More from John Lillpop
Stumble It!
June 28th, 2006 at 4:12 am
Will someone explain to me why the Decider didn’t ORDER the Wall Street Journal et al not to print the story? Is this just the latest failing from President Milquetoast?
June 28th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Still lost in a fog, Sean?
Freedom of speech and of the press means the freedom to be stupid. They were asked not to print it. Ordering them not to print it would only have added to their headlines.
So, they exercised their freedom and committed treason.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Lurch, I’m not arguing that the Wall Street Journal should “print and be damned”. I wonder why the Decider decided not to ORDER their silence, as he clearly could have.
I call your attention to Bush’s own revelations of April 19, 2004, when he told the terrorists all they needed to know about bank transfer monitoring.
June 28th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
(Not) See’n, I did explain that part. Ordering their silence would not have stopped them. They would have simply added that the President had attempted censorship as well. It would only have served the Times purpose. the information would have still been published.
And QED, the terrorists clearly didn’t get “all they needed to know about bank transfer monitoring” else they would not have been thwarted by bank monitoring.
Let’s try a funny little scenario. Someone is running from the police, but the police seem to keep poppong up everywhere the guy goes. You look over at him and say “The police are finding you because your phone has a GPS locator.” He promptly throws it away. That’s aiding and abetting.
So even though the terrorists know that bank monitoring is being done, they don’t know the details … until the Times had the idea of informing them of the details. That’s aiding and abetting the terrorists, and that’s treason.
June 28th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
That’s piffle. The Presidecider spilled the beans himself.
June 28th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
piffle! What kind of logic can I use to refute that. Clearly, this calls for surrender!
June 28th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
I’d settle for appeasement.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Appeasement is what brought us to 09/11/01. Never worked. Never will.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:05 am
Appeasement is impossible. It hasn’t worked in dealing with terrorists, Hitler, feminists, gays, illegals….shall I go on?
June 29th, 2006 at 4:07 am
Sean said,
I’d settle for appeasement.
June 28, 2006 at 3:55 pm
As the French are doing? Don’t worry. When the scumbags get tired of being hit back, they’ll come after the wimpier countries. Then you can appease till your liberal brain explodes (literally).
June 29th, 2006 at 6:01 am
So what will you all do when the appeasermonkey-in-chief starts negotiating with terrorists?
You appeasers were happy enough to appease North Korea. You appeased North Vietnam. Tell me those appeasements didn’t work out..
June 29th, 2006 at 9:06 am
We’ll call him Sean!
June 29th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Funny, ‘cuz I won’t remember you.
This is a chance to add to the list of appeasements. You paid Castro some $62M for the release of the Pay of Pigs pigs. That worked out OK too..
June 29th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Funny, ‘cuz no one wants you to remember them.
We already pay Palestinians annually and what do we get? Street dancers on 9/11.
Israel pays them and what do they get? Bombs.
Israel says we’ll give you land for peace, Palestine agrees then uses the closer land to launch rockets and elects a group determined to destroy Israel into power.
You appeasers were happy enough to appease North Korea. You appeased North Vietnam. Tell me those appeasements didn’t work out..
Yea. We gave them some money and aid in exchange for them not creating a nuclear weapon. Was tha under Clinton or all the way back to Carter. Anyway, we kept our end of the bargain and Korea has kept their end.
Whoops! Maybe they decided they just need a few more coins for research and decide to ask us back to the table to renegotiate.
Yea. Once in a great while you get something you want with appeasement. It’s what keeps the fools trying it. Most of the time you just get abused.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:56 am
We’re a long way from the original topic, and I don’t give a rat’s ass about your internal politics. Nor do I care for history bizarro style. Your cautionary tales of Palestine fly in reality’s face.
USrael acts the way it does because it can, but that’s not at issue here. What is at issue is Bush’s mewling and puking after the fact in the media leak story, when he clearly had the executive tools to defend the country, but chose not to.
June 29th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
In other words, you can’t justify any of the monies given to the Palenstinians. You cannot justify the Palestinians taking the ground according to the agreement, but not fulfilling their end of the bargain. You can’t even show that the appeasement you so highly recommend has done anything beneficial in Korea. In fact, except for some small direct cases like prisoner exchange, you can’t show one single example where appeasement has proven to be a viable action toward promoting peace with terrorist governments or groups.
I appreciate your honest on this point.