PDA

View Full Version : The NY Times is a despicable newspaper..


Joe Seahawk
06-23-2006, 10:17 PM
:shake: Why?

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/06/us_government_terrorist_financ.php

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2006, 10:22 PM
Joe, the fact that the NY Times is a worthless Liberal mouthpiece is not lost on the rest of America.

recxjake
06-23-2006, 10:31 PM
Yes, they badmouth GM everyday... Thomas Friedman is an IDOT!

Lurch
06-23-2006, 10:43 PM
Maybe Al Queda will target the buildings that house the NYTimes or like-minded media next time, and the money trail that would have prevented the tragedy, not been pursued, for fear of appearing over-zealous.

jAZ
06-23-2006, 11:23 PM
This is the same newspaper that published Judy Miller's complete and total bullshit lies about WMD in Iraq as sourced by the Whitehouse. Right?

Which was then immediately (the next day, on several occastions) then sourced by Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice in the Sunday talk show circuit to promote all of the lies that lead to war in Iraq.

Boyceofsummer
06-23-2006, 11:34 PM
This is the same newspaper that published Judy Miller's complete and total bullshit lies about WMD in Iraq as sourced by the Whitehouse. Right?

Which was then immediately (the next day, on several occastions) then sourced by Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice in the Sunday talk show circuit to promote all of the lies that lead to war in Iraq.

CAT GOT YOUR TOUNGE?

Nightwish
06-23-2006, 11:49 PM
Yes, they badmouth GM everyday... Thomas Friedman is an IDOT!
I realize your dad is part of GM, but enough with the GM strokefest already! GM's problems are of their own making. It's a competitive market. The Japanese are riding the wave of the future, and the US automakers are still trying to cling to yesteryear. It's time for US automakers to pony up and become competitive, or get out of the game.

Logical
06-23-2006, 11:53 PM
I realize your dad is part of GM, but enough with the GM strokefest already! GM's problems are of their own making. It's a competitive market. The Japanese are riding the wave of the future, and the US automakers are still trying to cling to yesteryear. It's time for US automakers to pony up and become competitive, or get out of the game.:clap: That really needed to be said.

Logical
06-23-2006, 11:54 PM
I sort of surfed the article, but I missed the direct link to only the NY Times. Not defending them but if the story linked is the one you meant to link it sounds like more than one media source ran with the story.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 12:00 AM
I realize your dad is part of GM, but enough with the GM strokefest already! GM's problems are of their own making. It's a competitive market. The Japanese are riding the wave of the future, and the US automakers are still trying to cling to yesteryear. It's time for US automakers to pony up and become competitive, or get out of the game.
Jake seems to put exactly as much thought into his view politics as he does into his view of the auto industry. Which is to say it's entirely driven by visceral emotion.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 12:13 AM
or get out of the game.

It's their duty to die, just like our ever increasing elder generation.

It must be profound, being the generation that burys the US, just on the basis of being American.

Logical
06-24-2006, 12:17 AM
It's their duty to die, just like our ever increasing elder generation.

It must be profound, being the generation that burys the US, just on the basis of being American.
That is not what Nightwish said, it was correctly stated they needed to pony up(ie get their act together) so they could become competitive or they were doomed to fail as it should be with any industry.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 12:31 AM
That is not what Nightwish said, it was correctly stated they needed to pony up(ie get their act together) so they could become competitive or they were doomed to fail as it should be with any industry.


That's right, because we all know that the US would come to agrinding halt without Japanese cars.

:rolleyes:

jAZ
06-24-2006, 12:37 AM
...without Japanese cars.
Where does this idea come from? Shouldn't you be refering to "without American cars" given the relative dominance of Japanese cars and the relative failure of American cars?

stevieray
06-24-2006, 12:40 AM
Where does this idea come from? Shouldn't you be refering to "without American cars" given the relative dominance of Japanese cars and the relative failure of American cars?

maybe you are ready to concede the automobile market to the japanese, I'm not convinced we need them to be mobile.

Pitt Gorilla
06-24-2006, 12:51 AM
maybe you are ready to concede the automobile market to the japanese, I'm not convinced we need them to be mobile.I would hope that you also refrain from buying any other products made outside the US.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 12:52 AM
I would hope that you also refrain from buying any other products made outside the US.

for the very last time, I'm not interested in conversing with you,.

|Zach|
06-24-2006, 12:53 AM
I would love for a US company to beat out a foreign one because its better.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 01:00 AM
I would love for a US company to beat out a foreign one because its better.


I would love to be a foreigner because they are so much better...

|Zach|
06-24-2006, 01:02 AM
I would love to be a foreigner because they are so much better...
How could pushing out competition be good for our US consumers?

stevieray
06-24-2006, 01:04 AM
How could pushing out competition be good for our US consumers?

How can sending money to Japan be good for US consumers?

|Zach|
06-24-2006, 01:06 AM
How can sending momey to Japan be good for US consumers?
By forcing US companies to do a better job. You would think...

Instead of letting them cater to the lowest common denominator by killing competition.

I would like to see the Chiefs win the Superbowl because they beat the hell out of the other teams not because we kicked every team but the Raiders out of the NFL.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 01:12 AM
By forcing US companies to do a better job. You would think...

Instead of letting them cater to the lowest common denominator by killing competition.

I would like to see the Chiefs win the Superbowl because they beat the hell out of the other teams not because we kicked every team but the Raiders out of the NFL.

forcing US companies? since when did we determine that Japan decides what is best for the US? When we got GREEDY?

Again, would the US fail with only American cars?

I think it's just more watered down hippie mantra.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 01:12 AM
maybe you are ready to concede the automobile market to the japanese, I'm not convinced we need them to be mobile.
If our domestic companies drive themselves out of business or so far in the whole that they are bought up by the foreign auto makers, then you're assessment is completely flawed. Right now, they are on course to do something vaugely like that.

Just look at the hybrid offerings...

Ford Escape Hybrid
Mercury Mariner Hybrid

vs.

Honda Insight
Honda Civic Hybrid
Honda Accord Hybrid
Lexus RX400h
Lexus GS450h
Lexus LS600hL
Toyota Prius
Toyota Highlander
Toyota Camry

US automakers never learned how to make high quality, fuel efficient cars that people want to buy. They built their business on gas guzzlers... then started getting their asses kicked during the late 70's... got a repreive when gas guzzling made a come back in the 90's... and are once again completely out of position to be a leader in the next 20 years of automaking.

In order to be successful they need to fix this dependence upon gas guzzling. If they can't, we will become dependant upon foreign automakers for mobility and employment.

Pitt Gorilla
06-24-2006, 01:13 AM
for the very last time, I'm not interested in conversing with you,.Ok, I guess I was unaware of that. Why not just put me on ignore? Sorry to "bother" you on a message board...

stevieray
06-24-2006, 01:14 AM
. If they can't, we will become dependant upon foreign automakers for mobility and employment.

:rolleyes:

stevieray
06-24-2006, 01:15 AM
Ok, I guess I was unaware of that. Why not just put me on ignore? Sorry to "bother" you on a message board...

I PM'ed you this, stop playing the victim. Usually I just ignore you, haven't you noticed?

jAZ
06-24-2006, 01:15 AM
:rolleyes:
Zzzzzziiiiinnnnggg!

Feel free to respond in english.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 01:16 AM
Zzzzzziiiiinnnnggg!

Feel free to respond in english.

feel free to respond in reality.

|Zach|
06-24-2006, 01:17 AM
forcing US companies? since when did we determine that Japan decides what is best for the US? When we got GREEDY?

Again, would the US fail with only American cars?

I think it's just more watered down hippie mantra.
Its business.

When your product is not better this is what happens...

You either improve your product or you don't last.

It just seems that someone who really believed in these companies would believe they can do a better job instead of trying to let them fall to the lowest common denominator.

Pushing out competition is awful for consumers...we would be in enabling US companies to do a shitty job...why would they strive to do better?

jAZ
06-24-2006, 01:17 AM
forcing US companies? since when did we determine that Japan decides what is best for the US? When we got GREEDY?

Again, would the US fail with only American cars?

I think it's just more watered down hippie mantra.
Do not you understand the role of capitalism in our world today? Or do you merely reject it as a form of economic darwinism?

jAZ
06-24-2006, 01:18 AM
feel free to respond in reality.
I thought I did. What's reality to you?

|Zach|
06-24-2006, 01:18 AM
Do not you understand the role of capitalism in our world today? Or do you merely reject it as a form of economic darwinism?
Anyone who really does have the back of these companies should be rooting for them to step up to the palte and hit a homerun. Not rig the game so they are the winner now matter how they play.

Logical
06-24-2006, 01:20 AM
maybe you are ready to concede the automobile market to the japanese, I'm not convinced we need them to be mobile.I am not saying the market will instantly dry up, but people who want the better product will buy from the Asian manufacturers unless the US car companies get their act together.

|Zach|
06-24-2006, 01:24 AM
I am not saying the market will instantly dry up, but people who want the better product will buy from the Asian manufacturers unless the US car companies get their act together.
http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/movie/gallery/1110145/Zoolander-photo_09.jpg

This thread...I feel like im taking crazy pills.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 01:34 AM
Anyone who really does have the back of these companies should be rooting for them to step up to the palte and hit a homerun. Not rig the game so they are the winner now matter how they play.
IMO, it all fits together.

9/11, the Iraq War, the Environment, oil addiction, dependance on foreign energy sources, misguided domestic automanufactures, absence of political leadership, a lack of domestic innovation....

Our entire political, economic, educational and cultural systems are built upon a compacent hubris toward the status quo...

And the solution is simply to rally our nation together around a 21st century Apollo Project to invest upwards of a trillion dollars research, technology, infrastructure, tax incentives, R&D credits, etc... in order to retool our energy production to domestically available, clean, renewable energy... including a revolution in automobile and other transportation systems.

It's the kind of revolution that if our educational, business & political communities came together, we could move back to the lead in the world in almost every way.

9/11 was the perfect opportunity to launch such an effort. We still have a nearly perfect storm of perceived and real threats (ME terrorism, dependance on foreign oil, high energy prices, global warming, expanding competiton from China, India, etc) to match the Soviet/Sputnik threats that launched an series generation of kids excited about math, science, engineering, technology and innovation.

9/11 was the emotionally perfect moment to crystalize this effort. Instead we decided to spend trillions of dollars to secure more oil.


But it's still not too late.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 01:34 AM
Its business.

When your product is not better this is what happens...

You either improve your product or you don't last.

It just seems that someone who really believed in these companies would believe they can do a better job instead of trying to let them fall to the lowest common denominator.

Pushing out competition is awful for consumers...we would be in enabling US companies to do a shitty job...why would they strive to do better?

US products are shit. Only the citizens are worth a damn.

:rolleyes:

jAZ
06-24-2006, 01:36 AM
This thread...I feel like im taking crazy pills.
Don't you get that feeling on about 1/2 the threads around here? It's not just this one. And it's not just stevieray. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance that goes on around here.

|Zach|
06-24-2006, 01:37 AM
US products are shit. Only the citizens are worth a damn.

:rolleyes:
You are the only one rolling over on US products and companies in this thread.

stevieray
06-24-2006, 01:38 AM
Don't you get that feeling on about 1/2 the threads around here? It's not just this one. And it's not just stevieray. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance that goes on around here.

translation: hate the US with me on another lonely friday night.

jAZ
06-24-2006, 01:41 AM
translation: hate the US with me on another lonely friday night.
look up cognitive dissonance...

|Zach|
06-24-2006, 01:43 AM
look up cognitive dissonance...
Seirously...

This is one of the craziest conversations I have ever taken part in on CP.

|Zach|
06-24-2006, 01:44 AM
I guess I should be apologizing for believing US companies can strive to do better?

jAZ
06-24-2006, 01:46 AM
I guess I should be apologizing for believing US companies can strive to do better?
Just stop hating America and it will all be good!

stevieray
06-24-2006, 02:48 AM
Just stop hating America and it will all be good!'

Mexicans for labor and services
Chinese for goods
Japanese for autos
India for technical and medical

recxjake
06-24-2006, 07:34 AM
If our domestic companies drive themselves out of business or so far in the whole that they are bought up by the foreign auto makers, then you're assessment is completely flawed. Right now, they are on course to do something vaugely like that.

Just look at the hybrid offerings...

Ford Escape Hybrid
Mercury Mariner Hybrid

vs.

Honda Insight
Honda Civic Hybrid
Honda Accord Hybrid
Lexus RX400h
Lexus GS450h
Lexus LS600hL
Toyota Prius
Toyota Highlander
Toyota Camry

US automakers never learned how to make high quality, fuel efficient cars that people want to buy. They built their business on gas guzzlers... then started getting their asses kicked during the late 70's... got a repreive when gas guzzling made a come back in the 90's... and are once again completely out of position to be a leader in the next 20 years of automaking.

In order to be successful they need to fix this dependence upon gas guzzling. If they can't, we will become dependant upon foreign automakers for mobility and employment.


lol your an idiot.....

Hybrids...
Chevy Silverado
Saturn Vue
Chevy Tahoe... This Fall
Saturn Aura... Next Spring
Chevy Malibu... Next Spring

GM's hybrid system is much better then Toyotas for several reasons.... 1. It's 5,000 less to make
2. You don't have to replace the battery every few years
3. It was made in conjunction with BMW, Chrysler and GM

GM has the most models with 30 +mpg

recxjake
06-24-2006, 07:36 AM
Saab BioPower Hybrid Concept: World's First Fossil-free Hybrid Vehicle
STOCKHOLM (Mar. 30, 2006) — The innovative Saab BioPower Hybrid Concept, making its world premiere at the Stockholm Motor Show (March 30 - April 9, 2006), delivers zero fossil CO2 emissions, enhanced performance and a range of energy-saving features by combining the use of pure bioethanol fuel and electric power generation for the first time. As the world's first fossil-free hybrid vehicle, the Saab 9-3 Convertible show car also becomes the world's first hybrid soft-top.
More..

Saturn Vue Green Line Hybrid Delivers Great Fuel Economy Through New, Lower-Cost Hybrid System

2007 Saturn Vue Green Line Hybrid

DETROIT (Jan. 9, 2006) – Saturn unveiled the production version of the 2007 Vue Green Line Hybrid, the first GM vehicle powered by a new, more affordable hybrid system. The Vue Green Line delivers an estimated 20-percent improvement in fuel economy, depending on driving conditions. It is expected to deliver an EPA estimated 27 mpg in the city and the best highway mileage of any SUV at 32 mpg. The Vue's hybrid system will cost under $2,000. The full vehicle price will start at less than $23,000.
More...

Chevrolet Tahoe with Two-Mode Full Hybrid Exploits Fuel Savings, SUV Driving Pleasure and Performance

2007 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid

DETROIT (Jan. 9, 2006) – The Chevrolet Tahoe full-size SUV has earned its outstanding reputation with independent consumer studies recognizing its sales and quality leadership. With the addition of the world’s first two-mode full hybrid propulsion system, the Chevrolet Tahoe takes its outstanding reputation even further with a 25-percent improvement in fuel economy and a superior driving experience that SUV customers know and love.
More...

Saturn Vue Green Line Uses New, Less Complex Hybrid System

2007 Saturn Vue Green Line Hybrid

DETROIT (Jan. 9, 2006) – The 2007 Saturn Vue Green Line Hybrid features a unique electric motor/generator mated to a 2.4L VVT four-cylinder engine and 4T45-E four-speed transmission powertrain to deliver increased fuel economy over non-hybrid models. It is a less complex, lower-cost hybrid system than competitors’ systems.

recxjake
06-24-2006, 07:41 AM
I realize your dad is part of GM, but enough with the GM strokefest already! GM's problems are of their own making. It's a competitive market. The Japanese are riding the wave of the future, and the US automakers are still trying to cling to yesteryear. It's time for US automakers to pony up and become competitive, or get out of the game.

I'm not going to go through everything they are doing to "pony up" but they are well into the turn around plan...

recxjake
06-24-2006, 07:49 AM
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
Wagoner's rehabilitation in full swing at GM
Auto chief wins more support -- and job security -- as stock rebounds
By Shawn Langlois, MarketWatch
Last Update: 5:01 AM ET Jun 24, 2006


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Rick Wagoner is back from the brink, riding a nearly 40% surge in General Motors Corp. share price this year to mute critics and skeptics who just six months ago predicted he was too badly wounded by the company's $10.6 billion loss last year to preside over its recovery.

"Shareholders have definitely grown a lot less hostile," said Mainstay Capital's chief investment strategist David Kudla. "Wagoner has emerged with a much more confident public image. He turned a profit in the first quarter, he was able to sell part of GMAC and he appears to have the support of the UAW."

After a constant flow of bad news dogged the Detroit icon for the better part of 2005, steady progress in GM's restructuring efforts and a profit for the first time in six quarters has helped keep Wagoner's detractors at bay.

That was perhaps most evident at this year's annual meeting, which lacked much of the venom that put the embattled CEO on the defensive last year, according to Kudla, who manages savings for almost 1,000 GM retirees and employees in Grand Blanc, Mich.

In a sign of their approval, shareholders soundly rejected a proposal that could have stripped Wagoner of either his CEO or chairman title.
As has been the case through much of GM's struggles, the company maintains that Wagoner's job security has never been in question.
"Throughout this downturn, Rick has enjoyed unusually strong support from employees, dealers, our suppliers and the board -- all the constituencies that count," said spokesman Brian Akre. "People like the guy ... Employees want to follow his lead."

Wagoner's tenuous grip on his job was more media fabrication than reality, according to David Cole, chairman for the Center for Automotive Research. Wagoner, he says, is leading the company from more of a position of strength now than in prior years.
GM said Wagoner wasn't available to comment for this article.
"He's made substantial progress, no question about it," Cole said. "Operationally, Wagoner has to be feeling really good right now."

Job insecurities
Doubts that Wagoner would keep his job peaked in March, when accounting errors prompted a subpoena from a federal grand jury and multiple inquiries by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Late in 2005, GM disclosed that the SEC was probing the various snafus and the company adjusted earnings dating back to 2000 in its fourth-quarter 10-K.

"He's made substantial progress, no question about it. Operationally, Wagoner has to be feeling really good right now."
— David Cole Center for Automotive Research
Wagoner apologized to shareholders in a letter accompanying GM's 2005 annual report.

"The recent discovery of prior-year accounting errors has been extremely disappointing and embarrassing to all of us," he said in response to an onslaught of criticism. "Credibility is paramount, for GM as a company and for me personally."

The board, which includes high-profile corporate players like its newest member, investor Kirk Kerkorian adviser Jerry York, backed Wagoner amid the rampant speculation of his ouster, saying it has "great confidence" in its leader and his management team. See full story.
That, said Kudla, was a turning point for Wagoner in the court of public opinion. Wagoner then cemented his improved stature shortly after that with an appearance on the CBS News show "Face the Nation." His TV persona went over so well with famed investor Warren Buffett that the Oracle of Omaha reportedly sent his daughter out to buy a Cadillac in a show of support.

From there, dealers on down to the little guy began to show more support for Wagoner.
Brilliant or incompetent?
Gene Buckley of Lansing, Mich., an economics teacher and small-time shareholder who worked for 20 years at GM, tipped his cap to Wagoner even though he still maintains his critical stance on the automaker.
"Wagoner certainly has to walk a very thin tightrope to function at GM," he said. "There's a possibility he's a brilliant leader trying to succeed against all odds in a difficult situation, and that's more my thinking than to render him incompetent."
I
n April, GM dealers gave Wagoner a pat on the back from the front line, referring to him as a man of integrity as well as an "excellent leader, father, husband and human being."

"It is a difficult job that requires balancing the needs of customers, employees, retirees, shareholders and dealership employees," the dealers said in an "Open Letter to America" signed by GM's National Dealer Council members as well as top executives from leading automotive retail chains.

That's not to say Wagoner has appeased all his critics. Some still contend he's not doing enough on the product side - for instance, building more SUVs and neglecting hybrid technology. Or that he's placing too much blame on outside forces, like the Japanese yen or the health-care advantage of GM's foreign rivals.
And, of course, that U.S. market share number -- down 3.1 percentage points to 22.7% after a rough May - still provides plenty of fodder for those calling for his removal.

"There's still some mixed feelings out there among shareholders about Wagoner," Cole said. "But the board takes a long-term strategic view. They know if they get the engine running on all cylinders, this is a stock that could easily be trading at $70 a share."

To get there, however, Wagoner has to win over more than Wall Street.
His ability to balance diplomacy with urgency will be put to the test next year when cornerstones of the United Auto Workers' contracts like healthcare and pensions will surely be targeted for cost-cutting during what will mark one of the most critical union negotiations in the company's storied history.

"Mr. Wagoner needs a clear win to keep his job long term," said Nicholas Gerber, portfolio manager of the Ameristock Mutual Fund, who sold his entire GM position over the past year.

"Watch him turn GM around, get paid for his success and then get yelled at for making too much money," Gerber added. "Admire him -- wouldn't want to be him."

Hydrae
06-24-2006, 10:31 AM
IMO, it all fits together.

9/11, the Iraq War, the Environment, oil addiction, dependance on foreign energy sources, misguided domestic automanufactures, absence of political leadership, a lack of domestic innovation....

Our entire political, economic, educational and cultural systems are built upon a compacent hubris toward the status quo...

And the solution is simply to rally our nation together around a 21st century Apollo Project to invest upwards of a trillion dollars research, technology, infrastructure, tax incentives, R&D credits, etc... in order to retool our energy production to domestically available, clean, renewable energy... including a revolution in automobile and other transportation systems.

It's the kind of revolution that if our educational, business & political communities came together, we could move back to the lead in the world in almost every way.

9/11 was the perfect opportunity to launch such an effort. We still have a nearly perfect storm of perceived and real threats (ME terrorism, dependance on foreign oil, high energy prices, global warming, expanding competiton from China, India, etc) to match the Soviet/Sputnik threats that launched an series generation of kids excited about math, science, engineering, technology and innovation.

9/11 was the emotionally perfect moment to crystalize this effort. Instead we decided to spend trillions of dollars to secure more oil.


But it's still not too late.

:clap:

I agree completely. I think this country as a society is clinically depressed and has no societal goals for people to get behind. One of the things the WoT has done is show that we are still a relatively young country going through the pains of finding an identity. Personally I would rather that identity be that of a scientific/intellectual society than a world policing society. But we need a man of vision to do as JFK did and get us started. I just don't anyone with vision stepping up and giving us the kick in the ass we evidently need.

banyon
06-24-2006, 10:39 AM
Whoops. I went into this thread foolishly thinking it had something to do with the NYT. GMxjake hijacked this puppy.

BucEyedPea
06-24-2006, 10:44 AM
:clap:
Personally I would rather that identity be that of a scientific/intellectual society than a world policing society.

I agree with this wholeheartedly

But we need a man of vision to do as JFK did and get us started. I just don't anyone with vision stepping up and giving us the kick in the ass we evidently need.

I just don't agree a govt leader needs to do it, as in a Philosopher King.
The exception would be for not being the world's police part because that part is govt/military.

The whole grandoise nation-state idea lead by a leader ( even if under a scientific/intellectual cover of) is the root cause of what's going on today just as it was in any past fascism or total govt society. What really is needed is less centralized power and more freedom so the people can get on with the show. Freedom is a people's greatest resource and was the cause of America's rapid advances. War is the most harmful as it is the most destructive.

StcChief
06-24-2006, 10:59 AM
I realize your dad is part of GM, but enough with the GM strokefest already! GM's problems are of their own making. It's a competitive market. The Japanese are riding the wave of the future, and the US automakers are still trying to cling to yesteryear. It's time for US automakers to pony up and become competitive, or get out of the game.

Been that way for quite awhile....

Another reason I have driven GM since 1978.

Joe Seahawk
06-26-2006, 10:24 PM
Bravo Mr. Snow.


Dear Mr. Keller:
The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.

Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.

Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror.

Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.

You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.

Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.

What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.

Sincerely,

[signed]

John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury

SBK
06-27-2006, 12:43 AM
I realize your dad is part of GM, but enough with the GM strokefest already! GM's problems are of their own making. It's a competitive market. The Japanese are riding the wave of the future, and the US automakers are still trying to cling to yesteryear. It's time for US automakers to pony up and become competitive, or get out of the game.

Actually, the Koreans are the wave of the future. They are doing to the Japs exactly what they did to the US back in the day. 10-20 years from now it'll be the Koreans with the huge market share. You watch.

unlurking
06-27-2006, 05:21 AM
Stevie,

I am not sure how this conversation twisted this way, but I don't think anyone here wants to see GM or any other US business fold.

Toyota did for the car industry what Wal-Mart did for retail. They "re-created" the backend business and line management to increase manufacturing efficiency greatly, to produce larger number of vehicles at a lower cost. Where they differed from Wal-Mart is that they also improved quality. I am very glad that US manufacturers followed suit. American products have greatly increased quality, and IMO there is very little in the way of a price gap anymore.

I buy American autos (partly out of pride), but also because I like their line-up better. I put 150,000 miles on a '91 Ford Ranger before I got a new vehicle. I didn't get rid of it due to any problems, but because I wanted something new and shiny. I went Ford again.

At the same time, I have no problem with an American company streamlining its operations because antiquated ideals (like unions) are bringing down their productivity. I am actually glad most of the US auto companies are in this boat. I think in the next 10 years you will see a massive turn-around in the industry. Less dead "cap-money", and more being in invested into R&D and hopefully alternative fuel sources.

FringeNC
06-27-2006, 09:47 AM
Guess which newspaper the following editorial appeared in on September 24, 2001.

Organizing the hijacking of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took significant sums of money. The cost of these plots suggests that putting Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists out of business will require more than diplomatic coalitions and military action. Washington and its allies must also disable the financial networks used by terrorists.

The Bush administration is preparing new laws to help track terrorists through their money-laundering activity and is readying an executive order freezing the assets of known terrorists. Much more is needed, including stricter regulations, the recruitment of specialized investigators and greater cooperation with foreign banking authorities. There must also must be closer coordination among America´s law enforcement, national security and financial regulatory agencies.

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 10:01 AM
Actually, the Koreans are the wave of the future. They are doing to the Japs exactly what they did to the US back in the day. 10-20 years from now it'll be the Koreans with the huge market share. You watch.
Could be. I'm not up on the Korean auto industry. What makes do they produce?

the Talking Can
06-27-2006, 10:24 AM
scary, that people support the government attacking newspapers....scary and depressing

and the NYTimes took the lead in selling Bush's lies about Iraq....Judith Miller met secretly with Chalabi and Libby and published every lie they told her to publish....Bush should be on his knees kissing the Times feet for covering for him...

but hey, facts blah blah blah

patteeu
06-27-2006, 10:26 AM
The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works.

"Breathtaking arrogance" is a characteristic shared by more than a few critics of this administration's GWoT both in the public limelight and on this messageboard.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 10:32 AM
scary, that people support the government attacking newspapers....scary and depressing

and the NYTimes took the lead in selling Bush's lies about Iraq....Judith Miller met secretly with Chalabi and Libby and published every lie they told her to publish....Bush should be on his knees kissing the Times feet for covering for him...

but hey, facts blah blah blah

If anyone in this thread or in the articles linked in this thread took such a position, I missed it. I have no doubt that there are people out there who think those things, but your statement seemed to come out of the blue.

Do you agree that the government employee who leaked the news of this program to the NYTimes should be "attacked" (by which I assume you mean punished in some way other than being rhetorically condemned)?

Do you agree that the NYTimes behaved irresponsibly by publishing this story?

jAZ
06-27-2006, 10:38 AM
If anyone in this thread or in the articles linked in this thread took such a position, I missed it. I have no doubt that there are people out there who think those things, but your statement seemed to come out of the blue.
The NY Times is a despicable newspaper..

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 10:42 AM
Do you agree that the government employee who leaked the news of this program to the NYTimes should be "attacked" (by which I assume you mean punished in some way other than being rhetorically condemned)?Yes. But that's between the government and the informant. The NYT didn't force it out of him.Do you agree that the NYTimes behaved irresponsibly by publishing this story?No. It's news. That's what newspapers do. I doubt the content seriously hampered anything on the government's part, because I seriously doubt it came as a surprise to anyone. Once the news about the wiretapping came out, it was pretty much expected that they were monitoring other things as well, especially financial transactions. Any terrorists who were engaging in financial transactions with parties in the US, and didn't expect that those transactions were probably being monitored, is one stupid terrorist. I find it very doubtful that the NYT story revealed anything that they didn't already know or at least strongly suspect. I mean, I'm not even a terrorist, and I suspected it!

FringeNC
06-27-2006, 10:51 AM
scary, that people support the government attacking newspapers....scary and depressing

and the NYTimes took the lead in selling Bush's lies about Iraq....Judith Miller met secretly with Chalabi and Libby and published every lie they told her to publish....Bush should be on his knees kissing the Times feet for covering for him...

but hey, facts blah blah blah

Answer this question: Would you advocate the government attacking a newspaper if the newspaper printed troop movements?

FAX
06-27-2006, 11:15 AM
For what it's worth, I'm a smaller, open, no secrets, less intrusive government guy. Full on.

Except when it comes to war-related secrecy.

What the NYT did in this case is akin to publishing the WWII communication codes. I don't know if the result will be additional American lives lost, but it's probable. And, it really doesn't matter what the NYT has done in the past. If a priest fires a .45 in someone's ear, the victim is just as dead. This was an indefensible act that would have been called treason in prior years and should be called treason now.

Also, I think people should realize that, regardless of your political viewpoint, what's embarassing for W isn't necessarily a net positive for America. This is a very sad situation. But, don't worry. The news cycle and American attention span are such that it will all blow over soon.

FAX

patteeu
06-27-2006, 11:23 AM
...

What's your point, jAZ? Is that what you are calling an "attack?" I made it clear in my post that I'm assuming that the Talking Can means something other than taking the NYTimes to task with criticism. Surely the Talking Can is not against exercising one's first amendment rights to criticize.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 11:30 AM
Yes. But that's between the government and the informant. The NYT didn't force it out of him.

Of course it is. I never suggested otherwise. Glad you agree.

No. It's news. That's what newspapers do. I doubt the content seriously hampered anything on the government's part, because I seriously doubt it came as a surprise to anyone. Once the news about the wiretapping came out, it was pretty much expected that they were monitoring other things as well, especially financial transactions. Any terrorists who were engaging in financial transactions with parties in the US, and didn't expect that those transactions were probably being monitored, is one stupid terrorist. I find it very doubtful that the NYT story revealed anything that they didn't already know or at least strongly suspect. I mean, I'm not even a terrorist, and I suspected it!

On the one hand, it's news, and on the other hand it's nothing new? LOL

You suspected that the SWIFT organization was feeding information to our CIA? You are a very insightful young man if you did. I didn't even know there was a SWIFT organization until I read the NYTimes account. If I were a terrorist, I might add the SWIFT facilities to my high priority target list now and perhaps target some of their employees/executives to chill their enthusiasm for the US GWoT.

Of course, I disagree with your opinion completely. It was despicable behavior, as Joe Seahawk said in the OP. Not all news is fit to print. Do you criticize news organizations when they withhold the names of rape victims or adolescents accused but not yet convicted of a crime? Would you support it if a news organization published detailed plans of a military operation or of the President's schedule and routes just because they had obtained access to that closely guarded information?

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 12:06 PM
On the one hand, it's news, and on the other hand it's nothing new? LOLI didn't say it was nothing new. I said it didn't come as a surprise. It doesn't have to be earth-shaking, shocking, previously inconceivable to be "news."You suspected that the SWIFT organization was feeding information to our CIA? You are a very insightful young man if you did. I didn't even know there was a SWIFT organization until I read the NYTimes account. If I were a terrorist, I might add the SWIFT facilities to my high priority target list now and perhaps target some of their employees/executives to chill their enthusiasm for the US GWoT.Who provided the information to the government is irrelevant. My point is that the fact that financial transactions between the US and foreign parties is being monitored shouldn't surprise anyone. It doesn't matter if the provider of the information is SWIFT or Fred's Bank.Not all news is fit to print.I didn't say it was. I'm just disagreeing that this instance is nearly as egregious as you're making it out to be. If it were surprising, then I might have a different opinion. Fact is, rather than blaming the newspaper for outing a government program, you need to be blaming the administration that can't seem to keep trustworthy personnel on hand.Do you criticize news organizations when they withhold the names of rape victims or adolescents accused but not yet convicted of a crime?Why would I? It's their choice what they choose to print.Would you support it if a news organization published detailed plans of a military operation or of the President's schedule and routes just because they had obtained access to that closely guarded information?It would be irresponsible of the newspaper to do so, because that could lead to devastating consequences. That is valuable information that would be highly sought by an enemy. You've not convinced me, however, that revealing the very predictable fact that our government is monitoring financial transactions is endangering anyone or significantly interfering with the progress of the war on terror. As I said, any terrorist that didn't expect that their financial transactions with American parties were being monitored is one dumb terrorist. Apparently both you and Mr. Cheney believe that the rest of us are that dumb as well.

the Talking Can
06-27-2006, 12:51 PM
Answer this question: Would you advocate the government attacking a newspaper if the newspaper printed troop movements?

you mean like when Geraldo was in Iraq reporting on the location of the troops he was embedded with?

I have a vague memory of this happening...anyone else remember this?

may not have been Geraldo...

FAX
06-27-2006, 12:55 PM
you mean like when Geraldo was in Iraq reporting on the location of the troops he was embedded with?

I have a vague memory of this happening...anyone else remember this?

may not have been Geraldo...


It was Geraldo, Mr. the Talking Can, you're right. And, he should have had his ass handed to him, too.

But, I think he got off becasue he convinced everyone he was actually just describing the way to Capone's secret cave.

FAX

the Talking Can
06-27-2006, 12:59 PM
It was Geraldo, Mr. the Talking Can, you're right. And, he should have had his ass handed to him, too.

But, I think he got off becasue he convinced everyone he was actually just describing the way to Capone's secret cave.

FAX

Right...Fox News.


Hence no co-ordinated Repulican outrage.

I sure as hell don't want the government dictating what newspapers cover. Call me crazy.

DaKCMan AP
06-27-2006, 01:08 PM
shouldn't you be condeming the WSJ & LA Times as well?? :hmmm: or is the NYT the only despicable newspaper..


The newspaper, along with the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal, revealed last week that Treasury officials, beginning shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, had obtained access to an extensive international financial data base — the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorist_financing;_ylt=AoMSNq_OR_vAC41c5SVmxRWyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

FringeNC
06-27-2006, 01:19 PM
you mean like when Geraldo was in Iraq reporting on the location of the troops he was embedded with?

I have a vague memory of this happening...anyone else remember this?

may not have been Geraldo...

That's not an answer. I think just about everyone would acknowledge the first amendment does not apply to troop movements. The relevant question is how close to troop movements is this latest. It doesn't endanger troops, but it needlessly reveals methods of tracking foreign wire transfers, and increases the probability of a successful wire transfer to a terrorist group.

Additionally, Congress was briefed about it.

What's so funny is that the NY Times advocated just such a program right after 9/11. It demonstrates that the Times cares more about scoring points against Bush than national security.

There simply is no rational for running the story. Even are European allies are furious about it.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 01:28 PM
Apparently both you and Mr. Cheney believe that the rest of us are that dumb as well.

Well, you got me on that one. :p

patteeu
06-27-2006, 01:31 PM
you mean like when Geraldo was in Iraq reporting on the location of the troops he was embedded with?

I have a vague memory of this happening...anyone else remember this?

may not have been Geraldo...

Yes, exactly like that. It was Geraldo and he deserved to be criticized for what he did. The biggest difference between what he did and what the NYTimes did is that he wasn't warned by the highest levels of government and members of both parties that he was about to reveal information that could be very damaging. It's at least possible to believe that Geraldo didn't intend to cause harm. That's not to excuse Geraldo, it's to point out that the NYTimes incident is significantly worse.

patteeu
06-27-2006, 01:32 PM
Right...Fox News.


Hence no co-ordinated Repulican outrage.

I sure as hell don't want the government dictating what newspapers cover. Call me crazy.

I don't either. Do you want newspapers spilling sensitive GWoT secrets?

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 01:40 PM
The relevant question is how close to troop movements is this latest.Not even close.
It doesn't endanger troops, but it needlessly reveals methods of tracking foreign wire transfers, and increases the probability of a successful wire transfer to a terrorist group.It doesn't reveal the methods. It only reveals that it's being done, and by whom. It doesn't reveal how they gather the information, nor give clues to how the monitoring can be bypassed, short of going to the old hand-carried envelope method of transaction.Additionally, Congress was briefed about it.And?What's so funny is that the NY Times advocated just such a program right after 9/11. It demonstrates that the Times cares more about scoring points against Bush than national security.Have you actually read the article? It's not exactly an attack on Bush. It doesn't allege any illegal activities, and it's pretty soft on the administration, overall. In fact, one of the articles (not sure if it was NYT or someone else), indicated that the White House was very narrow in its specifications about what info it requested, but that SWIFT didn't have the ability to narrow their searches to such specific parameters, so they decided on their own to just give the US everything.

DaKCMan AP
06-27-2006, 02:05 PM
The Wall Street Journal and LA Times newspapers are DESPICABLE!!! There should be public outrage directed towards these two publications!

;)

patteeu
06-27-2006, 02:20 PM
The Wall Street Journal and LA Times newspapers are DESPICABLE!!! There should be public outrage directed towards these two publications!

;)

Once the story has broken, there isn't a secret to be kept anymore. Did the WSJ or the LATimes advance the story or just rereport it?

Nightwish
06-27-2006, 02:29 PM
Once the story has broken, there isn't a secret to be kept anymore. Did the WSJ or the LATimes advance the story or just rereport it?
For that matter, was the NYT the first paper to report it? Or just the largest?

DaKCMan AP
06-27-2006, 02:52 PM
From what I understand, the 3 papers (NYT, WSJ, LAT) all broke the story.

jspchief
06-27-2006, 03:04 PM
The Wall Street Journal and LA Times newspapers are DESPICABLE!!! There should be public outrage directed towards these two publications!

;)I agree.

The notion that the outrage is about railing on some partisan paper rather than the actual subject matter just shows the shallow level of thinking from those levying such allegations.

the Talking Can
06-27-2006, 03:33 PM
I don't either. Do you want newspapers spilling sensitive GWoT secrets?

what's sensitive? Curveball? Chalabi? Aluminum Tubes? Niger docs? Undercover C.I.A. operatives? Violation of FISA? the OSP? the NIE?

this administration is corrupt and dishonest...at every turn THEY have abused the trust given to them...THEY outed a CIA agent working on nuclear proliferation, THEY selectively declassified documents to leak...THEY have politicized every inch of the "GWOT"...they used the very same newspapers to pass off their lies as truth...and no one said a word

I only wish our newspapers did their job when it mattered.

They put citizens in a position where they can not trust their Government. Listening to these same officials trying to whip up a right wing jihad against reporters is, as I've said, scary. The predictable way it is carried out is depressing.

Of course, if you're one those "don't visit reality" much types then yes, you would be outraged that anyone would want to know anything about what our unfailingly honest government is doing. You would, naturally, side with Government against a free press.

Press = held accountable
Government = no, not so much
Pringles = accountable

banyon
06-27-2006, 03:36 PM
Wait, Pringles are accountable? To whom?

ROFL

jspchief
06-27-2006, 03:40 PM
Great point. Since the government hasn't been held accountable, the press shouldn't be either.

the Talking Can
06-27-2006, 03:46 PM
Great point. Since the government hasn't been held accountable, the press shouldn't be either.

uh, no, the press is doing its job

the point is that the people in this thread whining about it are the very same people who hold the President to NO standard of accountability...and their whinig is, as a result, impossible to take seriously...partisan faux-outrage...

stevieray
06-27-2006, 03:49 PM
uh, no, the press is doing its job

the point is that the people in this thread whining about it are the very same people who hold the President to NO standard of accountability...and their whinig is, as a result, impossible to take seriously...partisan faux-outrage...

Somewhere along the line you have to trust the justice system, the power of truth, and the checks and balances that are in place.

If you believe the system is that screwed up, then you must believe we are all doomed, no matter who is office. Is that the case?

FringeNC
06-27-2006, 04:03 PM
Not even close.
It doesn't reveal the methods. It only reveals that it's being done, and by whom. It doesn't reveal how they gather the information, nor give clues to how the monitoring can be bypassed, short of going to the old hand-carried envelope method of transaction.And?Have you actually read the article? It's not exactly an attack on Bush. It doesn't allege any illegal activities, and it's pretty soft on the administration, overall. In fact, one of the articles (not sure if it was NYT or someone else), indicated that the White House was very narrow in its specifications about what info it requested, but that SWIFT didn't have the ability to narrow their searches to such specific parameters, so they decided on their own to just give the US everything.

From what I understand, terrorists knew not to use direct transfers. What they didn't realize was the extent to which money is followed if it originates or ends in a flagged state. In other words, terrorists thought they were safe if they used a lot of credible middle-men.

Here's what secretary Snow said:

Treasury Secretary Snow in a letter to Bill Keller:

"You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable."

Given that the 9/11 Committee guys Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton urged the NY Times not to print, it adds a little bit of credibility to Snow's letter.

|Zach|
06-27-2006, 10:05 PM
Somewhere along the line you have to trust the justice system, the power of truth, and the checks and balances that are in place.

I always thought that in the case of gitmo prisoners.

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2006, 11:11 PM
I always thought that in the case of gitmo prisoners.
You do realize, that they are legally considered "enemy combatants" who are also NOT citizens of the United States....and thus are not legally entitled to the same rights as you and me?

If you have problems with that, you should take them up with the U.S. Federal Courts....

stevieray
06-27-2006, 11:19 PM
I always thought that in the case of gitmo prisoners.

:rolleyes:

Logical
06-27-2006, 11:20 PM
You do realize, that they are legally considered "enemy combatants" who are also NOT citizens of the United States....and thus are not legally entitled to the same rights as you and me?

If you have problems with that, you should take them up with the U.S. Federal Courts....No problem with that, but then why are they not treated as Prisoners of War in accord with the Geneva convention? That has been my gripe, you can't have it both ways. There are even provisions that would allow them to be tried with military tribunals, why is this not being done, what is being hidden?

|Zach|
06-27-2006, 11:34 PM
You do realize, that they are legally considered "enemy combatants" who are also NOT citizens of the United States....and thus are not legally entitled to the same rights as you and me?

If you have problems with that, you should take them up with the U.S. Federal Courts....
I realize all of those things...

I just disagree with it...I think if we are spreading democracy and the idea of freedom we might as well not totally throw out the ideals of this country on the way there.

Just something about keeping someone without having to actually prove wrong doing took place seems wrong to me...and unamerican.

I think we have a great system. Trust it. Use it.

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2006, 11:41 PM
No problem with that, but then why are they not treated as Prisoners of War in accord with the Geneva convention? That has been my gripe, you can't have it both ways. There are even provisions that would allow them to be tried with military tribunals, why is this not being done, what is being hidden?FWIW, that they are being treated, generally, in accord with the Geneva convention....although some are disputing that. Incidents of abuse are subject to investigation, and several are currently working their way through the system. It is a point of contention, for which neither side has "proof" at this point...I'll defer to the government in this case--until we have proof otherwise.
I realize all of those things...

I just disagree with it...I think if we are spreading democracy and the idea of freedom we might as well not totally throw out the ideals of this country on the way there.

Just something about keeping someone without having to actually prove wrong doing took place seems wrong to me...and unamerican.

I think we have a great system. Trust it. Use it.
Fair enough.

However, I don't see this a totally "throwing out the ideals of this country," and neither do most Americans. That's why the "outrage" some hope for hasn't happened....

Trusting the "system" is fine when you encounter people who are also playing by the rules. However, if your enemy doesn't play by the rules and you do....you put yourself at a distinct disadvantage. And the stakes in this game are way to high, to put yourself at a disadvantage....IMHO.

|Zach|
06-27-2006, 11:43 PM
I don't have a problem with the treatment. I think abuse is isolated but it is still amazing...literally amazing that so many people are ok with this all of this behind closed doors "just trust us and run along" way of doing things.

What a great chance to show how great our system is to the world.

Mr. Kotter
06-27-2006, 11:47 PM
I don't have a problem with the treatment. I think abuse is isolated but it is still amazing...literally amazing that so many people are ok with this all of this behind closed doors "just trust us and run along" way of doing things.

What a great chance to show how great our system is to the world.

In the edit to my last post, I make the point....if the bad guys aren't playing by the rules, I think you put yourself in a dangerous position....and in doing so, you put American lives in danger....if you play by the "rules" when the other side does not. JMHO.

jAZ
06-28-2006, 03:38 AM
Any idea why Republicans choose to single out the New York Times in their attacks, even though the Wall Street Journal also published the same story on the same day?

jAZ
06-28-2006, 03:39 AM
Any idea why Republicans choose to single out the New York Times in their attacks, even though the Wall Street Journal also published the same story on the same day?
Hint: "Editorial Board"

Baby Lee
06-28-2006, 05:46 AM
why is this not being done, what is being hidden?
Because George Bush needed brown people to clear brush on his ranch when he's not there.
Gitmo was a front for Georgie to pad his landscaping staff.

the Talking Can
06-28-2006, 06:03 AM
Just something about keeping someone without having to actually prove wrong doing took place seems wrong to me...and unamerican.

I think we have a great system. Trust it. Use it.

It is wrong. Terribly wrong.

Your last comment captures perfectly what is at stake. This administration doesn't trust, or even like, our system.

Every opportunity we've had to act in accordance with what we claimed we're unique American values has resulted in us choosing, instead, secrecy/lawlessness/lying/torture/spying and on...

I have no idea what the President thinks is great about this country because it sure isn't the Law, the Constitution, or personal privacy/rights.

the Talking Can
06-28-2006, 06:31 AM
I can hear Republicans cheering:


Chinese law could fine disaster reporting

BEIJING - A Chinese law imposing fines on media that report emergencies such as riots and natural disasters without official approval could go into effect by October, the government said Tuesday, as a rights group urged Beijing to scrap it...


...News organizations that report on emergencies without authorization or issue fraudulent reports would be fined between $6,250 $12,500 under the draft law, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

stop the media, protect the king (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_re_as/china_media_controls;_ylt=AsKvb4Dm8A11SP2Shy.8H4us0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-)

DaKCMan AP
06-28-2006, 06:36 AM
Any idea why Republicans choose to single out the New York Times in their attacks, even though the Wall Street Journal also published the same story on the same day?

That's what I was insinuating on the previous page, but they're too busy wrapped in outrage ;)

stevieray
06-28-2006, 07:08 AM
This administration doesn't trust, or even like, our system.
.

This is really getting entertaining. I especially like the dramatic ideals and values part. that's classic!

Which is it? they don't trust it, or it doesn't exist for "this" President?

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2006, 07:13 AM
Any idea why Republicans choose to single out the New York Times in their attacks, even though the Wall Street Journal also published the same story on the same day?Because the WSJ and LAT went with the story, only because the NYT was going to (it's my understanding, all were asked to hold the story; only the NYT said "no.")....a journalistic "keep up with the Jones," I guess.
Hint: "Editorial Board"
Link? Proof?

jAZ
06-28-2006, 08:09 AM
Because the WSJ and LAT went with the story, only because the NYT was going to (it's my understanding, all were asked to hold the story; only the NYT said "no.")....a journalistic "keep up with the Jones," I guess.
Yeah, cause "national security" cares about that. It cares if your intention is "to be first" vs. "not be second".

Dave Lane
06-28-2006, 08:35 AM
Yes, they badmouth GM everyday... I is an IDOT!


Here I corrected your post for you.

Dave

patteeu
06-28-2006, 10:15 AM
From what I understand, the 3 papers (NYT, WSJ, LAT) all broke the story.

If that's the case, then all three deserve condemnation. It seems odd that 3 different papers could independently break a story like this on the same day though.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 10:25 AM
Yeah, cause "national security" cares about that. It cares if your intention is "to be first" vs. "not be second".

If the story is broken by a competitor, there's no point in holding it and you damage yourself in the business competition if you do. If the LATimes and WSJ were willing to hold the story but only went with it after finding out that the NYTimes was going to go, I don't have nearly as much problem with them as I do with the NYT. The first is the problem, not the second. Of course, the main problem is the leaker and that's who we should root out and punish.