RE: Well it ain't covert anymore

RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

TheHeretic -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/11/2009 4:44:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol you just wanted an excuse to bash the NYT (my very FAVE sunday paper, incidentally ;-) . It's a treat, with a long leisurely brunch.) Thank you for answering my last question with such clarity. I think we're done.

Owner59 -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/11/2009 5:18:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol If you can show me that the Times somehow went over their journalistic duty and published something they shouldn't have, I might start sharing your indignation. If, like I suspect, this story was the result of a leak, or even somehow sanctioned by the White House, I will continue to believe that your indignation is a reflex at the source of the news... and that you just wanted an excuse to bash the NYT (my very FAVE sunday paper, incidentally ;-) . It's a treat, with a long leisurely brunch.) Good show, kittin.Well put and spot on. The ourage is fake,the hypocracy and shall we say the "hackery" ,is ripe.

TheHeretic -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/12/2009 9:23:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I say keep the Free Press. Even the bad ones. That should go without saying, Muse. Besides, the paper that is "bad" today, might be the one that gets it right tomorrow. Wasn't it The Enquirer that broke the story that ended John Edwards? Freedom of the Press is covered in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights. Congress shall make NO law... I'll defend the right of the New York Times to run this story, but I'll question the hell out of their judgement for doing it. Whether they are still worthy of the respect or not, they are the paper of record. Their Tuesday front page is everybody else's Wednesday. That places an even greater burden of common sense on them. Everybody holds the razor at a different angle I guess. I put the idea that they are cooperating with the Bush Admin, or that they would be the choice of the same for a juicy leak on the opposite side of the blade. It seems much simpler that they followed a lead with solid investigative journalism, and walked into something that needed to stay quiet. Israel getting turned down for the deep penetration bunker-busters? That's a story all by itself. What we are doing that doesn't involve dropping bombs? Maybe a moment of thought before breaking that. Again, they aren't the Sacramento Bee, which can state that the CA teachers union has 3.2 million members, and nobody cares. I wonder what checks and balances the Times might have in place. Do the people who make the decision get advice? They certainly have enough names in the rolodex. I was skimming my usual news/opinion sites at lunch today, and wasn't seeing any criticism. Maybe somebody will write a column. I wonder if the Times will include this, when they do their in-depth piece on the lead-up to a U.S. strike in Iran. Dumbasses. I hear they had to mortgage the building to keep afloat. That would make me smile, but they'll just come looking for a bailout.

Owner59 -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/12/2009 9:55:18 PM)
Where does payed-off reporters(payed off by bush) and fake experts (payed by bush) bull-shitting us, factor into a free press? Kinda kills the integrity and credibility of our "free press" if we have to wonder if a talking head lying for payola. Did the founding fathers take into account propaganda coupled with the national press,used for dubious purposes?

TheHeretic -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/12/2009 11:00:50 PM)
I'm still waiting for you to answer a very simple question somebody else asked you elsewhere, O59. I'd hate to distract you from your well-reasoned response to that. Goodnight.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/13/2009 12:21:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic You won't find many people more pro free speech/expression than I am, but I also believe there needs to be a bit of sense involved. I just read this article... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_israel ... where, once again, the New York Times has decided to sabotage the efforts of this country to deal with national security threats. WTF? In a free society, with freedom of the press, how do we address this kind of idiocy? Like this: [sm=lalala.gif]

philosophy -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/13/2009 9:58:01 AM)
FR Seems to me that, while the story was undoubtedly leaked from somewhere, it may not have been leaked from the White House. i'd consider if it was leaked by Israel.

Owner59 -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/13/2009 10:56:19 AM)
You see philo,some believe that george bush`s admin. = America`s best interests and confuse the two. They would like to see the press manipulate information in order to "help" bush .Arguing that the press should kill or suppress info that damages bush`s admin. and/or trumpet helpful info that favors it. They argue that the free press shouldn`t be free to report and should censor info damaging to the bush admin.(something they confuse with US interests) They would like to see the press just repeat talking points w/ out checking them for truth or accuracy and approve of the free press disseminating mis-information in order to poison the media mainstream and the debate. One vivid example of this sordid manipulation was in the run up/lying us into the Iraq War. The NY Times cunt who went to jail over the Valerie Plame scandal(her name escapes me) worked with dick cheney to spread mis-information about WMD in Iraq. cheney was giving her false intel which she reported(sighting anonymous sources).Then cheney would sight the NY Times to back up his positions/lies. They did this for months so she had to have known what was going on and that she was part of it. BTW,all the info/intel about active WMD programs in Iraq was wrong and now we know,made up. Don`t forget the underlying motivation of the Plamegate scandle was the fake story about "yellow cake" from Africa and the bush admin.`s(along with the free press) attempt to mis-lead us. All that ominous,threatening scary information coupled with comments like"we don`t want the "smoking gun"(proof of WMD in Iraq) to come in the form of a mushroom cloud" from the bush admin,on the heels of 9/11 was all they needed to get us to invade Iraq. We now know we were mis-lead/lied into this bloody deadly disaster and that the press(the Times,Fox,talk radio,and un-known/un-counted payed-off reporters,etc) helped in that effort. And we can see that some are just fine with that.

Musicmystery -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/13/2009 11:25:54 AM)
This, actually, is why blogger "news" is so popular--people just find someone who writes what they want to hear. Old as language. But truly, if The Times is so good at uncovering covert information, to the point that they are able to undo government security as some have claimed, then I say give them a pile of money and have them take over the CIA. Put that talent to work.

Vendaval -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/13/2009 12:30:21 PM)
Hey Rich, I tried looking for more information on this story but did not find much so far. The fact that the US and Israel were having discussions about Iran's nuclear program and were in disagreement was not a secret. How high level is this other information and who was the source? That is what we do not know yet. Was the information released as a purposeful leak by the Bush Administration or does it come from someone who went against policy and orders? So far we have more questions than answers here. quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Israel getting turned down for the deep penetration bunker-busters? That's a story all by itself. What we are doing that doesn't involve dropping bombs? I wonder what checks and balances the Times might have in place. Do the people who make the decision get advice? They certainly have enough names in the rolodex. I was skimming my usual news/opinion sites at lunch today, and wasn't seeing any criticism. Maybe somebody will write a column. I wonder if the Times will include this, when they do their in-depth piece on the lead-up to a U.S. strike in Iran.

fungasm -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/14/2009 6:35:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic In a free society, with freedom of the press, how do we address this kind of idiocy? Hey You... If you read the article you pointed us to, it states: LAST YEAR. And now the fact that it was considered was reported. That means the press did it's job. You know what? It's not a current covert operation. But it was considered. As an American Citizen whose taxes will be paying for the current War for a long time, I really want to know before we get into another one. Wars shouldn't be covert. As Americans, we understand if our government, whom we appoint and whom we oversee, have covert operations within wars. But to start a war covertly is not something we want a part of. If you think your government has the right to start wars on your behalf without telling you, you give patriots a really bad name. Alison

TheHeretic -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/14/2009 6:55:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fungasm If you read the article you pointed us to, it states: LAST YEAR. It hasn't been THIS year very long, now has it? If you had read what I said in the thread, my objection to the report isn't about the discussions with Israel. It's the decision to go to press with information about covert operations that might keep a military strike from being necessary.

ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/14/2009 10:41:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Do you really believe that, or do you just think you're fooling someone who may be reading this? I'm curious because whether you're aware of it or not, it only takes a few mouse clicks to establish that you pull all of your arguments out of thin air, and that there is absolutely no foundation for any of them. There was a day when republicans would have been calling for the heads and blood of anyone even remotely involved in destroying the cover of a field agent, during a time of war. Now the chief of staff for dick cheney(no doubt under the direction of his boss) is committing those crimes. Why was "Scooter" investigated and what crime was he convicted of obstructing justice over? There was time when republicans would never have dreamed of apologizing for treason. She wasn't a field agent. No one covert reports to CIA headquarters. Or do you you think our enemies are too stupid not to have people or cameras watching the gate ? And generally speaking they don't tell their grade school children they work for the CIA, and those kids don't tell their schoolmates mom or dad works for the CIA if they are covert. Scooter libby was caught in a bullshit perjury rap over a YEAR after the prosecutor learned who the leak was. He then was brought in front of a DC jury. 90% of the population of DC are idiotic leftists. He could of been convicted of being a cow impersonating a human in that court room. Funny, the same prosecutor that showed such patience to snag libby called off the blago senate seat investigation BEFORE blago committed ANY crime. Can't let Obama or a member of his transition team an opportunity to commit a crime on tape after all.

corysub -> RE: Well it ain't covert anymore (1/15/2009 4:39:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Why don't you explain the reason for your indignation, instead of trying to be all cryptic? If you need an explanation, Kitten, you probably aren't going to comprehend anyway. Nor are those incapable of rising above partisan hackery to answer the simplest of questions about their philosophy. I'm going to try and make this very simple. A nuclear Iran would be a bad thing. That is the official position of our government, and I fully agree with that position. According to the article, Israel asked us for help in blowing the shit up (a military act), and we said no. The story goes on to discuss covert programs by our government to prevent an Iranian Bomb by means of espionage/sabotage (a non-military act). You know what, Kitten? It isn't up to me to explain my indigation. Please explain to me where you might have forgotten your own? I want to know why this doesn't bother you. Think about this for a moment, instead of just having a snark reflex to my avatar. You should be a little ticked, if the values you proclaim in these forums actually play a role in your worldview. Maybe the Iranians thought we had something to do with the facility problems. Now they know. It was in the Allah-Be-Praised New York Times! How many electricians and technicians are wishing, this very minute, that they had the protections of Guantanamo Bay? You think imprisonment and torture are bad, don't you? Far worse, Kitten, and you really should care about this a whole lot, confirming such a program makes it a lot less likely the non-military option will work. Are you thinking a U.S. bombing strike in Iran would be better than a non-violent option? Do you think going to war with Iran is a good outcome? Why aren't you upset with the Times for doing something that could make war more likely? Or do you only think war is bad when it suits your prejudices? Well said!. However, liberals live in a different dimension than the reality of the day, so full of "sound and fury" and give more meaning to words like "change" than to "truth". You can't reason with those who insist on being unreasonable but the dangers are too real to ignore their rants.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625