Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Does 51% of the voters still constitute a "mandate"?<< Whoever prevails in the election automatically gets not only a mandate, but the full responsibilty of running the country. As noted, 2004 is the first year since 1988 that any succesfull candidate for President has gotten over 50% of the vote.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon My point re: Ellsberg is that I don't consider him a hero. What he did in leaking material for a dishonorable partisan purpose in 1970 was outrageous then, just as what was done now was outrageous. Of course I'm not surprised that someone would regard the actual *outcome* of what happened when the anti-war movement of the 1960s got their way in Vietnam to be so irrelevant, especially since I note how irrelevant the words of those like Sergeant Boggs are being deemed. The New York Times conduct in this case is the greatest exercise in arrogance ever seen, and the Times likes to get away with it by hiding behind a First Amendment that they have abused for naked partisan purposes, even to the point of giving open aid and comfort to the enemy. The Times then lied regarding the nature of Administration objections saying they were "halfhearted" when that has been shown to be false by outgoing Treasury Secretary John Snow, as well as the fact that Congressional DEMOCRATS (including unindicted ABSCAM co-conspirator Jack Murtha) urged the Times not to do this. I didn't elect Bill Keller to decide which programs should be kept secret and which shouldn't. I elected George W. Bush, who has a legal mandate to use means to fight terror that the Times themselves pushed for in an editorial five days after 9/11 (a forgotten time when even much of the Left behaved like Americans first, save Michael Moore) and frankly I hope his Justice Department will have the guts to prosecute not only the leaker but the people at the Times responsible for accepting the material, since they are in violation of criminal statutes on the leaking of classified information FAR more serious than the "outing" of Valerie Plame ever was. And seeing how the Left and the Times was so gung-ho about "secrecy" on that non-issue, it's time they be held accountable to the same standards they kept demanding they stood for.
Originally Posted By gadzuux In all of your ranting about the new york times, you're conveniently ignoring that it was also published in the LA times and that other bastion of liberal journalism, the wall street journal. Where's the outrage?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Don't expect consistency, Gadzuux. Also, what exactly was compromised here? Anything? The terrorists may be vile, but they're not stupid. They have to know their financial transactions may be monitored. Specter had it right; find out if anything was compromised before calling someone "traitorous."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>that other bastion of liberal journalism, the wall street journal<< Yes, why is it that is so frequently left out of this whole thing, the the Wall Street Journal ran this as well? Talk about an inconvenient truth. LOL
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The New York Times's decision was notably different from the Wall Street Journal's. <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008585" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110008585</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That's pretty much a CYA piece from the Journal's editorial page, which is separate from its news pages. It says they (the editorial page) wouldn't have printed it, but ultimately admits that "Whether the Journal News department would agree with us in this or other cases, we can't say." At any rate, Wiliam Saffire of all people, on this morning's Meet the Press, while saying he constantly disagrees with the NYT's position on just about everything, nonetheless called a spade a spade and said that there was no evidence that anything of value was disclosed here. A terrorist who didn't know his transactions could be monitored is a stupid terrorist indeed, and these men are not stupid. He called the administration's wails against the media for the grandstanding that they are.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I think the bush administration makes a grave mistake in vilifying the new york times. That's one formidable enemy to have, and with bush's polls at historic lows, they're just fishing for trouble.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's pretty much a CYA piece from the Journal's editorial page, which is separate from its news pages.> It explains that the Journal decided to run the piece only after the NY Times had decided to run theirs, and did so with the input of the Bush administration.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I think the bush administration makes a grave mistake in vilifying the new york times. That's one formidable enemy to have, and with bush's polls at historic lows, they're just fishing for trouble.> It was the NY Times that decided to make itself an enemy of the Bush Administration, and it did it a long time ago.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "It was the NY Times that decided to make itself an enemy of the Bush Administration, and it did it a long time ago." << I have a lot more respect for a newspaper that challenges the administration than one that makes friends with it. I honestly think that any news organization that is considered to be a friend of any presidential administration is not doing its job properly. That doesn't necessarily mean that I automatically believe that the various publications made the right decision by running this story. For one thing, I don't think I have enough information as of yet to really make that decision. It is pretty unclear to me whether or not this really revealed anything that Al Queda and other terrorist organizations are likely to find useful and/or that was something they didn't already know. My instinct is that this didn't really reveal anything of much importance, though, and that the administration is just using this to try and shore up their current battle to find the leaks in their midst. This administration really has been far more secretive than most. Some, but I don't think all, of that secrecy is likely justified by the post-9/11 aftermath and the Iraq war. I think these attacks on the press for reporting these stories are largely an attempt to try and put more fear into those within the administration that are leaking information. I'm sure the administration is well aware of the constitutional protections afforded to the press and I doubt that they have much of an illusion about any significant changes to those. I think it is more likely that they hope to create a feeling of doubt about whether leakers will be protected. It also is a way of trying to deflect attention from the dissent within the organization that is represented by the fact that these programs are being leaked. -Jeff
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I have a lot more respect for a newspaper that challenges the administration than one that makes friends with it.> I have a lot more respect for a newspaper that maintains a consistant position on the issues, rather than one that changes their position in order to constantly vilify the President, just because he's a Republican.
Originally Posted By Capstan Broadly speaking, secrecy is for those who have something to hide, including governments. Honesty is the best policy. I don't think we'd be facing terrorists, except for the government's committing of acts of terrorism overseas first, like sending warships to foreign shores for decades, a hundred years or better, for the sole purpose of intimidation (I believe "protecting American interests abroad" is the euphemism it generally uses, just as "intelligence" has become an euphemism for sneakiness. We were pushing them around (even if the public didn't know it,) long before they started pushing back. Seems to me, if one can't take it, then one shouldn't be dishing it out, or at least, one should stop whining just because one is learning that everyone doesn't neccessarily play by that individual's particular, narrow set of rules, in my honest opinion.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "I have a lot more respect for a newspaper that maintains a consistant position on the issues, rather than one that changes their position in order to constantly vilify the President, just because he's a Republican." << I agree and I'm glad that the New York Times doesn't do that. -Jeff
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The NY Times made a big pretense of being concerned about national security when Valerie Plame was "outed". Now they only seemed concerned about attacking the Bush Administration.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That's pretty much a CYA piece from the Journal's editorial page, which is separate from its news pages.>> <t explains that the Journal decided to run the piece only after the NY Times had decided to run theirs, and did so with the input of the Bush administration.> That's if one believes the version of events given by the WSJ editorial board.
