Why Did The Times Wait?

Sweetness & Light ^ | January 3, 2006 | N/A

[OldFriend]

LOLOL.....I got that mail from the NYSlimes too.

Even if they paid me I wouldn't want my neighbors to see that blue bag on my driveway.

[veronica]

The NY Times is a disgrace. I regularly get calls from them soliciting me to subscribe to the Sunday Times, which I used to get for the Arts & Leisure section, and the crossword puzzle. No more. And I tell them I prefer the NY Post. :)

[CFC__VRWC]

Someone else on another thread made an excellent point. Recall that Osama bin Laden released a tape just before the 2004 election - Karl Rove let him out of the White House basement to make that tape and throw the election to George Bush (or so implied "Uncle" Walter Cronkite, anyway). If the Slimes had ran with the NSA story then, it would have bumped the public's approval of the "spying" (and thus Bush) up even higher.

[kcvl]

"What a tangled web we weave..."

I think HYPOCRITES fit better.

Wilson/Plame (desk jockey/media "star") leak = bad, National Security leaks = good. They are so transparent.

[Brilliant]

They waited for one simple reason: They thought it would help Bush in his re-election bid, not hurt him.


And they were right.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Did you listen to Risen on Today? Heard the outtakes on Rush today and it sounds like the leak came from Foggy Bottom (again)..not to say Rockefeller isn't involved, I believe he is, but the fine hand of State is in Risen's interview.... some enterprising Freeper needs to find the script or video... the outtakes were fascinating and very revealing.

[nopardons]

Many thanks for the ping!

[Mo1]

With at least 70% and more like 90% of public approval of the wiretapping, what makes you sure that the NY Times would have swung the election?

Just a guess .. but I think it's about what the NYT thought and not the public in general

The NYT THOUGHT the country would be outraged .. it never dawned on them that the American people actually want our President to fight the terrorists

This is now about the 2006 election and not the 2004

[freema]

"Just a guess .. but I think it's about what the NYT thought and not the public in general"

I agree. They only listen to themselves.

I also think they probably held it because they WERE warned not to release it, then the Plame stuff got going...still listening to themselves.......and now they're listening to themselves with impeachment on a low simmer and thought they'd turn the fire up.

[lawnguy]

I'm not necessarily saying what I think. I am saying what I believe Calame and the NYT think. Calame is obviously disappointed that they didn't use this to help their side win the elections.

There was a time when I would have thought this was terribly cynical, but no more.

I find myself suspecting all connected with the big media, and I think the day will come when we need someone we can trust to disemminate information, and because they have no credibility, people will die.

I have no doubt that people have already died because of the traitors who leak secrets as if they belonged to them.

[Sam Hill]

The Times is very proud of their attempts to throw Presidential elections for one party or another. And they have been doing this since right after the Civil War, if not even earlier.

This is from their "Time Line":

1876
Disgusted with the scandals in the Grant Administration, George Jones, now the publisher, moves The Times away from the Republican Party.

New York Times Company: Our Company: Timeline: NY Times Timeline 1851-1880
http://www.nytco.com/company-timeline-1851.html

[Deb]

Amazing how traitorous the Left becomes when Republicans are in power.