Posted on 12/21/2005 3:30:01 PM PST by Only Waxing
bump
Big surprise - what I am really wondering though is why the NY Times held off on the story prior to last year's Presidential election?
bttt
pinging
Nah. Say it ain't so.
Good post. Thanks.
A request to all:
Any articles about this matter -- we should make sure that at least one keyword under the article contains the word "Spying". Then we can search under that keyword and find all the articles written about this matter.
This is important if next year, when Congress resumes, this matter is still gaining momentum. Thanks.
bttt
Bill Clinton likes to flap his gums on alot of issues. Where's the MSM questions to him on this?
It's possible that at that time, the NY Times didn't know how the public might react to what is an obvious political move. They may not have wanted to put the Dems in the position of having to respond to the article since there is a good chance it could've had the opposite effect (as I still think it will) and further damaged the Democrats electoral chances.
Not to mention that the media has now had an extra year to attack Bush and further damage his credibility and poll numbers, giving them a sense of empowerment. It also made a good hold card that they could pull out at anytime where it looked like Bush may be gaining momentum (Iraq elections), which could be used to deflect attention.
Risen's book wasn't sent to the publisher until last month.
Besides, they already had the al-Qaqaa "missing explosives" story to use on the Friday before the election.
That's a great question. Der Schlickmeister would either have to (1) support the current Oval Office occupant's interpretation of the relevant legal authority - or (2) dissimulate (lie his sorry ass off). Based on past history - I'd lay my bet on #2. But the media seem strangely (hah!) silent on this point.
Good points - I would have thought they pulled out all the stops BEFORE the election - have you seen the reaction from the wacko left denouncing them for withholding the story?
I haven't seen the reaction...but I imagine it's furious. I think this is one of the reasons you're suddenly seeing the Dems release these supposed contemporaneous notes, so they can inoculate themselves from the criticism...which is another joke.
No. But let the record reflect that I'm totally in favor of the Democrats joining with the ACLU and seeking a federal court injunction in order to "protect the privacy of al-Qaeda communications".
Talk about self-immolation...
IMHO. Risen should be indicted, tried and sent to prison for the damage he and his stinking "book" have done to the security of my country. The release of classified information is going to cause Americans to die just because this moron is upset that his boy Hanoi Johnny wasn't elected President of the United States. He is nothing but an Al Qaeda loving, Bush hating Liberal punk. IMHO.
"Big surprise - what I am really wondering though is why the NY Times held off on the story prior to last year's Presidential election?"
Because reporting the story would once again confirm that the Democrats are weak on national security.
Exactly.
A Republican member on the Intelligence Committee today said the one good thing about The new york times divulging classified information is that he should never again have to read an editorial by THE times about not connecting the dots.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.