Skip to comments.
NY Times 'Stonewalling' on NSA Leak (Why am I not surprised?)
NewsMax ^
| January 2, 2006
| Carl Limbacher
Posted on 01/02/2006 12:27:47 PM PST by Kaslin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
1
posted on
01/02/2006 12:27:49 PM PST
by
Kaslin
To: Kaslin
I hope Byron Calame has his resume updated. ;-)
2
posted on
01/02/2006 12:30:34 PM PST
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Monthly Donor spoken Here. Go to ... https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: Kaslin
Under the law, the newspaper was required to escalate the information to the Senate Intelligence Committee and then to cork it.
Treason applies. There is no backdoor for "woefully inadequate" explanations. Hope that they still offer jumpsuits with stripes.
3
posted on
01/02/2006 12:31:30 PM PST
by
saveliberty
(Proud to be Head Snowflake and Bushbot)
To: Kaslin
"Stonewalling" = Criminal Obstruction of Justice
To: NormsRevenge
Well,,,, I read the whole Calame report earlier, and it seemed to me that he didn't actually have too much of a problem with the papers disclosing of the top-secret info. I think that some of the more critical sounding items were cherry-picked out of his article. He didn't seem that p-o'd too me!
To: Kaslin
In its initial report on Dec. 16, Times said that editors held the story at the request of the White House, then edited out some - but not all - of the information that Bush administration officials warned would compromise national security. Looks like laws were broken to me, very serious laws in fact.
And now the CYA campaign beguins.
6
posted on
01/02/2006 12:35:33 PM PST
by
bayliving
(Dems used to be funny. Now they're just dangerous.)
To: Kaslin
Accuse them of treason and go after them like there is no tomorrow. Then we'll see how much stonewalling they will do. Freedom of the press does not begin to allow disobeying the law.
7
posted on
01/02/2006 12:35:42 PM PST
by
wita
(truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
To: saveliberty
The NYT editorial department needs to be frog-marched down to the Senate Intelligence Committee for a little show and tell. :^)
8
posted on
01/02/2006 12:36:00 PM PST
by
claudiustg
(Go Bush! Go Sharon!)
To: Kaslin
I'm hoping that the nyt has stepped in so deep this time, that there will be no way out except for lengthy jail sentences for treason.
9
posted on
01/02/2006 12:36:08 PM PST
by
freeangel
( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
To: claudiustg
Isn't it the Justice Department that is launching the investigation?
10
posted on
01/02/2006 12:38:53 PM PST
by
saveliberty
(Proud to be Head Snowflake and Bushbot)
To: Kaslin
What if we told them that chuckie schumer wanted them to cooperate, would they have a change of heart?
To: Kaslin
The NYT held the story so they could release it for maximum effect.
Is it a coincidence that it was released on the eve if the vote on the Patriot Act?
As for the source of the story...the Justice Dept. nedds to start leaning on them...hard.
12
posted on
01/02/2006 12:39:43 PM PST
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(Crime cannot be tolerated. Criminals thrive on the indulgences of society's understanding.)
To: freeangel
To: Kaslin
They held out no hope for a fuller explanation in the future,What part of "no attacks in four years" don't these morons understand?
To: Kaslin
New York Times executives are "stonewalling" on questions about the paper's decision to publish top secret information .......... But.......but........what about the "people's right to know" ?
15
posted on
01/02/2006 12:42:44 PM PST
by
oldbrowser
(No matter how cynical I get, I can't seem to keep up)
To: bayliving
Unfortunately, the Old Media are setting things up for a "Bush broke the law" scenario.
Unless the GOP changes its usual weak-kneed behavior, they're going to get away with it, too.
I caught two snippets on C-SPAN this AM (I hardly ever watch C-SPAN), and in both instances the guests were flat out stating Bush violated the law.
The Republicans had better develop some cajones, or the libs will make this another Watergate.
16
posted on
01/02/2006 12:43:39 PM PST
by
daler
To: hoosierboy
What if we told them that chuckie schumer wanted them to cooperate, would they have a change of heart? The "boy" Senator? Na. The Times only works for the 'girl" Senator
17
posted on
01/02/2006 12:44:59 PM PST
by
Ditto
( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra
That did not Piss me of at all. Those were the words of a 40 YO Red Diaper Baby with no facts to back up his rant.
18
posted on
01/02/2006 12:48:17 PM PST
by
cmsgop
( Bill Clinton's License Plate..... "Herpes 1")
To: Kaslin
Let the NYT twist slowly in the wind.
19
posted on
01/02/2006 12:48:34 PM PST
by
Paladin2
(If the political indictment's from Fitz, the jury always acquits.)
To: Kaslin
New York Times executives are "stonewalling" on questions about the paper's decision to publish top secret information ....... When you have commited a crime, that is your constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment.
20
posted on
01/02/2006 12:50:10 PM PST
by
Polybius
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-85 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson