Bush Declares War on NY Times-Historic Battle Between Freedom & Fascism

[kpete]

Bush Declares War on the NY Times
Submitted by bob fertik on Fri, 2005-12-30 14:01. Activism
Under cover of darkness, an anonymous White House official just declared war on the New York Times - as well as the First Amendment.

Justice Dept. Opens Inquiry Into Leak of Domestic Spying

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 30, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President Bush's secret domestic spying program, Justice officials said Friday.
http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Domestic-Spying-Probe.html

If you're a pollyanna, you'll think the inquiry is limited to the leaker, whoever that is. And in public, that's what the Busheviks will repeat ad nauseum.

But if you've paid any attention to the right wing blogs since the story broke two weeks ago, you know they don't give a rat's ass about the leaker. They want to get the leakee - the New York Times.

But this declaration of war on the Times by the Busheviks threatens the very existence of the Times, and the very idea of a free press using the First Amendment to expose the crimes of the government.

This is a historic battle between Freedom and Fascism - and we must defend Freedom.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6173

[C_U_L8R]

1. I hope the New York Times replies...

Bring it on ... CHIMP !!

[TomInTib]

2. The Dan Rathering of the Times.

Frontal assault on the media.

[mom cat]

22. Dan Rather was my first thought too.

[ThomWV]

3. Where Will The Rest Of The Paper Publishing World Stand

That seems to me to be the real question.

Who will take a stand for freedom? Which paper will stand beside the New York Times in its defense?

[tularetom]

4. Too bad NY Times

We don't care how much you pimped our fake cause for was in Iraq. What have you done for us lately?

[kpete]

5. This is not about NYT

IT IS ABOUT US - WE THE PEOPLE!!!! DAMN THE NYT!!!

[tularetom]

10. I know.

It was supposed to be from the * admin standpoint. I forgot the:sarcasm:

[ugarte]

11. Yes, it's not about this case, but about sending a signal to intimidate

the Times and certainly less powerful newspapers. It's all about setting a tone of repression and prior restraint.

[Career Prole]

6. Recommended.

That's how it'll play out.

[SoFlaJet]

7. This is where they "jump the shark"

the Times withheld that information until AFTER the election ensuring BushCo that they would get back in.Now they attack or bite the proverbial hand that fed them.Good move KKKarl I love it.Now,the Times has to follow up that story with the ultimate ass kicker-start naming the names of WHO they were spying on,and when it comes out that it was the people we all suspect it to be then the shit really hits the fan.I think they wait until congress comes back before the new disclosures.

[cliss]

16. I agree. This is complete and utter

bullshit on a very primitive level.

On the radio last week (when the story broke), the reporter said that "Bush met with the New York Times a week before they published the story in order to have it cut".

Do they think I'm completely retarded? Of course Bush knew who the "leaker" was. Bush knew the story was going to be published. There was no surprise here.

And I find it incredibly ironic that Bush is "going after the leaker at the NYT". What about his own leaker in the White House, last year? he didn't pursue that very much.:smoke:

[AntiFascist]

21. It would be great if this alienates the NYT once and for all...

from the Bush Admin. Then things could get interesting, but I won't count on it. Considering what's happening with the MSM, where do the high-level execs stand?

[FourStarDemocrat]

29. The Times'll need to hire a male-escort/quasi-reporter to regain access..

:D

[Tsiyu]

8. Ahh....now they see

that sleeping with the enemy does not protect you!

All of the self-righteous Right-Wing Blowhards can pull their blubbery heads out of their asses now.

** ain't gonna protect you, even if you help cover up his murders; even if you hide the truth for years....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!:evilgrin:

[w13rd0]

17. The centrist dems and moderate republicans...

...that kissed Bush's ass and then got pushed out or replaced should have already clued them in that BushCo has no permanent allies, just willingly complicit co-conspirators with targets on their backs.

[stopbush]

9. The disaster that Sulzberger and his minions have visited on

the Times through the Judith Miller fiasco has sprouted a new head.

The Times is but a shadow of its former self. It's now seen as an apologist/propagandist for bushco. From spreading Rove's lies and spearheading the rush to an illegal war to sitting on this story when it could have changed the outcome of last year's election, they are disgusting.

Now that bushco has effectively used the Times to advance its agenda, they're ready to slime and discard them as they do all sycophants who cease to do their bidding.

In a better world, one could defend the Times, but this looks like the classic example of lying down with dogs. Worse, the Times has handed bushco all the information they'll need to discredit the Times as a reputable news source on THIS important story!

Looks like Keller just lost that all-important "access" that has been driving the Times' political decisions for the past few years.

[glitch]

12. Exactly, association with bushies has weakened the times, now for the kill

says rove. For who will defend the hopelessly corrupted times? (he thinks).
Another over-reach, it's what they do when cornered. So far it's been a successful tactic for them.
We'll see.

[marylanddem]

19. It is a sickening state of affairs.

I am disgusted with how the NYTimes pimped Bush's war & probably withheld information that helped him win re-selection. That said,
I hope there is somebody at that newspaper with the backbone to take on this fight. It isn't just about the Times, it's about the future of this nation.

[kpete]

13. from Digby:

No Comment

So the Justice Department is going to investigate the leak of the illegal NSA spy scandal. Fine. I assume this also means that nobody from the White House will be able to comment in any way since there is an ongoing investigation.

And that means no matter what comes up, Scotty is required to stonewall. Even when he doesn't want to. Thems the rules.

http://www.latestblognews.com/

[fooj]

14. Who is going to stop these madmen? And when?

This is beyond unacceptable...


Peace.

[Just Me]

15. Gather forces,...take a stand against intimidation tactics.

This shit must end. The only way it will end is if we gather our forces and stand up to these assholes who have abused their authority and broken more lawsb than any administration in American history.

[xultar]

18. The NYTIMES was trying to soften feathers there a bit and run pro Iraq

coverage there for a minute. I guess it didn't work.

[Lefty48197]

20. Kill the messanger - The Bushista modus operandi

I've seen it too many times to count...
Criticize team Bush, and the right-wing slander machine jumps into action. Despicable.

[FourStarDemocrat]

23. The NY Times is not about to be intimidated by this crooked admin

They'll have their army of lawyers, and they know that they'll be around far longer than the Bush admin, which has just three years left. Who knows what other tasty tidbits they'll bring forth about the Bush admin in retaliation? And I'm not even a fan of the Times, but they've been through this before and have thick skins.

[Auntie Bush]

24. Nice signature!.

[FourStarDemocrat]

26. Thank you! n/t

[gulliver]

28. Bush tried to talk them out of the story.

They apparently didn't think he had a very good case. I consider this good news, because I'm sure Bush made the case that his legal subordinates concurred that he had the right to tap without a warrant. It wouldn't be much of a story if NYT agreed. In fact, it would be (as Bush said) shameful if the NYT agreed Bush had the right to do what he did and still broke the story (and the operation's cover).

I don't think the NYT would have broken the story if their lawyers didn't think Bush's best case was weak.

[Jawja]

25. The Times asked for this,

IMHO. Play with snakes, you get bit. Lie down with dogs, you get fleas.

After Judith Miller trumpeting the march to an unneccesary to war, the Times deserves.

[bpilgrim]

27. good

i hope they destroy each-other

peace

[WinkyDink]

30. HAHA! Like the old joke:

They knew what he was BEFORE they hitched a ride!

ETA: Now Bushco will discover what it means to ANGER the NYT! It isn't going to be pretty!

[ddeclue]

31. My money's on the guys who buy ink in tanker trucks..

and paper by the train load...

Much as I dislike some of their people like ol' Judy-in-Jail and the idiots who sat on Bush's illegal wire tapping for a whole year during an election season, I'd rather have them win than Bush.

Doug D.