Downwinder
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Dec-04-10 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
| 13. Like the Belafonte song. |
|
Clear as mud, but it covers the ground.
". . .WikiLeaks provided the paper with more than 400,000 secret Iraq documents in advance of Friday's publication online . . ."
|
| -This is how the New York Times tried to discredit Manning: shameful paper |
Catherina |
Dec-04-10 11:12 PM |
#0 |
 -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-04-10 11:15 PM |
#1 |
 -
Pavulon, it was interesting knowing you. Goodbye n/t |
Catherina |
Dec-04-10 11:17 PM |
#2 |
| -
Later, Equality is a great thing |
Pavulon |
Dec-04-10 11:21 PM |
#3 |
 -
"When the truth is treasonous, we're all in trouble" |
Dr.Phool |
Dec-05-10 10:42 AM |
#50 |
| -
Don't mind that one. He's just pissed that we haven't gone to War with Iran yet. |
TheWatcher |
Dec-05-10 11:28 AM |
#54 |
| -
Secrecy is the crime, not telling the people what the regimes are doing. |
Ken Burch |
Dec-04-10 11:21 PM |
#4 |
| -
Yes indeed. The Economist got something really right today |
Catherina |
Dec-04-10 11:26 PM |
#5 |
| -
Glad that oped serves you position. Post it in LBN.. |
Pavulon |
Dec-04-10 11:29 PM |
#7 |
| -
Get elected to a senate seat |
Pavulon |
Dec-04-10 11:27 PM |
#6 |
| -
So, we should not have any secrets? NOTHING should be classified? |
Common Sense Party |
Dec-04-10 11:49 PM |
#10 |
| -
There have been many threads here explaining how lame that meme is. |
Catherina |
Dec-04-10 11:53 PM |
#11 |
| -
To dodge the question is the lamest. |
Common Sense Party |
Dec-05-10 12:24 AM |
#17 |
| -
There was a thread this morning about it. Plame's cover was blown because her husband exposed... |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 12:31 AM |
#18 |
| -
So? Assange no doubt broke the cover of many (you're kidding |
pnwmom |
Dec-05-10 01:43 AM |
#23 |
| -
No. He didn't break the cover of anyone. |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 02:14 AM |
#26 |
| -
How can you say that? He's been trying to release 250,000 |
pnwmom |
Dec-05-10 02:44 AM |
#30 |
| -
Again: |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 02:46 AM |
#32 |
| -
Kennedy's words were not meant for this situation, as you know. |
pnwmom |
Dec-05-10 02:50 AM |
#34 |
| -
The principle here is not what the President approves of. |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 03:05 AM |
#38 |
| -
So should there never be any classified documents? |
treestar |
Dec-05-10 09:34 AM |
#45 |
| -
Not if they're 'classifying' documents to deceive the American people about what they're up to. |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 11:21 AM |
#52 |
| -
So there should never be any classified documents? |
treestar |
Dec-05-10 11:26 AM |
#53 |
| -
I'm inclined to say, "yes." The more I see about the motives for 'classifying' documents, the less.. |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 01:24 PM |
#55 |
| -
Distinction without difference as an excuse for being inconsistent |
treestar |
Dec-05-10 09:34 AM |
#46 |
| -
Your name maybe, not mine n/t |
Catherina |
Dec-05-10 10:00 AM |
#48 |
| -
Valerie Plame was exposed while the rest of the secrecy culture remained in place. |
Ken Burch |
Dec-05-10 01:00 AM |
#20 |
| -
Yeah, so? The rest of the secrecy culture is doing fine now, too /nt |
jberryhill |
Dec-05-10 01:29 AM |
#21 |
| -
800,000 people had access to Top Secret files. |
Overseas |
Dec-05-10 10:19 AM |
#49 |
| -
Diplomats often cannot conduct negotiations |
pnwmom |
Dec-05-10 01:40 AM |
#22 |
| -
I'm for bringing down the shadow government. Lots of people here were at one time. nt |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 02:16 AM |
#27 |
| -
Assange is attacking government period. Not just "shadow government." |
pnwmom |
Dec-05-10 02:43 AM |
#29 |
| -
Again: |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 02:45 AM |
#31 |
| -
Kennedy would never have said that 11,000 top secret documents |
pnwmom |
Dec-05-10 02:48 AM |
#33 |
| -
Well, he's not here to speak for himself |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 03:00 AM |
#35 |
| -
They'll have a lot easier time convicting Manning, who has already |
pnwmom |
Dec-05-10 03:02 AM |
#36 |
| -
Perhaps |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 03:07 AM |
#39 |
| -
This is the second time in this thread you've mistated the classification |
Catherina |
Dec-05-10 04:00 AM |
#41 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-05-10 01:52 AM |
#24 |
| -
What do you expect from the paper of record? |
Scruffy1 |
Dec-05-10 04:35 AM |
#43 |
| -
Why is the NYT site still available? |
Downwinder |
Dec-04-10 11:31 PM |
#8 |
| -
The NYT shills for the government. Assange didn't provide the cables to the NYT |
Catherina |
Dec-04-10 11:45 PM |
#9 |
| -
Thanks. Very informative post. nt |
PufPuf23 |
Dec-04-10 11:56 PM |
#12 |
| -
Like the Belafonte song. |
Downwinder |
Dec-04-10 11:57 PM |
#13 |
| -
Terrible paper. Never to be forgiven for shilling for the war |
Catherina |
Dec-05-10 12:06 AM |
#14 |
| -
And John Burns has been sliming Assange. Burns was one of the cheerleaders |
EFerrari |
Dec-05-10 12:14 AM |
#15 |
| -
+1 nt |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 12:39 AM |
#19 |
| -
No surprises there-the paper that sold the Iraq war to the American people. Shameless hacks. nt |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 12:18 AM |
#16 |
| -
k&r |
avaistheone1 |
Dec-05-10 01:55 AM |
#25 |
| -
Downloading top secret files while "lip-syncing to Lady Gaga'? |
Smarmie Doofus |
Dec-05-10 02:28 AM |
#28 |
| -
How is it defamation to quote Manning himself? n/t |
pnwmom |
Dec-05-10 03:04 AM |
#37 |
| -
Ahem covers it. n/t |
Catherina |
Dec-05-10 09:21 AM |
#44 |
| -
I'm surprised they haven't brought Judith Miller back. These kinds of smears are right up her alley. |
laughingliberal |
Dec-05-10 03:21 AM |
#40 |
| -
They might as well. Same thought crossed my mind earlier n/t |
Catherina |
Dec-05-10 04:04 AM |
#42 |
| -
They never have anything good to say about Manning |
deaniac21 |
Dec-05-10 09:34 AM |
#47 |
| -
Ellsberg/Manning-2012! |
Dr.Phool |
Dec-05-10 10:43 AM |
#51 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread