Where is the outrage at the New York Times?

[Check12]

The NYT confessed to bowing under pressure from the Bush Administration to withhold explosive information concerning President Bush’s, and other members of his Administration’s, blatant abuse of the Constitution. Bush was currently running for reelection and did not want knowledge of his malfeasance to be made public.

By failing to stand up for their own rights, the Times failed all Americans. By failing to fulfill their obligations the Times failed America. Their thirteen month late mea culpa does not relieve them of responsibility for contributing to the harm done to America and the world by the right-wing extremists of the Bush Administration. Had they published Bush’s high crimes and misdemeanors when they first learned of them he very probably would not have been reelected. They effectively became the Supreme Court of 2004.

http://waywardsojourner.blogspot.com/2005/12/1st-amendm...

They have also admitted that they have additional information about this and that they are still withholding it from the public.

These people have got to come clean and publish this additional information immediately!

[asjr]

1. I wrote them that (they will not print it) they should have

a front page headline with the word IMPEACH the only thing on the page.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. If you listened to Mike Malloy subbing for Randi Rhodes today, he gave

very good voice to the outrage that we should all feel at the NY Times. He said that the Times was, in effect, complicit in the crime by not exposing what it knew immediately.
I enjoyed, and shared every moment of his outrage.

BTW: Your link is not working.

[LiberalEsto]

3. The NY Times has lost whatever credibility it once had

It's a corporate, pro-B*sh/Cheney shill with the journalistic ethics of a flea.

[Warpy]

4. Think about having them release it last fall

Rmemember, Stupid hadn't tried to cheap out on tsunami relief, Katrina hadn't showed what an incompetent boob he was at picking department heads, and the Plame scandal hadn't really taken off. Most people still believed in his wonderful ability to fight the terriers trying to hold us hostile, something like 2/3 did. He might have been given the benefit of the doubt this time last year. Do you really want that?

This year people are finally waking up to what that thing in the White House is really up to. This latest revelation that he has gone outside the law to do exactly what Richard Nixon did (and yes, that name still carries quite an odor) is just the strychnine icing on the arsenic cake. He won't be given the benefit of the doubt now. Too many people are on to him.

What I'd really like to know is why the NYT broke the story this week. Why not two weeks ago or after the New Year? What changed to make them finally expose the impeachable crime they'd been hiding for a year?

That's the big question here. We've got a good idea who he was spying on and why, and it had nothing to do with national security. He could easily get warrants for that stuff, even weeks after the fact, if need be. What we need to know is what changed last week that they finally told us it was going on.

[NoFederales]

6. Very good inquiries; I sure would like to know as well. n/t

NoFederales

[Southsideirish]

5. I use the rag for "poopie papers" for my Maltese. The only part I

actually read is the "Arts" section. We get it free at school.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

7. Breaks my heart...

"Sweet Land of Liberty"...

;(

"Of Thee I Sing"

:(


Shame, Shame on you.


Thanks for your post, Check 12.

[Kickin_Donkey]

8. Probably because anyone who would be outraged ...

gave up on the Times (as well as the WaPost) a long time ago.