WWNYTD? What will New York Times Do?

[radfringe]

Poll question: WWNYTD? What will New York Times Do?

the issue over bush* allowing wiretapping is being reframed to portray the NY Times as the bad guys for reporting it and "jeopardizing" war on terra...

FAUX-Spews was doing that yesterday, I expect the rest of bubble-boy's choir will be following suit. And with bubble-boy making his "radio" address on TV yesterday it shows a bit of desperation.

He was going to talk about Iraqi(s)Elections but instead chose to spin the wire-tapping story

so What will the NY TIME do?

[brucefan]

1. And beg Bush

for forgiveness

[xchrom]

2. what ever is the most obsequious thing to do.

[rzemanfl]

3. They should steal a page from the Rove playbook and offer

Jenna a job as Editor of the Slutty Young Women's Page.

[Poppyseedman]

4. I do wonder why the NYT held the story for a full year

How do you know what bush is going to talk about tonight?

[radfringe]

6. he supposedly going to talk about

Iraq, troop reductions - the usual blather -- it you heard his other speeches from the recent dog/pony road show, it's most likely going to be the same blather

[radfringe]

5. NY Times article (today 12/18) - interesting snippets....

In Address, Bush Says He Ordered Domestic Spying
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: December 18, 2005

---snip---

As recently as Friday, when he was interviewed by Jim Lehrer of PBS, Mr. Bush refused to confirm the report the previous evening in The New York Times that in 2002 he authorized the spying operation by the security agency, which is usually barred from intercepting domestic communications. While not denying the report, he called it "speculation" and said he did not "talk about ongoing intelligence operations."

But as the clamor over the revelation rose and Vice President Dick Cheney and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, went to Capitol Hill on Friday to answer charges that the program was an illegal assumption of presidential powers, even in a time of war, Mr. Bush and his senior aides decided to abandon that approach.

"There was an interest in saying more about it, but everyone recognized its highly classified nature," one senior administration official said, speaking on background because, he said, the White House wanted the president to be the only voice on the issue. "This is directly taking on the critics. The Democrats are now in the position of supporting our efforts to protect Americans, or defend positions that could weaken our nation's security."


----snip---

In his statement on Saturday, Mr. Bush did not address the main question directed at him by some members of Congress on Friday: why he felt it necessary to circumvent the system established under current law, which allows the president to seek emergency warrants, in secret, from the court that oversees intelligence operations. His critics said that under that law, the administration could have obtained the same information.

----snip----

Mr. Bush said that every 45 days the program was reviewed, based on "a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland."

"I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks, and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups," Mr. Bush said. He said Congressional leaders had been repeatedly briefed on the program, and that intelligence officials "receive extensive training to ensure they perform their duties consistent with the letter and intent of the authorization."

[wvaprog]

7. Who cares?

The NYT a/k/a 'Pravda on the Hudson' has become irrelevant, there are more competent, reliable and (most importantly) credible organizations to get news and current information from. If you actually live in NYC the pastTimes might be useful for local events and local advertising but for anything beyond the five boroughs one can no longer believe anything they say. Our local library out here in WV didn't renew their subscription at the end of '04 because, in the words of a library board member, 'Too much money for too little truth.'