Especially when they are the ones who reported the information in the first place?
Readers!!!!
Please see these two posts before reading today's articles:
New York Times Admits Bush Administration Spying Began in December of 2000... BEFORE TAKING OFFICE!
Bush's Wiretapping Began BEFORE 9/11!!
Please remember that information as you read this next piece:
"Senate Votes for Expansion of Spy Powers"
"After more than a year of wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory on Tuesday by voting to broaden the government’s spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush’s program of eavesdropping without warrants.
One by one, the Senate rejected amendments that would have imposed greater civil liberties checks on the government’s surveillance powers. Finally, the Senate voted 68 to 29 to approve legislation that the White House had been pushing for months. Mr. Bush hailed the vote and urged the House to move quickly in following the Senate’s lead.
The outcome in the Senate amounted, in effect, to a broader proxy vote in support of Mr. Bush’s wiretapping program....
The measure extends, for at least six years, many of the broad new surveillance powers that Congress hastily approved last August just before its summer recess. Intelligence officials said court rulings had left dangerous gaps in their ability to intercept terrorist communications.
The bill, which had the strong backing of the White House, allows the government to eavesdrop on large bundles of foreign-based communications on its own authority so long as Americans are not the targets. A secret intelligence court, which traditionally has issued individual warrants before wiretapping began, would review the procedures set up by the executive branch only after the fact to determine whether there were abuses involving Americans.
“This is a dramatic restructuring” of surveillance law, said Michael Sussmann, a former Justice Department intelligence lawyer who represents several telecommunication companies. “And the thing that’s so dramatic about this is that you’ve removed the court review. There may be some checks after the fact, but the administration is picking the targets.”
The Senate plan also adds one provision considered critical by the White House: shielding phone companies from any legal liability for their roles in the eavesdropping program approved by Mr. Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks.
A LIE! Right there in front of us, readers!
The program allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.
AT&T and other major phone companies are facing some 40 lawsuits from customers who claim their actions were illegal. The Bush administration maintains that if the suits are allowed to continue in court, they could bankrupt the companies and discourage them from cooperating in future intelligence operations....
Where does the LAW fit in to all this, especially since retro-immunity is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?!!
"Article I, Section 9: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.""
Immunity supporters said the phone carriers acted out of patriotism after the Sept. 11 attacks in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president.
Even though Bush was spying BEFORE he even took the OATH!
See how the AmeriKan MSM and the New York Times tell lies, readers?
How can you ever believe a word they say anymore?
“This, I believe, is the right way to go for the security of the nation,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the intelligence committee. His support for the plan, after intense negotiations with the White House and his Republican colleagues, was considered critical to its passage but drew criticism from civil liberties groups because of $42,000 in contributions that Mr. Rockefeller received last year from AT&T and Verizon executives.
Rockefeller the SELL OUT!
The right way to go for the security of YOUR CAMPAIGN, huh?
Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican on the intelligence panel, said the bill struck the right balance between protecting the rights of Americans and protecting the country “from terrorism and other foreign threats.”
I'm so sick of this fraudulent bullshit of "terrorism."
Carried out by GOVERNMENTS and their CONTROLLED ASSETS!!!
.... Senate Republicans predict that they will be able to persuade the House to include immunity in the final bill, especially now that the White House has agreed to give House lawmakers access to internal documents on the wiretapping program.... "
Oh, I have no doubt the House will approve the immunity.
Good-bye, America!
You are now officially dead!
And what is with the lying New York Times, readers?
They are something else, huh?
They not read their own reporting or what?
First this front-page crap on the spying, then the lies about Iraq!
"Military Analysis: Making a Case for a Pause in Troop Cutbacks in Iraq"
".... For all this, there is no guarantee that the strategy of bringing political stability to Iraq will succeed. But there is also little prospect that there will ever be enough political support in the United States for another surge."
Like the political support has mattered this whole time!!!
I'm so tired of the stink NYT, readers!
Tell me how great Iraq is again, NYT.
"Limbo for U.S. Women Reporting Iraq Assaults"
".... Ms. Kineston is among a number of American women who have reported that they were sexually assaulted by co-workers while working as contractors in Iraq but now find themselves in legal limbo, unable to seek justice or even significant compensation.
Many of the same legal and logistical obstacles that have impeded other types of investigations involving contractors in Iraq, like shootings involving security guards for Blackwater Worldwide, have made it difficult for the United States government to pursue charges related to sexual offenses. The military justice system does not apply to them, and the reach of other American laws on contractors working in foreign war zones remains unclear five years after the United States invasion of Iraq.
KBR and other companies, meanwhile, have required Iraq-bound employees to agree to take personnel disputes to private arbitration rather than sue the companies in American courts. The companies have repeatedly challenged arbitration claims of sexual assault or harassment brought by women who served in Iraq, raising fears among some women about going public with their claims...."
One wonders what Iraqi women have had to endure under this murderous occupation.
I'm sure it has been far worse than what these American women went through!
Maybe something like this, say?
Meanwhile, who is the next target so the U.S. will be "forced" to stay in Iraq?
"Iraqis Search for 2 Kidnapped Journalists"
"There were indications on Tuesday that the kidnappers were linked to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, but it was unclear how close their relationship was or whether it was still active."
Makes you wonder who REALLY "abducted" those reporters now, huh, readers?
CUI BONO?
And talk about your Zio-centric Zio-bias, this next article made me physically ill!
"2 Boys, 2 Sides, 2 Beds in an Israeli Hospital Ward"
That kind of shit journalism doesn't help me love Jews or their stinkshit media organs any more!
And get a load of this:
"Warmth for Americans in Once Hostile Tehran"
".... America’s image in the Middle East is as low as it has ever been. With the occupation of Iraq; the Israeli bombing of Lebanon; and Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay, the United States has been cited in polls as the gravest threat to peace in the region. But Iran is different....
Generally speaking, Iranians like Americans — not just American products, which remain very popular, but Americans. That is not entirely new: Iranians on an individual level have long expressed a desire to restore relations between the countries. But the sentiment seems much more out in the open now....
That's a repressive society that chants "Death to America?"
WTF?!
That change of tone... seems to have given Iranians license to express their frustration with their current situation and their longing for normal relations.
They do not necessarily see themselves as having any connection to the extreme radical ideas of their leaders, whether in religious or geopolitical terms, and calculate that Americans are equally disconnected from their leaders’ decisions, political and social analysts said.
Oh, the Iranians are SO PERCEPTIVE and INTELLIGENT!!!
So much SMARTER than shit-chewing, piss-swilling propaganda shit-suckers of 'murka!!!
Abolfazl Emami, owner of the ice cream shop in Mohseni Square.... with a smile and his hand raised, said: “I like American goods, and I prefer American people. It’s just the government I don’t like.”
Neither do us Americans, sir!!!!
Mehdi Mortazavi, who is helping create Friday’s, a restaurant in Tehran:
“Iranian people respect American business, American mentality, Americans’ demand to always have the best.”
.... Nothing symbolizes the state more than the Paradise of Zahara cemetery, lined with the graves of young men who died in the war with Iraq, which raged from 1980 to 1988. “National Unity and Islamic Consolidation,” reads the banner at the entrance to the sprawling cemetery.
One day in late January, Zahra Ahgangram pulled her black chador around herself as she visited the grave of a nephew, Mohsen Yazdani, 20, who died so many years ago. Her son, Amir Ali Muhamadalipour, stood by her side, and when he realized she was speaking to an American, asked that his message be delivered: “Iranian people like American people. We don’t get fooled by governments on both sides.”
And the fucking stink New York Times wants us to bomb these people for Israel!
Pfffffftttt!
As for the TRUE WAR-MONGERS in this world, get a load of this:
"U.N. Weighs a Ban on Weapons in Space, but U.S. Still Objects"
"The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, on Tuesday presented a Russian-Chinese draft treaty banning weapons in space to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, an idea that was quickly rejected by the United States.
Russia and China have pushed for years for a treaty to prevent an arms race in space."
And look at the New York Times attack dogs go after MSNBC, huh?
Would that they ever go after Fox or Glenn Beck like this, huh?
"The TV Watch: Instead of Men Behaving Badly, MSNBC Strains for a Polite Primary Night"
"At its best, which is usually on election nights or after a debate, MSNBC makes viewers feel that they are in a neighborhood bar with political insiders, listening in on the banter and smart assessments. At its worst, the cable news channel makes viewers feel they are in a neighborhood bar waiting on political insiders, the butt of their banter and smart-aleck assessments.
And Tuesday night, MSNBC tried very hard to be on its best behavior. Chris Matthews, who on “Hardball” often refers to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by her first name, switched to “Hillary Clinton, Senator Clinton.” Mr. Matthews was so intent on not causing offense he introduced a senior Clinton adviser, Lisa Caputo, by saying: “What a nice person she is. And I mean this, she’s a friend of mine, they are all nice friends.”
MSNBC was the only one of the three cable news networks that showed Mrs. Clinton’s speech at a Texas rally almost in its entirety; Fox News and CNN cut away much sooner to the primary results. Tuesday night’s coverage of the so-called Potomac primaries on MSNBC was so polite it was almost comical: the channel’s usually brash, voluble anchors were like schoolboys sent to the principal’s office, straining to look penitent and extra attentive.
MSNBC calls its stars “the best political team” on television, but at the moment some players are in disgrace.
She got that wrong -- that's CNN's MOTTO!
Will the New York Times ever stop lying?
A reporter, David Shuster, was suspended by the network for saying that Chelsea Clinton had been “pimped out” by her mother’s campaign. Last month, Mr. Matthews was forced to apologize for saying that Mrs. Clinton had won her Senate seat and become a presidential front-runner because of a husband who, as he put it, “messed around.”
Mrs. Clinton, who threatened to pull out of an MSNBC-sponsored debate later this month, said that over all, Fox News had treated her more fairly than MSNBC — which was a little like Ann Coulter saying that if Senator John McCain wins the Republican nomination, she will support Mrs. Clinton. (Theirs could be the beginning of a “Casablanca”-style “beautiful friendship.”)
The Clinton campaign’s eagerness to exploit the MSNBC slurs to stir supporters has not gone unnoticed by journalists, including MSNBC anchors. Tucker Carlson, the host of “Tucker,” on Tuesday rather sourly characterized Mrs. Clinton’s tactic as “I am the victim of their hatred; they are being mean to me.”
No matter how political Mrs. Clinton’s umbrage, there is no question that she has a point: MSNBC has a vein of bratty, adolescent insensitivity, especially toward women, that keeps popping out. MSNBC, after all, was the cable news network that used to simulcast Don Imus’s radio show and had to fire him after his demeaning description of a women’s college basketball team.
The fact that the New York Times endorsed Clinton for president has nothing to do with the tone of this story, right?
This is the same paper that LED George W. Bush's charge to war and PLASTERED LIES all over its FRONT PAGE, right?
And where was there outrage when MSNBC's Shuster insulted Ron Paul and his supporters?
I didn't hear so much as a Zio-Times fart on that one!!!!!!!!
From Joe Scarborough, the host of “Morning Joe,” who took offense at Mr. Matthews’s apology, saying that it was unnecessary, to Mr. Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Mr. Carlson in the evening, MSNBC provides a strong dose of angry — or at least highly caffeinated — white males. (Even Fox News has many more female anchors, though so many are cookie-cutter blondes that viewers cannot be blamed for thinking it’s one anchor working multiple shifts.)
Wow, she is really letting the insults fly, this piece of New York Times shitstink!
So what females have talk shows on Fox?
Gretta Van Susteren?
And C(IA)NN has who?
They ditched Paula Zahn, and they have Anderson Cooper.
So WTF is with the criticism, Times shitstink?!
Because they are rough on St. Hitlery -- the Times choice for Queen after King George?
The fact that MSNBC backed down tells you more about who is calling the shots than any shit newspaper report, readers.
Caution and even contrition were noticeable on MSNBC on Tuesday night, but it is unlikely to last. Cable anchors are not really journalists; they are opinion-mongers, news personalities who are expected to entertain viewers, either by amusing them or appalling them.
And they are different from the New York Times in what way?
On election nights, especially when NBC News veterans like Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw join them, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Olbermann are insightful and quick-witted.
On a slower news day, MSNBC’s anchors show signs of Cable Insecurity Syndrome, trying to outshout their rivals at the better-rated Fox News. In this middle school melodrama, Fox News gives MSNBC wedgies and steals its lunch money, and MSNBC tries to act even tougher. (CNN is the National Merit Scholar who does the work, stays out of trouble, and is reliable but somewhat dull.)
Sigh!
What shit!
Tuesday night, after MSNBC projected Mr. Obama’s victory in Virginia, Mr. Matthews apologized for using the words “white men” to describe the breakdown of the vote. “White men, I hate doing it like this,” Mr. Matthews said. “White men, that’s how we talk now, are voting for Barack Obama.”
And he took a moment away from the primary results to defend Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who caught flak on Tuesday for saying that some white voters may not be “ready” to vote for a black candidate. Mr. Matthews’s brother Jim was the running mate of Lynn Swann, the black challenger who lost to Mr. Rendell in 2006. “It’s an unexceptional statement,” Chris Matthews insisted. “Not propaganda.”
And the host of “Hardball” looked shaken by his own experiences when he noted that in these times, matters of ethnicity, gender and race are “so tricky.”
Yeah, but the New York Times is objective.
Sure didn't sound like it in that piece.
I suppose the Times endorsing Hitlery has nothing to do with it.
Look, I'm not defending MSNBC.
God knows I have my issues with the MSM press in all its manifestations; however, what is with the New York Times and its hit job?!
MSNBC stepping out of the Zionist-directed script, or... ?
And how about this, readers?
I won't be holding in my hot fart mist, I can tell you that!
"House Vote on Contempt Is Expected Soon"
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, would not confirm the pending vote on Tuesday night. “One of these days,” Ms. Pelosi said."
Yeah, NEXT CENTURY, right?
How much you want to bet the vote is POSTPONED?!
That's it, readers.
That's all I could take of the rotten New York Times.
