Why does our media help terrorists? Walter Cronkite betrayed us in the 'Nam, and now this. No wonder newspapers are dying in this country!
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
Headhunter
Having that worthless ignorant cunt call me a traitor would make me damn proud.
She’s just parrotting the administration’s bullshit. Given how they view the Constitution and Bill of Rights is anyone really surprised that they’re going to start a campaign against the speech of anyone who doesn’t toe the party line?
Honest question, HH, have you ever disagreed with Coulter? This is all I’m going to ask/say in this thread, and I’m merely curious.
Anyone that calls Novack a traitor for reporting a name of a useless CIA employee and turns around and defgends the NYT’s action is a hypocrite.
I don’t agree with either of their actions but I find the NYT’s action is far worse.
I would not go so far as calling them traitors but they are getting close.
I’m no lover of the NY Times, but I believe that calling for a domestic terrorist attack is also treason. From her website " my only regret was that Timothy McVeigh didn’t hit The New York Times building,". If the Clinton administration had been tracking financial transactions, she would have gladly revealed it.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
I’m no lover of the NY Times, but I believe that calling for a domestic terrorist attack is also treason. From her website " my only regret was that Timothy McVeigh didn’t hit The New York Times building,". If the Clinton administration had been tracking financial transactions, she would have gladly revealed it.
[/quote]
I think she was saying that if a terrorist had to blow up a building, why not the Times? She wasn’t calling for an attack, just a better target, in her eyes.
If she thought what Clinton was doing was treasonous, then she would report it.
Was the Clinton admin tracking financial transactions? I don’t know. Probably. Remember, terrorists have no rights. You can’t violate what they don’t have.
HH
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BH6 wrote:
I’m no lover of the NY Times, but I believe that calling for a domestic terrorist attack is also treason. From her website " my only regret was that Timothy McVeigh didn’t hit The New York Times building,". If the Clinton administration had been tracking financial transactions, she would have gladly revealed it.
I think she was saying that if a terrorist had to blow up a building, why not the Times? She wasn’t calling for an attack, just a better target, in her eyes.
If she thought what Clinton was doing was treasonous, then she would report it.
Was the Clinton admin tracking financial transactions? I don’t know. Probably. Remember, terrorists have no rights. You can’t violate what they don’t have.
HH
[/quote]
This is silly. If anyone from the other political aisle had written anything remotely resembling stating that they wished one building was blown up over another, you all would be all over it. Because this loon states it, it now has merit? Why even post what this bitch says on this site at all? She’s like the unfunny David Chappelle of the Republican Party. I am pretty sure she’s high when she writes most of what she does as well.
Oh, wait…she’s blond. That must be it.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BH6 wrote:
I’m no lover of the NY Times, but I believe that calling for a domestic terrorist attack is also treason. From her website " my only regret was that Timothy McVeigh didn’t hit The New York Times building,". If the Clinton administration had been tracking financial transactions, she would have gladly revealed it.
I think she was saying that if a terrorist had to blow up a building, why not the Times? She wasn’t calling for an attack, just a better target, in her eyes.
If she thought what Clinton was doing was treasonous, then she would report it.
Was the Clinton admin tracking financial transactions? I don’t know. Probably. Remember, terrorists have no rights. You can’t violate what they don’t have.
HH
[/quote]
Even if that were true, youd have to violate a lot of peoples rights before finding out that someone is a terrorist…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why does our media help terrorists? Walter Cronkite betrayed us in the 'Nam, and now this. No wonder newspapers are dying in this country!
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
Headhunter[/quote]
Are you kidding me? The New York Times should be prosecuted for treason? They published whistleblowers who come forward to reveal things this Administration is doing that are grossly illegal (NSA wiretapping, secret torture centers in Eastern Europe), and in the case of the NSA program even waited a year before publishing. I’m no fan of the Times, it is undoubtedly a biased paper which lets its prejudices guide its reporting, but that is a far cry from treason.
And if you think they’re trying to lose this war for us, go read some of Dexter Filkins’ articles, one of their primary war correspondents, and then try to tell me the Times is anti-American. Are they elitist, East Coast, and liberal? Sure. Are they actively in league with America’s enemies? That’s absurd.
The whole Times as traitors thing is being made in the right-wing media to distract attention from the massive and continued failures of this administration in Iraq. Not much more to it than that.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
The whole Times as traitors thing is being made in the right-wing media to distract attention from the massive and continued failures of this administration in Iraq. Not much more to it than that.[/quote]
Yes, but it helps maintain a “hatred” of all things liberal from the lapdogs in the public who soak these things up. The right wing is winning big time with divisiveness and other negative tactics.
One of the Chicago papers ran an article that said we broke the Japanese naval codes in WWII.
Thankfully the Japanese were to arrogant to believe it.
It was decided not to prosecute them because it was determined that if the paper were prosecuted the Japanese would might actually believe the article.
The media has a history of doing shitty things in times of war and peace.
I notice that some are trying to ignore the NYT story on how we track the terrorists money. The legailty of this issue is not even debatable. It is perfectly legal and the information was classified. You cannot cry whistleblower over this issue.
[quote]vroom wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
The whole Times as traitors thing is being made in the right-wing media to distract attention from the massive and continued failures of this administration in Iraq. Not much more to it than that.
Yes, but it helps maintain a “hatred” of all things liberal from the lapdogs in the public who soak these things up. The right wing is winning big time with divisiveness and other negative tactics.[/quote]
Bullshit. These things go both ways.
Are you forgetting about Rove and Novak?
How many of you hypocrites have called them traitors?
Their actions did not harm our war effort one iota, unlike the NYT.
Put aside the hatred and venom that many have for the Bush administration and conservatives:
Who did the publication of this story benefit?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Their actions did not harm our war effort one iota, unlike the NYT.[/quote]
I don’t know about that. Outing the company she was involved with surely had an effect on some operations in various countries.
For you to claim to know whether or not this impacted the war effort is quite suspect.
Indeed, if it does cut both ways, then you need to CUT BOTH WAYS. Alternately, if the sword is dull, we can do what we do now and CUT NEITHER WAY.
Which shall it be? Both or neither is not a hypocritical stance, by the way…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Their actions did not harm our war effort one iota, unlike the NYT.
I don’t know about that. Outing the company she was involved with surely had an effect on some operations in various countries.
For you to claim to know whether or not this impacted the war effort is quite suspect.
Indeed, if it does cut both ways, then you need to CUT BOTH WAYS. Alternately, if the sword is dull, we can do what we do now and CUT NEITHER WAY.
Which shall it be? Both or neither is not a hypocritical stance, by the way…[/quote]
That is correct. No one has said both.
Very few has said neither.
If you think the outing of Plame or Brewster Jennings had any effect on the war effort I have a bridge to sell you.
The finiancial tacking story has had a negative effect already.
I have read a few articles that some international banks have already slowed/stopped cooperating with us based on the outcry after the story.
[quote]danmaftei wrote:
Honest question, HH, have you ever disagreed with Coulter? This is all I’m going to ask/say in this thread, and I’m merely curious.[/quote]
Certainly! I agree with her principles and most of what she says, but I disagree with her choice of expressing those principles, at times (no pun intended). I realize that she invites controversy, but I regard some things somewhat more left unsaid.
BTW: I posted this, in part, because I wanted to live up to your expectations.
HH
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
One of the Chicago papers ran an article that said we broke the Japanese naval codes in WWII.
Thankfully the Japanese were to arrogant to believe it.
It was decided not to prosecute them because it was determined that if the paper were prosecuted the Japanese would might actually believe the article.
The media has a history of doing shitty things in times of war and peace.
I notice that some are trying to ignore the NYT story on how we track the terrorists money. The legailty of this issue is not even debatable. It is perfectly legal and the information was classified. You cannot cry whistleblower over this issue.[/quote]
If we track down phone numbers on a terrorist’s cell phone, its an invasion of privacy to the libs. If we don’t track the numbers and we get hit, “Oh, see how incompetent the Bush Administration is? They can’t protect you!”
No winning with libs, plain and simple.
The publisher, editors, and anyone else responsible for leaking all this to terrorists should all be put on trial for treason.
HH
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If you think the outing of Plame or Brewster Jennings had any effect on the war effort I have a bridge to sell you.
The finiancial tacking story has had a negative effect already.
I have read a few articles that some international banks have already slowed/stopped cooperating with us based on the outcry after the story.[/quote]
I’ve read that outing Valerie and more importantly an active overseas front company had an effect.
Why should we believe your choice of reading and not mine?
Seriously, what objective criteria do I have that suggests I should believe your opinion on things more than mine? I am fine with the fact that YOU feel it had no effect, but do you see what I’m driving at here?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If you think the outing of Plame or Brewster Jennings had any effect on the war effort I have a bridge to sell you.
The finiancial tacking story has had a negative effect already.
I have read a few articles that some international banks have already slowed/stopped cooperating with us based on the outcry after the story.
I’ve read that outing Valerie and more importantly an active overseas front company had an effect.
Why should we believe your choice of reading and not mine?
Seriously, what objective criteria do I have that suggests I should believe your opinion on things more than mine? I am fine with the fact that YOU feel it had no effect, but do you see what I’m driving at here?[/quote]
Yes. You are trying to rationalize.
A CIA dummy corp is small potatoes compared to having real companies stop cooperating with our investigations.
I am not happy Novak outed Plame but I am even angrier that Plame sent her unqualified husband on a trip and then he came back and lied about it in the NYT.
His lies led to Novaks investigation.
What is really interesting is the NYT was the paper that printed his lies.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Why does our media help terrorists? Walter Cronkite betrayed us in the 'Nam, and now this. No wonder newspapers are dying in this country!
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
Headhunter[/quote]
Don’t forget the Daily News too for leaking important information about the recent NYC terror plot despite apparent objections from intelligence and law enforcement officials that the disclosure impeded further arrests.