If those treasonous bastards had done this during WWII they would have been shut down and the parties involved would have been tried for treason and sedition!
wog7, I'm afraid I would have to agree with you on this. They have given aid to the enemy insurgents and foreign terrorists in Iraq, and also support to Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are out of control with their liberal agenda.
I think you misunderstood me. I'd recommend researching the Judith Miller issue.
She was given free reign in the NY Times after 9/11 to lie to her heart's content about Iraqi WMD. The degree that this woman lied is shameless and the extent of damage that her lies did are unmeasurable. It's been said that Miller's columns in the NY Times are among the primary reasons for support for the war early on.
On the issue of a "liberal agenda", I can pretty much agree with you. The major exception being foreign policy. The NY Times has clearly and consistently been supportive of all, or at least most, of Uncle Sam's military misadventures since the WW2. It was initially supportive of Vietnam, Haiti, Reagan's South American interventions, Clinton's Balkan interventions. You name it, the NY Times has supported it.
So wog7, you'e making them out to be even more sinister. They falsify information to get us into a war, and then out American counter-intelligence agents by publishing details of secret ongoing programs.
If those treasonous bastards had done this during WWII they would have been shut down and the parties involved would have been tried for treason and sedition!
MontanaCombatMedic 3 years ago
The New York Times and, specifically, Judith Miller are responsible for much more than just a few deaths.
wog7 4 years ago
wog7, I'm afraid I would have to agree with you on this. They have given aid to the enemy insurgents and foreign terrorists in Iraq, and also support to Hezbollah in Lebanon. They are out of control with their liberal agenda.
JohnnyPolitico 4 years ago
I think you misunderstood me. I'd recommend researching the Judith Miller issue.
She was given free reign in the NY Times after 9/11 to lie to her heart's content about Iraqi WMD. The degree that this woman lied is shameless and the extent of damage that her lies did are unmeasurable. It's been said that Miller's columns in the NY Times are among the primary reasons for support for the war early on.
wog7 4 years ago
On the issue of a "liberal agenda", I can pretty much agree with you. The major exception being foreign policy. The NY Times has clearly and consistently been supportive of all, or at least most, of Uncle Sam's military misadventures since the WW2. It was initially supportive of Vietnam, Haiti, Reagan's South American interventions, Clinton's Balkan interventions. You name it, the NY Times has supported it.
wog7 4 years ago
So wog7, you'e making them out to be even more sinister. They falsify information to get us into a war, and then out American counter-intelligence agents by publishing details of secret ongoing programs.
JohnnyPolitico 4 years ago