Comments on: Rep. Pete Hoekstra vs. The NY Times

By: Preston

Preston — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:18:42 +0000

No, I haven’t. I’ll take a look next time I get to some leisure reading- perhaps 2008, sadly…

By: dianne

dianne — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:48:35 +0000

Preston – Have you read “Consent to Kill” ? I picked it up at the airport on a recent flight and spent the next several days absorbed in it every chance I got. Granted this is a book of fiction, but I have a strong feeling we do more than “monitor” international banking…least I hope so.

By: Preston

Preston — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:37:30 +0000

To provide clarification, the obbudsman is a position designed to evaluate the performance of the newspaper independent of the editorial board. So Calame could believe that the paper was wrong but he cannot admit that the paper was wrong because he does not speak for the New York Times.

In any case, it is the responsibility of the newspaper to provide information to the electorate about the government that acts in our name. The fact that the government has been monitoring phone calls and banking transfers to the Middle East has been clear since September 11. The only news broken by the NY Times is that much of this surveillance has occured extralegally- information voters may be interested in tomorrow.

By: Robbie

Robbie — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:43:20 +0000

The New York Times only publishes information that has been released by people in the government and the responsibility of providing information to the people who elect our leadership.

The Bush Administration did implore the NY Times not to reveal information about thier secret terrorist banking data surveillance program. The NY Times told them to pound sand.

Then in a hidden-on-page-8 mea culpa, the NYTimes ombudsman, Byron Calame, admitting the paper was wrong to publish it. Long after it was too late.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:37:26 +0000

Jim – you’re making stuff up and making mistakes. First, I defy you to find anyone on the left who stated that there was never the slightest chance that Sadaam had continued his nuclear program after 1991.

. . .

Can’t do it? Well then stop lying.

Anyhow, the documents relate to the program before 1991.

By: Jim Howard

Jim Howard — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 14:17:10 +0000

It is impossible that there could be nuclear information in Iraqi documents, since the Democrats assured us that there was never the slightest chance that Sadaam had continued his nuclear program after 1991.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:30:49 +0000

Is nothing EVER going to penetrate the shield of “not my fault” that the Bush administration and its supporters have created. For crying out loud, the incompetent hacks published nuclear information on the net, and now morons are blaming the New York Times!!

By: Preston

Preston — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:04:54 +0000

Let’s see, George Bush has a security clearance and has been elected to protect the United States. The New York Times only publishes information that has been released by people in the government and the responsibility of providing information to the people who elect our leadership.

The New York Times regularly asks the government whether the information that they are about to release presents a national security risk. On the other hand, George Bush was advised by many people in his government that releasing unvetted classified documents from Iraq’s weapons programs was a bad idea.

Hey, he may be incompetent but he’s the kind of guy I’d like to drink a beer with!