Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (51682)	6/26/2004 2:06:00 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 793903

Did I mention that everybody is getting on the "Times" for this outrage? :>) Let's see how Okrent handles it. Ah, so "everybody" is the National Review?! Pretty narrowly defined "everybody." Beach must be too warm these days.

To: LindyBill who wrote (51682)	6/26/2004 2:30:14 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793903

Most pathetic of all in today's article is the Times's self-serving rationale for withholding critical information while it was accusing the president of misleading the country. Maybe a Michael Moore of the right will do a film on the NYT.... >>>>>>>> The Times has been against the Iraq war from the start. Its relentless propaganda, in conjunction with its media allies, has taken a sizable toll. President Bush has taken a ratings hit, and a poll out this morning suggests that a slim majority of Americans now believes the war was a mistake. But that could turn around in a heartbeat. No one is more aware than the "newspaper of record" that if the American people become convinced Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots, the national perception of the necessity for this war will drastically change, and the president's reelection will be a virtual lock. That's what this is about. And who knows what else the Times is not telling us?