SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (23354)7/9/2006 8:50:59 AM
From: Dale Baker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542095
 
It will come down to how much people trust the motives of the Bush administration and how much they trust the Times and similar press outlets. For me, what Bush has done was motivated as a necessity of war and a desirable (in their view) rebalancing of power, supported by Cheney's remarks.

I have never heard the Times or their ilk say they want to undermine any struggle against terrorism. They don't deem the WOT an inherently bad and faulty goal or result. They accept that the WOT could be harmed as a result when they publish what they consider important news, but I have never seen a major editor say he wanted to undermine the war on terror.

That's where I don't see a parallel with Bush and Cheney. The NYT will bear a cost for an end; the White House sees their actions as a double benefit.



To: Lane3 who wrote (23354)7/9/2006 8:51:18 AM
From: KonKilo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542095
 
The charge against the Times is that it set out to to benefit the enemy at the expense of the US and does so by printing that stuff. That's what treason is. The milder claim would be that the Times prints that stuff with cavalier disregard for the fact that the fallout is a benefit to the enemy.

Why has an official investigation not commenced?

Is it possible that these charges are nothing more than political?

And has anyone pointed out the exact passages in the published stories that benefit the enemy? I would like to see if you can.



To: Lane3 who wrote (23354)7/9/2006 2:21:32 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542095
 
One of the interesting comments Andy Card is quoted as making in Ron Suskind's new book is that the press is not a fourth establishment, just another interest group.

In that respect, the press is simply one more hindrance to the effective implementation of the imperial presidency.

Looks to me as if that's a very long standing aim of Cheney's.