This is good for a laugh
Some liberals are apparently convinced that the New York Times conspired to help re-elect President Bush in 2004. Yes, that's the same New York Times that hasn't endorsed a Republican for president since Eisenhower -- the same New York Times whose release of the NSA eavesdropping story seemed optimally timed to provide Senate Democrats the maximum political cover possible to oppose renewal of the Patriot Act. Chuck Schumer even went so far as to credit the Times story on the Senate floor for helping him decide how to vote.
Yes, they'd have us believe the Grey Lady is a willing political tool, complicit in the GOP's sinister electoral schemings. "Reality based," indeed.
So what's their "evidence" for this? Seemingly, it's simply the fact that the Times "sat on" this classified information for a year -- only to un-ass it a year later at a moment designed to inflict maximum damage to the President.
Yes, you heard that right. The Times is in dutch with the libs for not printing leaked, classified information even sooner that it did. Apparently leaking classified information is only bad if it involves Valerie Plame, you see.
The moonbat mind is an amazing place.
(Hat tip: Jill)
Comments
Ridiculous.
If they had published this in mid-October last year, we would be saying President John Kerry right now.
Posted by: Blue88 | December 19, 2005 12:16 PM
Some of you were already saying it back then, if I recall correctly. ;-)
Posted by: Barry | December 19, 2005 12:22 PM
Yeah you can't leave out the book tie-in which promises more jucy examples of Bush corruption. Of course you have to buy the book to get this previously unearthed info. The NYT is in bed with itself perhaps?
Posted by: ortho | December 19, 2005 12:42 PM
The Times loathes Bush and has for his entire presidency as well as during the 2000 primaries.
The timing of the release of this was laughable, especially when the Times explained that it held up in deference to possibly contaminating intel and then, with no explanation of what had changed, declared that they now decided that was no longer a deterrent.
Why?
The paper has become a laughingstock of confusion and misinformation these days.
Hell, let me be blunt: I don't want the Times on my side in any fight!
Were they to be so inclined, I would seriously have to re-examine my own views for fear I had somehow relapsed to the liberal views of my youth.
Posted by: mal | December 19, 2005 10:47 PM