On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:44:16 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.




This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.

Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:


Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...

Dave




Lied? Lies.

Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
his deficit spending.

So I guess since President Bush has never been convicted of any of the
things you accuse him of doing, you must be a real ignorant dipstick.

Harry, you are making this way to easy. You are beginning to sound more and
more like Basskisser.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.




This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.
Did you not take a basic civics class - ever?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:39:54 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
by Chris Field
Posted Jul 20, 2004

For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
"mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the Times'
newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
nonsense? No.

What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal rag is
that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only earned the
proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.

This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably the
biggest story on Tuesday.

If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard or read
that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal investigation
for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.

But if the New York Times was your only source of news, you could very
easily have missed this not-overly-surprising story that a Clinton official
did something seemingly underhanded. In this case it was the taking of
documents which the AP said "were highly classified and included critical
assessments about the Clinton adminstration's handling of the millennium
terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities
at airports and seaports."

The AP also reported that "some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on
the Clinton administration's handling of al Qaeda terror threats during the
December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing" (emphasis added).

What was Berger's response to questions about documents that are still
missing? Said the former Clinton advisor: "When I was informed by the
Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned
everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had
accidentally discarded" (emphasis added).

Let's take a quick look at how a few other major newspapers treated this
story.
a.. The Washington Post had a significant article on Page A2 titled "FBI
Probes Berger for Document Removal: Former Clinton Aide Inadvertently Took
Papers From Archives, His Attorney Says." The piece was complete with a
picture of Mr. Berger.


b.. USA Today's cover page, above the fold, featured "Clinton Advisor
Targeted in Probe: Classified Materials Taken from Archives." It, too,
included a picture of the Clinton lackey.


c.. In the Washington Times we were also treated to a Berger picture in an
major article on Page A3 titled "Berger Investigated for Taking Classified
Reports."


d.. The Wall Street Journal even included a picture of Berger with their
piece on Page A2 headlined "Clinton Aide Berger Is Subject of Criminal
Probe."
So, how did the New York Times treat this major story? They buried a small,
six-paragraph, 220-word story in a box at the bottom of Page A16 -- without
a picture -- with the title "Clinton Aide Took Classified Material." Notice
the Times didn't mention Berger's name or position in the title; instead,
they simply called him an "aide" -- as though he worked for the Clinton
White House as a secretary or a staff researcher. The Times article goes on
to omit the fact that Berger "accidentally discarded" some highly classified
documents.

Exactly what news does the New York Times consider "fit to print"?



But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
wing fantasy........


Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
wing fantasy........

Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?

DSK

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:28:36 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
wing fantasy........

Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?


Then there is NewsMax. I didn't see anything on their site about the
investigation of Halliburton doing business with Iran.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....0147176660.xml

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../96714/1/.html

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:28:36 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
wing fantasy........

Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?


Then there is NewsMax. I didn't see anything on their site about the
investigation of Halliburton doing business with Iran.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index....0147176660.xml

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../96714/1/.html


Is anyone surprised corporations engage in war profiteering?

Halliburton's activities in Iran investigated by U.S.

By T. Christian Miller and Peter Wallsten

Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - Another Halliburton controversy erupted Tuesday, this time
fueled by a grand-jury investigation into *whether the oil-services
giant violated federal sanctions by illegally operating in Iran while
Vice President Dick Cheney was running the company.*

The investigation centers on Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., a
subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands, with headquarters in Dubai,
that provides oil-field services in Iran. The unit's operations in Iran
included Cheney's stint as CEO from 1995 to 2000, when he frequently
urged the lifting of such sanctions.

Numerous U.S. companies operate in Iran, but under strict guidelines
requiring that their subsidiaries have a foreign registry and no U.S.
employees, and act independently of the parent company. At issue is
whether Halliburton's subsidiary met those criteria.


--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:28:36 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
wing fantasy........

Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?

Because once the cat was let out of the bag, they had no choice but to
acknowledge it, lest their silence draw suspicion as to their agenda
and motives. If you listen real carefully to the subtle differences in
adjectives used to report this incident, you can almost see the wheels
of spin working depending on which news source you watch or read.

Dave

Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?


Dave Hall wrote:
Because once the cat was let out of the bag, they had no choice but to
acknowledge it, lest their silence draw suspicion as to their agenda
and motives. If you listen real carefully to the subtle differences in
adjectives used to report this incident, you can almost see the wheels
of spin working depending on which news source you watch or read.

Oh, I get it... they're being incredibly devious by reporting the news,
including stuff that goes totally against their supposed agenda...

Dave, do you really believe this tripe yourself, or are you just hoping
that some of your fellow dittoheads are dumb & paranoid enough swallow it?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?


Dave Hall wrote:
Because once the cat was let out of the bag, they had no choice but to
acknowledge it, lest their silence draw suspicion as to their agenda
and motives. If you listen real carefully to the subtle differences in
adjectives used to report this incident, you can almost see the wheels
of spin working depending on which news source you watch or read.

Oh, I get it... they're being incredibly devious by reporting the news,
including stuff that goes totally against their supposed agenda...

Dave, do you really believe this tripe yourself, or are you just hoping
that some of your fellow dittoheads are dumb & paranoid enough swallow it?

DSK


His minister told him. We shouldn't insult the guy until we've had a chance
to roll him around the newsgroup a bit. I wonder if Dave can get him to stop
by.