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

"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.

The guy admitted to removing documents. That's illegal. If it was
inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as
intentionally
removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.

I suspect it was intentional. The NY Times suspects it was
"inadvertent".
However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
unequivocally that it was inadvertent.



You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
who gets his news from CBN?

Yeah. That's my perspective. And I'm 33, not 32 you dimwit. Interestingly,
when I first came on rec.boats and starting slapping you around, I was not
even 30. That's pretty sad for you.

The CBN news link was from a Yahoo news search. The same story was
confirmed in the Reuters link that I provided.

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

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

"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.

The guy admitted to removing documents. That's illegal. If it was
inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as
intentionally
removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.

I suspect it was intentional. The NY Times suspects it was
"inadvertent".
However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
unequivocally that it was inadvertent.



You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
who gets his news from CBN?

Yeah. That's my perspective. And I'm 33, not 32 you dimwit.
Interestingly,
when I first came on rec.boats and starting slapping you around, I was not
even 30. That's pretty sad for you.

The CBN news link was from a Yahoo news search. The same story was
confirmed in the Reuters link that I provided.



Krause cannot attack the message, only the messenger...his typical MO.

NOYB wrote:

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

"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.

The guy admitted to removing documents. That's illegal. If it was
inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as
intentionally
removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.

I suspect it was intentional. The NY Times suspects it was
"inadvertent".
However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
unequivocally that it was inadvertent.



You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
who gets his news from CBN?

Yeah. That's my perspective. And I'm 33, not 32 you dimwit. Interestingly,
when I first came on rec.boats and starting slapping you around, I was not
even 30. That's pretty sad for you.

If I thought you or your remarks had any significance in the real world,
I'd remember your age, and I'd refer to you by name. But as you are an
anonymous twit, why should I attribute any real meaning to anything you
post?

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

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:
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

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.

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

This morning they printed the following paragraphs detailing a regrouping of
Bush's
campaign strategy. Bush admits that most people expect all of his campaign
efforts to be about blasting Kerry, and his advisors are now nervous that the
negative campaign hasn't damaged Kerry as much as it was expected to.


Updated: 08:19 AM EDT
No Rest for Bush; Second-Term Agenda Near

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON, The New York Times



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Talk About It: Messages | Chat
· Top News Boards



WASHINGTON, July 20 - Seeking to blunt any advantage Senator John Kerry of
Massachusetts might enjoy from the Democratic convention, President Bush's
campaign has planned a monthlong offensive that will blend criticism of the
Democratic ticket with what aides said would be Mr. Bush's first effort to set
out a second-term agenda.

Even as Mr. Kerry is being nominated in Boston next week, Vice President Dick
Cheney will campaign on the West Coast, signaling the urgency of the White
House's drive to stop Mr. Kerry from breaking the deadlock in the race.
Republicans are also assembling a squad of elected officials in Boston to offer
a running, critical commentary of the Democratic convention as it unfolds.

And on July 30, the morning after Mr. Kerry accepts the nomination, Mr. Bush is
scheduled to head to the Midwest for the start of what aides said would be a
month of intensive campaigning. They also said that after months in which Mr.
Bush has repeatedly attacked Mr. Kerry, the president would pivot and begin
offering ideas for what a second Bush term would look like.

Mr. Bush hinted at that shift in emphasis at an Iowa campaign rally on Tuesday.
The president, who is to speak again in Washington on Wednesday night and
campaign in Illinois and Michigan later this week, suggested that he might not
even wait until the Democratic convention to introduce a new approach.


"Oh, I know, you're probably here thinking I'm going to spend most of the time
attacking my opponent," Mr. Bush said in Cedar Rapids. "I've got too much good
to talk about."

The Bush campaign is shifting gears at time when some Republicans have grown
worried about Mr. Bush's prospects and concerned that the hard-edged and
expensive campaign he has waged over the past six months has inflicted less
damage on the Democrats than many had hoped.

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.