OT--More NY Times bias
 

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"?

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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

Why am I not surprised?



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



Whatever is good for the Liberals and Democrats and/or bad for Conservatives
and Republicans.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"jim--" wrote in message
...

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

Why am I not surprised?


Because you have a brain that works.





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



Whatever is good for the Liberals and Democrats and/or bad for
Conservatives
and Republicans.

You can bet the farm that this Berger story won't go away.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

NOYB wrote:

"jim--" wrote in message
...

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



Maybe he was removing documents in order to prevent the Bush
Administration from destroying them, sort of like the Pentagon destroyed
Bush's military record, eh?

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"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. Perhaps they wanted
to wait until they had something to write, rather than puking all over
themselves like the news sources designed for people like you - people who
claim to have ADD because they're too lazy to read more than a paragraph,
or, heaven forbid, a book.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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

"jim--" wrote in message
...

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



Maybe he was removing documents in order to prevent the Bush
Administration from destroying them, sort of like the Pentagon destroyed
Bush's military record, eh?

Yes, perhaps. Of course, since Clarke wrote the items that Berger stole,
then perhaps Clarke kept copies for himself...and Berger wouldn't have
needed to steal those to keep Bush from destroying them. Berger was
covering something up.

Perhaps that's why Clinton has been over in Europe practically defending
Bush's decision to invade Iraq? He's cut a deal in return for the Bush
administration making the Berger situation "go away".

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"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.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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?

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"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.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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?

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"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.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"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.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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?

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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?

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"jim--" wrote in message news:4Zqdna0T-
Krause cannot attack the message, only the messenger...his typical MO.

That is why Krause ignore posts where he does not know something personal
about the person.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.


To quote someone:

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

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.


To quote someone:

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

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Not at all. There are dozens of examples of Bush's lies, in which he
said one thing and then did another, or deliberately obfuscated his
actual position. The man lies about everything.

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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Based on THAT logic, the Iraqis we killed should be brought back to life,
since they died for nothing.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"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.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:22:46 -0400, DSK wrote:

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...

It's not what they report, it's how they report it. Surely even you
can see the difference in spin that is placed on the same news item
depending on which side the story is on?

Maybe because I studied the art of propaganda when I was in school,
that I'm more sensitive to these tricks. But to me it's blatantly
obvious.


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?

Or that maybe that you're to blind and partisan to consider it?

Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:48:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

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.


To quote someone:

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

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Not at all. There are dozens of examples of Bush's lies, in which he
said one thing and then did another, or deliberately obfuscated his
actual position. The man lies about everything.

Such as?

Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:


Maybe because I studied the art of propaganda when I was in school,
that I'm more sensitive to these tricks. But to me it's blatantly
obvious.

It's hard to believe you studied much of anything, Dave. Where did you
matriculate...at Bob Jones U?



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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:38:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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.

I don't have a "minister" or any other icon religious figure.

Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:04:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Based on THAT logic, the Iraqis we killed should be brought back to life,
since they died for nothing.

Which Iraqi's? The ones who were loyal to Saddam, or the ones involved
in the current insurgence?

Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:


Not at all. There are dozens of examples of Bush's lies, in which he
said one thing and then did another, or deliberately obfuscated his
actual position. The man lies about everything.

Such as?

Dave

Everything:

The entire or unabated amount or quantity of; the whole extent,
substance, or compass of; the whole.



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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:



I don't have a "minister" or any other icon religious figure.

Dave


Dave still prays to that Coca-Cola bottle that fell from the sky into
his yard.


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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

John P Reber wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Dave Hall wrote:



I don't have a "minister" or any other icon religious figure.

Dave



Dave still prays to that Coca-Cola bottle that fell from the sky into
his yard.


The Gods must be crazy.

Great movie.


Indeed; a classic. Betcha Dave hasn't seen it.


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

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Dave Hall wrote:



I don't have a "minister" or any other icon religious figure.

Dave



Dave still prays to that Coca-Cola bottle that fell from the sky into
his yard.


The Gods must be crazy.

Great movie.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:04:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .


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

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Based on THAT logic, the Iraqis we killed should be brought back to life,
since they died for nothing.

Which Iraqi's? The ones who were loyal to Saddam, or the ones involved
in the current insurgence?

Dave


No. The innocent ones who got in the way.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:38:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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.

I don't have a "minister" or any other icon religious figure.

Dave

Well, ***someone*** puts you up to this. You couldn't possibly dream up some
of this nonsense yourself.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:
Maybe because I studied the art of propaganda when I was in school,
that I'm more sensitive to these tricks. But to me it's blatantly
obvious.

And so you follow the side that has the most obvious & blatant
propaganda? Is that like drinking the brand of diet soda that's most
heavily advertised?

BTW did you ever look up *any* of Bush's environmental policies? Care to
discuss them? How about his educational policies? His policies with
regard to the U.N. (now there's a set of flip-flops you can take to the
beach)?

And you insist that you're not being hoodwinked...



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?


Or that maybe that you're to blind and partisan to consider it?

I prefer living in the real world, Dave. All sorts of fun things happen
out here. Of course, in the real world sometimes one has to admit one
might be wrong once in a while... but with you're in good company with
President Bush here. Neither of you acknowledge ever making any kind of
mistake. And of course neither of you ever ever lie!

DSK