Hi Seeker: Thanks for posting this article. The NY Times is known for its liberal bias ... so I tend to want other sources before I accept NY Times reporting.
No, the NY Times is now known for its bias toward conservative corporations. However, this was not "reporting" but an Op Ed piece, and thus opinion, and Frank Rich is well known for his liberal bias, so this could account for your mistake.
quote:
"But there is still scant evidence to suggest that he condones the idea of a free press."The evidence for this is weak.
How about when his administration scolded the press into falling in line shortly after 9/11? Free press? Hardly.
quote:
" ... or into possible White House favors for a lavish campaign contributor who has fallen into legal peril (Ken Lay now, Robert Vesco then)."Bush refused to help out or give favors to Enron when they pleaded ... certainly, if he were so influenced and giving favors, he would have acted to save his buds.
He couldn't give favors by then because the spotlight was too bright. The favors had already been given, however, when Enron got to help write administration energy policies the year before.
The NY Times loves inuendo. They fail to mention that Clinton and Rubins hosted Enron officials at the Whitehouse, and traveled all over the globe to influence nations to work with Enron ... and Enron gave Clinton and the Democrats big bucks.
I guess you missed those articles. I knew about it.
So, any so-called extra 'influence' claimed by the times that is so un usual only needs to go back to Clinton to see even more influence peddeling of Enron ... and a cozy relationship. Thier claims that this has not been seen since Nixon is a willful and deliberate lie ... to link Bush with Nixon for liberal causes.
No, the point of the Op Ed piece is the way the president views the press, and Bush resembles Nixon in that respect, so the link is clear and direct. Clinton wasn't at all this way with the press. His corruption lay elsewhere.
If Bush is wrong, let him be wrong on his own merits, and not by inuendo and linkage ...
The linkage is direct and based on facts.
This wat is no secret ... and in war the situation is not normal. These modern journalists are pussies ... they have never understood war ... and this is nothing unusual for soldiers to detain anyone, at anytime, for any reason ... war ... that is what it is about ... and what are the so-called """secrets""" being hidden? First the journalist does not say ... it is inuendo
He did say, didn't you read this article? The secrets were that American forces may have killed innocents by accident, and he wanted to investigate.
... and second, if they really wanted to hide anything, they would have killed the journalist, buried his body in an Al Quaeda cave, and claimed that the bad guys did it.
Indeed, that would have been even worse than putting a gun to his head and ordering him not to investigate any further. However, even the lesser offense is a gross one.
quote:
" ... , to keep reporters from finding out what's going on."Yep ... it is not so much tht there is any real 'dirt' to hide, but reporters get people killed if allowed to run loose
How thoughtful of the Army to "protect" this reporter by putting a gun to his head and threatening him. Orwellian.
There may well have been dirt to hide, but now we won't know if the Army screwed up because they threatened the free press to keep them from finding out what happened.
... the big example was how the military trusted the US Press in Somalia, and as a result, the bad guys were waiting for the arrival of US military, and killed them ... so the Press does not always need to know, and this problem was seen in WWII ... such that the phrase was coined,"Loose Lips Sinks Ships"
If the Army is killing innocents by accident, the press does need to know as they serve as the eyes and ears of the American public. Or do you just want to hear the lies told by the Joint Chiefs as they stand before their boards and give press conferences? After Desert Storm, years later, journalists interviewing now retired military leaders discovered that the American people were directly lied to on a number of occasions by the Colin Powell show of the day for the press conferences about Desert Storm. Count on being lied to now about the current conflict. Unless you have an independent and free press, how will you know what is really happening?
By putting a gun to their heads?
