Subscribe By Email

Plainly Stipendable

Worthy Causes


  • Bloggers for Bob McDonnell

July 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Plainly on the Brutally Honest Blogroll


Plainly Readable


Recently Updated Weblogs

« Bringing back the War Posters | Main | When is it treason? »

Sunday, June 25, 2006

More War Posters

Poster034

Poster024

Michelle, once again, with more...

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834516bb169e200d834d15bbe69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More War Posters:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Can you actually show the link between a newspaper reporting a story (that they are constitutionally protected in doing) about an administration violating the law---its own Patriot Act, by the way---and people dying? Or are you just making shit up again and regurgitating weak-ass Republican talking points?

You really have become some crazy-ass, freakazoid, Rick. Your sinking into fascist territory real fast.

Also, why aren't you ranting about the WSJ's reporting on this? Why is it just the so-called "liberal" NYT?

You have asked, and the WSJ has answered...

We recount all this because more than a few commentators have tried to link the Journal and Times at the hip. On the left, the motive is to help shield the Times from political criticism. On the right, the goal is to tar everyone in the "mainstream media." But anyone who understands how publishing decisions are made knows that different newspapers make up their minds differently.

Some argue that the Journal should have still declined to run the antiterror story. However, at no point did Treasury officials tell us not to publish the information. And while Journal editors knew the Times was about to publish the story, Treasury officials did not tell our editors they had urged the Times not to publish. What Journal editors did know is that they had senior government officials providing news they didn't mind seeing in print. If this was a "leak," it was entirely authorized.


How is it, might I ask, that it's "crazy-ass" and "freakazoid" to suppose that when an effective counter-terrorism program is compromised, people might die? Terrorists...kill people. Not exactly an extravagant leap of logic there. I'm failing to follow the point you're trying to make with your simulated outrage. But where you've really lost me is the overlap between what's been said, above, and any manifestation of "fascism." Please start with explaining that one. What's fascist about it?

Terrorist have tragically killed thousands of inocents over the last hundred years. Nation States have tragically killed millions over the same period. I think a free press is in everone's long term best interest.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

BlogAds


Tip Jar


Plainly Offsetting Costs


Search Brutally Honest


  • Google

    WWW
    www.brutallyhonest.org

Visitors


Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable


Plainly News