From Atlas Shrugs:
Friday, March 16, 2012
LIARS
It took a couple of days to get their arms around how to frame the Times self-enforcing sharia, but The Huffington Post and the left lemmings are now shaping the NY Times hypocrisy and adherence to Islamic law as:
Really? What nerve. What is lower than using our brave men and women to cover for Times cowardice and anti-freedom editorial policies? That is so ..... left.
Apart from jeopardizing the lives of our brave warriors and American citizens by leaking FISA wiretapping on al qaeda operatives (theyadmitted that they released this information knowing that it would damage national security), Porter Goss told the Senate at that time that the New York Times leaks had damaged our intelligence gathering capability, and in so doing, our national security. The NY Times exposed a "highly classified Pentagon order" authorizing Special Operations forces to hunt al-Qaida leaders in mountains of Pakistan.
Was the NY Times concerned that they were putting our troops' live in danger when they ran 32 successive New York Times front page articles on Abu Ghraib? Starting May 1, 2004, the New York Times had a front page article every day, for 32 days. (thanks to Free Republic)
May 8: COMBAT; G.I.'S KILL SCORES OF MILITIA FORCES IN 3 IRAQI CITIES
[NOTE: Abu Ghraib mentioned in first paragraph ]
[NOTE: Abu Ghraib mentioned in first paragraph ]
May 31: Army Is Investigating Reports of Assaults and Thefts by G.I.'s Against Iraqi Civilians
[NYT Memorial Day Special]
[NYT Memorial Day Special]
UPDATE: Ezra Dulis over at Breibart wrote:
This is the same New York Times which published details of the Wikileaks documents leaked by Bradley Manning in 2010. TheTimes justified its decision to publish the details of the documents, stating that it removed information which could lead to the targeting of individual operatives:The Times and the other news organizations agreed at the outset that we would not disclose — either in our articles or any of our online supplementary material — anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations. We have, for example, withheld any names of operatives in the field and informants cited in the reports.But by publishing stories from these documents such as alleged murders of civilians, including a pregnant woman, the Timesengaged in the same kind of general incitement against American troops the paper now cites in its rejection of Geller's ad. Reporting in depth on documents which portrayed soldiers indiscriminately attacking Afghan citizens is a far more direct approach to whipping up violent protests against said troops than the ad, a paid message directed toward American moderate Muslims.To the casual observer, then, it appears the New York Times only cares about the safety of American troops when the inciting speech for potential attacks disparages a protected victim group such as Muslims
No comments:
Post a Comment