It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MiddleInsite
Funny, my theory is he's just a bit old and has a lot on his mind, and simply forgot. No big deal.
And then complete and total submission to the will of the White House when they could easily accomplish what they've been trying to do all along?
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Shamrock6
And then complete and total submission to the will of the White House when they could easily accomplish what they've been trying to do all along?
That's your problem, right there, and where we fundamentally disagree. The media doesn't have an agenda of destroying the presidency. They have an obligation to expose corruption, as they see it, and protect the interests of the American People.
Some interesting reading.
Balancing the public's need to know vs. national security
More articles on National Security VS Freedom of the Press
To back up and explain it to people, The New York Times, the L.A. Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal reported on a secret government surveillance program to monitor financial transactions around the world, to oversimplify it, and the government asked us not to publish it. Going back to the example of Arnold Schwarzenegger, my job is to publish stuff. ... My job is to cover the war on terrorism. My job is to cover the government in its prosecution of the war on terrorism. One of the biggest controversies in America right now is the government's prosecution of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, and my job is to cover that with tremendous aggression, and I do.
Even if it reveals secrets that the government says will help the enemy. Yes, because it's not my job to believe everything the government tells me. If the government had offered compelling proof that a life would be threatened, or if the government offered compelling proof that an ongoing operation would have been threatened, I would have felt differently. In fact, we've held stuff back when the government has offered compelling proof of that. But I put the emphasis on "compelling proof," because history shows that the government doesn't always tell the truth when it offers a reason not to publish.
So Dean Baquet has the right to decide when something damages national security and when it doesn't? My role as the editor of a newspaper, and the newspaper's role in the society, is in fact to try to make that kind of judgment. That may sound arrogant, but it's not. If you read the language of the [Supreme Court] justices in the Pentagon Papers case, they specifically said that newspapers have this role in the society. In fact, it's our patriotic role. ... It's our patriotic role to fulfill our place in the firmament of the government, and fulfilling my place is to aggressively cover the government, and that means not always believing them.
[How do you balance a free press and national security during wartime?] A vigorous and vital press is even more important in times of national crisis, including war, than it is in times of tranquility. When the nation faces urgent decisions of whether to persist in military activity, whether to initiate new pre-emptive strikes, whether to alter our energy policies, how to deal with questions of foreign aid, disaster relief, all of these things, we need not just two sides of an issue; we need a dozen sides of each issue. The only way we get that is by going beyond the official storyline to enrich it with multiple perspectives from multiple sources. What has happened is that new obstacles have been erected in the path of journalists who are trying to get those alternate sources.
It is through the press that most of us get our information. Most Americans will never file a Freedom of Information Act request, and there's no reason that they should. We all have multiple conduits for information and all kinds of ways to educate ourselves. But what's happening is that all of those conduits are being constricted and constrained by official secrecy, and it is really having an impact on the quality of our deliberation. ...
originally posted by: BlueAjah
This OP is typical.
Completely ignore the very good things in these Executive Orders, which are keeping more of Trump's promises, and just focus on something meaningless as a distraction.
originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: TheRedneck
ya, he's real peach and doesn't deserve ANY bad press. bless his little heart - why are we so mean??
his tweet -
234 tweets with "loser"
183 tweets with "stupid"
156 tweets with "weak"
117 tweets with "dope" or "dopey"
115 tweets with "dishonest"
83 tweets with "fool"
what a guy!
link
“You are not special. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We're all part of the same compost heap. We're all singing, all dancing crap of the world.”
― Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: windword
*shrugs*
Well, if you're right, then okay.
I still haven't won the lottery and have to go to work on Monday.
Still better than Hillary.
originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Shamrock6
In my opinion, one can only ask why the media edited out the worst of it! I saw the whole thing, and now the total press conference can't be found without weird and awkward edits.
I think that means that this is really serious. They don't want to panic The People.
That's a great question: why is the media covering for Trump when they've been dogging him so hard for so long.
Sort of defies logic, eh?