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.

 

NYT Retaliates against Cheney and Rumsfeld

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
You should care why.

It's not always about the story, but the timing of the story, and where it lives in the newspaper. Front page, above the fold, back page, section A, section B , whereever.

There are a lot of decisions made, just on the presentation of a story.




posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
You should care why.


Why? Because you do? If I find it of a concern, I would care why. It's such a non-issue, I don't care. The paper is out of the realm of my consciousness. Upon close invistigation, I have determined that this does not require my interest.

If it was an important story, something of consequence, I would be more concerned.


psyopswatcher, after reading some of the responses to the blog, I'm pretty sure it's been brought to the attention of authorities. As it should be.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Here's an additional article.


A spokesperson for the Secret Service has told me that the New York Times article providing details about the homes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld is not a security threat, as many conservative commentators have been trying to argue.

Relatedly, Rumsfeld's spokesperson also confirmed to me that his office gave a Times photographer permission to photograph his home.

Source


When even the people themselves are not concerned about it, I think it's not the biggest of issues.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I do not put much stock in what bloggers say is true simply because they are person opinions. Hell the one Logan used claimed to have inside sources in the Secrect services and Rummey's office.


Frankly I do not put any stock in them, but to each his own



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
He didn't claim he had inside sources, he said he contacted them. Please do not attempt to argue against a straw man. A short search on Google for Hollen Wheeler, Mr. Rumsfeld's PR director, gives a phone number for her. A search for Jonathan Cherry confirms him as a Secret Service spokesman, and there is undoubtedly a way to contact him as well, probably through the USSS website.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Bush didn't brief Congress about the program until after he was made aware that the NY Times was going to run it. So this progrram was NOT congress-approved, as Bush claimed it was.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Consider The Source


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Bush didn't brief Congress about the program until after he was made aware that the NY Times was going to run it. So this progrram was NOT congress-approved, as Bush claimed it was.

As I "hinted" at in that thread, I advise caution when taking anything Senator Feinstein says at face value.

Maybe I'm just biased because I've seen her lie so many times, but I'm skeptical of her tale.

If someone with some credibility were to corroborate her story, however, then I would consider it more likely.

Seriously, Dianne Feinstein is one of the worst I've ever seen, and she has plenty of competition for bottom-feeding in U.S. politics.

If someone can come up with another source -- hell, any source -- that could shed some light on this claim, I would consider it far more newsworthy.

Sorry. Feinstein and me go way back, and this was somewhat off-topic and rather ad hominem, so I'll shut up.

But when someone uses the "F-word" like that, it can be hard to control myself.




[edit on 7/4/2006 by Majic]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Yes, the fact Feinstein is saying it makes me wonder. Perhaps Feinstein becoming a new Arlen Specter - act outraged at the President, then vote in his favor when it gets down to the line. I say "becoming" because recently she hasn't even been acting outraged, she just votes against the people.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Maybe I'm just biased because I've seen her lie so many times, but I'm skeptical of her tale.


I had no idea. Thanks Majic. There are some political corners I've just never ventured into and this is one. I'm not familiar with her at all. I thought she seemed very trustworthy! D'oh!

If anyone finds corroborating info, please post. Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join