New York Daily News source believes senior White House official has flipped in leak c

[gldstwmn]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/New_York_Daily_News_to_claim_1017.html

[strandinthewind]

Oooooooo - this will finally get even more interesting!!!!

[irishgrl]

woo hoo! please let it be true!!

[dissention]

The first thing I did when I got home was to go and read the news, so when I came across this on Raw Story, I literally did a little a jig. Has anyone seen the NYDN yet?

I'm dying to know who it is. My money is on Powell.

[strandinthewind]

The first thing I did when I got home was to go and read the news, so when I came across this on Raw Story, I literally did a little a jig. Has anyone seen the NYDN yet?

I'm dying to know who it is. My money is on Powell.

Me too - though it would be odd for a soldier to cross over.

I have a sneaky suspicion this is all related in some way to the gay hooker in the Pres Corps. - to this day that is still just beyond anything over than he was banging someone at the top.

[SuzeQuze]

Me too - though it would be odd for a soldier to cross over.

I have a sneaky suspicion this is all related in some way to the gay hooker in the Pres Corps. - to this day that is still just beyond anything over than he was banging someone at the top.

This whole thing will bring the spotlight on the phony WMD intelligence. That will be fun to see. I think the average person probably still doesn't know how much BS that all was but this investigation will change that.

[dissention]

Cheney aide cooperating with CIA outing probe, sources say
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html

A senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney is cooperating with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, sources close to the investigation say.

Individuals familiar with Fitzgerald’s case tell RAW STORY that John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton, was named as a target of Fitzgerald’s probe. They say he was told in recent weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking Plame-Wilson’s name to reporters unless he cooperated with the investigation.

Others close to the probe say that if Hannah is cooperating with the special prosecutor then he was likely going to be charged as a co-conspirator and may have cut a deal.

Hannah did not return two calls and several emails to his White House address seeking comment.

Fitzgerald’s probe is investigating whether officials in the Bush Administration illegally outed a CIA agent to get back at her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was a critic of the Administration’s faulty intelligence and lead-up to war.

In a July 2003 editorial, Wilson wrote that the Bush administration “twisted” pre-Iraq war intelligence in order to win public support for the Iraq conflict.

Specifically, Wilson called into question the veracity of President Bush’s claim in his January 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq tried to purchase yellow-cake uranium from Africa. Wilson had been sent on a fact-finding mission to Niger a year before and reported that those allegations were unfounded. Bush administration officials said Wilson’s trip was a boondoggle, and was set up by his wife who worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction.

Those close to the investigation said in June 2003, Hannah was given orders by higher-ups in Cheney’s office to leak Plame’s covert status and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson, who had been a thorn in the side of the administration since May 2003, when he started questioning the administration’s claims that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and its neighbors in the Middle East. The specifics of who issued those orders and what directives were given were not provided.

Hannah had been fingered by Wilson

To many following the case, Hannah’s involvement will not come as a surprise. Wilson pointed to Hannah as a possible leaker in his book, The Politics of Truth.

“In fact, senior advisers close to the president may well have been clever enough to have used others to do the actual leaking, in order to keep their fingerprints off the crime,” Wilson writes.

“John Hannah and David Wurmser, mid-level political appointees in the vice-president’s office, have both been suggested as sources of the leak …Mid-level officials, however, do not leak information without the authority from a higher level,” Wilson notes.

The revelation that Hannah has become a prosecution witness strongly suggests that Fitzgerald is now looking into the motive for outing Plame and how Wilson’s complaints threatened to destroy public support for the war, which the Bush administration worked diligently to win.

Fitzgerald may be looking at a broader conspiracy case of pre-war machinations by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) and by the Pentagon’s ultra-secret Office of Net Assessment, the former operating out of Dick Cheney’s office and tasked with “selling” the war in Iraq, and the latter operating out of Defense Under Secretary for Policy, Douglas Feith’s office and tasked with creating a war to “sell,” as some describe.

To spread its message that Saddam Hussein was a nuclear threat, the White House Iraq Group relied heavily on New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who, after meeting with several of the organization’s members in August 2002, wrote an explosive story that many critics of the war believe laid the groundwork for military action against Iraq.

On Sunday, Sept. 8, 2002, for example, Miller wrote a story for the Times quoting anonymous officials who said aluminum tubes found in Iraq were to be used as centrifuges. Her report turned out to be wrong.

Hannah under investigation for role with Chalabi group

Hannah is currently under investigation by U.S. authorities for his alleged activities in an intelligence program run by the controversial Iraqi National Congress (INC) and its leader, Ahmed Chalabi.

According to a Newsweek article, a memo written for the Iraq National Congress (INC) raised questions regarding Cheney’s role in the build up to the war in Iraq. During the lead up to the war, Newsweek asserts, the INC was providing intelligence on the now discredited Iraqi WMD program through Hannah and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff.

“A June 2002 memo written by INC lobbyist Entifadh Qunbar to a U.S. Senate committee lists John Hannah, a senior national-security aide on Cheney’s staff, as one of two ‘U.S. governmental recipients’ for reports generated by an intelligence program being run by the INC and which was then being funded by the State Department. Under the program, ‘defectors, reports and raw intelligence are cultivated and analyzed’; the info was then reported to, among others, ‘appropriate governmental, non-governmental and international agencies.’ The memo not only describes Cheney aide Hannah as a “principal point of contact” for the program, it even provides his direct White House telephone number.”

“…Hannah and Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, were the two Cheney employees,’ We believe that Hannah was the major player in this,’ one federal law-enforcement officer told the magazine.

According to the Washington Post, Libby discussed Wilson's wife with at least two reporters before her identity became public.

[DavidMn]

Uh-Oh. Looks like more trouble for GW:nod:

[DavidMn]

You know, It just seems that this always happens. whenever on party or person gets too much power, trouble always follows.

[dissention]

If you ask me, I think the New York Times has been in cahoots with this administration from the get-go. They were partners in trumpeting the Iraq War, all of that ****. Go and search The Times online and not once will you find that they ever mentioned the White House Iraq Group until two days ago. Not once. Couple that with Miller's reporting, the way in which the editors and management suppressed stories, etc, it's all very telling.

Don't even get me started on that puff piece they printed about themselves in Sunday's edition. That vile **** made me gag.

And, on another note, does anyone else find a lot of the stories reported and things said by Russert, Chris Matthews, and Andrea Mitchell to be quite unethical, considering that all three are quite involved in this case? All three were subpoenaed and testified about it.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

If you ask me, I think the New York Times has been in cahoots with this administration from the get-go.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

God how I have missed you! :xoxo:

[dissention]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

God how I have missed you! :xoxo:

It must be nice to be so deluded into thinking that the Times is a liberal paper. :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

It must be nice to be so deluded into thinking that the Times is a liberal paper. :laugh:

and even more deluded not to see the obvious. :xoxo:

guess they aren't "right-wing" enough for my tastes.

[dissention]

and even more deluded not to see the obvious. :xoxo:

If you could see the obvious, you'd be able to see it's no liberal rag. It's an embarrassment to the journalism community.

guess they aren't "right-wing" enough for my tastes.

Your problem is that you want them to hit you over the head with bias, like Coultergeist. That's just silly.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

If you could see the obvious, you'd be able to see it's no liberal rag. It's an embarrassment to the journalism community.

Hey the last statement I will agree with!

So are you suggesting that in order for a paper to NOT be an embarrassment, it must have a liberal bias?



Your problem is that you want them to hit you over the head with bias, like Coultergeist. That's just silly.

No, all I ask is that they report THE NEWS!

[dissention]

So are you suggesting that in order for a paper to NOT be an embarrassment, it must have a liberal bias?

No, I'm suggesting that a mainstream news source must have no bias in order not to become an embarrassment. The editorials can be as left-wing or right-wing as possible, but once that seeps into the reporting, that's it. You don't seem capable of grasping the fact that the NYT abhorred their label of being a "liberal paper" and felt robbed of any credibility, so to turn things around, they used 9/11 to transform the paper. They did this by giving Miller free reign, even after numerous colleagues pleaded with the editors that her reporting was disgusting. Or who can forget the famous "I'm Convinced" editorial after Powell's speech at the UN? That paper is so deeply involved with this administration that it will never recover.

[dissention]

Judy Miller's Reporting: A Cancer on the New York Times?
by Arianna Huffington
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/judy-millers-reporting-_b_9055.html
10.17.2005
(Go to link for the actual links to the letters and stories she mentions)

Signs of trouble and Judy Miller were like Mary and her little lamb. Everywhere that Judy went, a flashing warning sign was sure to follow.

Indeed, in looking back on her career, it's clear that there were more red flags popping up around Judy Miller's work as a journalist than at a May Day parade in Red Square.

We now know that Miller's bosses were being warned about serious credibility problems with her reporting as far back as 2000 -- a warning that came from a Pulitzer Prize-winning colleague of Miller who was so disturbed by her journalistic methods he took the extraordinary step of writing a warning memo to his editors and then asked that his byline not appear on an article they had both worked on.

In today's WaPo, Howard Kurtz quotes from a December 2000 memo sent by Craig Pyes, a two time Pulitzer winner who had worked with Miller on a series of Times stories on al-Qaeda.

"I'm not willing to work further on this project with Judy Miller... I do not trust her work, her judgment, or her conduct. She is an advocate, and her actions threaten the integrity of the enterprise, and of everyone who works with her. . . . She has turned in a draft of a story of a collective enterprise that is little more than dictation from government sources over several days, filled with unproven assertions and factual inaccuracies," and "tried to stampede it into the paper."

It's the journalistic equivalent of Dean telling Nixon that Watergate was "a cancer on the presidency." But while the Times corrected the specific stories Pyes was concerned about, the paper, like Nixon, ignored the long-term diagnosis. And, of course, the very same issues Pyes raised in 2000 -- Miller's questionable judgment, her advocacy, her willingness to take dictation from government sources -- were the ones that reappeared in Miller's pre-war "reporting" on Saddam's WMD.

And Pyes wasn't the only one at the Times raising concerns about Miller's reporting. As Roger Cohen, who was foreign editor at the time of Miller's WMD reporting, put it in Sunday's article: "I told her there was unease, discomfort, unhappiness over some of the coverage." And as has been reported by New York Magazine's Franklin Foer, Cohen did not express his concerns only to Miller: "During the run-up to the war, investigations editor Doug Franz and foreign editor Roger Cohen went to managing editor Gerald Boyd on several occasions with concerns about Miller's over-reliance on Chalabi and his Pentagon champions... But Raines and Boyd continually reaffirmed management's faith in her by putting her stories on page 1." (So, as Eric Altermann points out, the neocons got their Manchurian Reporter.)

Franz and Cohen's visits (piled on top of the Pyes memo) are eerily reminiscent of the email Jon Landman sent regarding Jayson Blair, in which he wrote "We have to stop Jayson from writing for the Times. Right now." Here it was a number of respected journalists all but pleading: "We have to stop Judy from reporting for the Times. Right now."

But, instead, Miller was allowed to keep doing pretty much whatever she pleased. In fact, as a journalistic insider told me: "Howell Raines was thrilled with Judy's WMD coverage, however credulous, because it allowed the Times to slough off the liberal label and present themselves as born again tough hawks -- perfect for the post-9/11 zeitgeist." That was Raines. What was Keller's excuse?

Because perhaps the most damning admission in the Times' quasi-self-examination was Keller's pathetic claim that, despite being removed from her WMD beat, Miller "kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm." "Kept kind of drifting on her own"? When did the Times stop being edited?

So Miller was very questionable goods. And everyone knew it. Yet this is the person they chose to rally behind, body and soul. And reputation.

The Times is in the midst of severe cutbacks, laying off 200 workers earlier in the year, with another 500 to come. "The paper is cracking down on expenses to such an extent," a Times staffer told me, "all travel now has to be approved by an editor. Used to be, if a story broke, a national correspondent could just book a flight and go -- and not have to wait six hours to get the trip approved. Now you need to have the agreement of an editor saying, 'Yes, this story is worth spending the money on, go'. That's a very big change for the New York Times. Yet the paper's management chose to spend millions of dollars in legal fees defending Judy Miller."

It's an utter disgrace, and an integral part of the paper's disastrous WMD coverage, which is without a doubt the blackest mark in the paper's long history.

And yet, even after all that we've learned, the Judy-ites continue to defend her.

"Judy has always been a pioneer and an agent of change." That was Tom Friedman on CNN. Yesterday. Hadn't he read his paper's story and Judy's laughable companion piece? Or maybe by "agent of change" he meant someone who has changed the culture of integrity at the Times to its polar opposite.

Tom Friedman -- and anyone else still hanging out at Camp Judy (I notice we haven't heard from Lou Dobbs or Tom Brokaw since the Judy-culpa came out) -- really need to update their talking points. Maybe they can all chip in and get a group rate on a good rewrite man. I suggest looking for a writer with a background in novels -- because trying to present Judy as anything even remotely resembling a journalist will now require someone very adept at crafting fiction.

CrooksandLiars has a good clip of her on CNN this past Sunday talking about the Times' ridiculous puff piece in Sunday's edition.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

No, I'm suggesting that a mainstream news source must have no bias in order not to become an embarrassment. The editorials can be as left-wing or right-wing as possible, but once that seeps into the reporting, that's it. You don't seem capable of grasping the fact that the NYT abhorred their label of being a "liberal paper" and felt robbed of any credibility, so to turn things around, they used 9/11 to transform the paper. They did this by giving Miller free reign, even after numerous colleagues pleaded with the editors that her reporting was disgusting. Or who can forget the famous "I'm Convinced" editorial after Powell's speech at the UN? That paper is so deeply involved with this administration that it will never recover.

Are you getting all of this supposed conservative "bias" from the documentary "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media". Good God I hope not!

Let's count some of the liberals on board. We have A. O. Scott, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert. And how can one forget the liberal darling Maureen Dowd?

Riccardo Puglisi wrote a paper, "Being the New York Times: The Political Behavior of a Newspaper", on this very subject actually. He shows the very liberal bias of this paper. For example, during presidential campaigns, the paper systematically gives more coverage to Democratic topics (civil rights, health care, labor, social welfare).

Also, head over to lexis-nexis and enter in "New York Times Right-Wing" and see how many hits you get. And then enter in "New York Times Left-Wing" and see how many hits you get.

[SuzeQuze]

So Diss, the Times did a puff piece on themselves? Good grief!

[dissention]

Your arguments get sillier with time.

Are you getting all of this supposed conservative "bias" from the documentary "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media". Good God I hope not!

Yup, sillier and sillier.

Let's count some of the liberals on board. We have A. O. Scott

A movie critic.

Frank Rich

A theater critic and op-ed columnist.

Paul Krugman

An op-ed columnist.

Bob Herbert

An op-ed columnist.

And how can one forget the liberal darling Maureen Dowd?

Yikes, another op-ed columnist.

Is that the best you can do; supply me with a list of people paid for their syndicated opinion pieces (who are then balanced out by the syndicated conservative op-ed columnists), not their reporting, and a lone movie critic? Crikey, you have no argument. Stop copying and pasting silly lists from the Free Republic.

Riccardo Puglisi wrote a paper, "Being the New York Times: The Political Behavior of a Newspaper", on this very subject actually. He shows the very liberal bias of this paper. For example, during presidential campaigns, the paper systematically gives more coverage to Democratic topics (civil rights, health care, labor, social welfare).

That paper of his has been debunked quite effectively.

Also, head over to lexis-nexis and enter in "New York Times Right-Wing" and see how many hits you get. And then enter in "New York Times Left-Wing" and see how many hits you get.

:lol: :lol:

[dissention]

So Diss, the Times did a puff piece on themselves? Good grief!

Oh my, I read it in absolute disgust and came away with nothing but disdain for them. I'll post it for you.

[irishgrl]

No, all I ask is that they report THE NEWS!
My dear, Im afraid--from the sound of the way things are ramping up--you're not going to be liking the NEWS very much :nod:

[dissention]

So Diss, the Times did a puff piece on themselves? Good grief!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16leak.html?oref=login
The Miller Case: A Notebook, a Cause, a Jail Cell and a Deal
By DON VAN NATTA Jr., ADAM LIPTAK and CLIFFORD J. LEVY
Published: October 16, 2005

And here's her revolting piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html
My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room
By JUDITH MILLER
Published: October 16, 2005

If you aren't registered, just paste the urls into http://www.bugmenot.com and they'll give you instant log-in info.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Your arguments get sillier with time.

Coming from you...Thank you.


A movie critic.



A theater critic and op-ed columnist.



An op-ed columnist.



An op-ed columnist.



Yikes, another op-ed columnist.

Is that the best you can do; supply me with a list of people paid for their syndicated opinion pieces (who are then balanced out by the syndicated conservative op-ed columnists), not their reporting, and a lone movie critic? Crikey, you have no argument. Stop copying and pasting silly lists from the Free Republic.

I am by no means a Free Republic member or poster. Thanks for assuming that I don't have enough knowledge to argue for myself.

The fact is there are more LIBERAL Op-Ed columnist than there are conservatives or even centrists for that matter!

Neat little factoid Joshy,

Additionally, The New York Times editorial page has not endorsed a Republican Party candidate for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956

You ever hear of Daniel Okrent? He concluded that the Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City.He also noted that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration.

Since the invasion in Iraq, the Times has almost always referred to "insurgents" rather than "terrorists" being responsible for the bombing and other acts of violence.



:lol: :lol:

That's all your going to do...laugh? Oh wait..

Bless your little heart. You don't know how to use Lexis-Nexis do you?

[SuzeQuze]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16leak.html?oref=login
The Miller Case: A Notebook, a Cause, a Jail Cell and a Deal
By DON VAN NATTA Jr., ADAM LIPTAK and CLIFFORD J. LEVY
Published: October 16, 2005

And here's her revolting piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html
My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room
By JUDITH MILLER
Published: October 16, 2005

If you aren't registered, just paste the urls into http://www.bugmenot.com and they'll give you instant log-in info.

She just has no credibility, I can't even finish. She almost says Libby said it was Plame but then he didn't. What the hell does that mean? :shrug: Her statements are very convoluted.

[dissention]

She just has no credibility, I can't even finish. She almost says Libby said it was Plame but then he didn't. What the hell does that mean? :shrug: Her statements are very convoluted.

She said it's not Libby who told her Plame's identity, and then she says she doesn't remember who told her. :shocked: :lol:

I've never read anything more incredulous in my life.

[strandinthewind]

She just has no credibility, I can't even finish. She almost says Libby said it was Plame but then he didn't. What the hell does that mean? :shrug: Her statements are very convoluted.

It means she is a bought and paid for lying cu*t - that is what it mean :mad:

[SuzeQuze]

It means she is a bought and paid for lying cu*t - that is what it mean :mad:

Precisely. I mean, I think I read that she said Libby told her Wilson's wife was involved in the CIA but he did not tell her Plame's name. But the name is in her notebook? And just because Libby didn't say her proper name that doesn't mean he did not out her. Saying "Wilson's wife is in the CIA" is virtually the same as saying, "Plame is in the CIA". It just takes a little research to uncover the latter, more specific information. Its very clear she's lying and the NYT should be ashamed of themselves for continuing her employment. They're just whoring this out to sell papers. Its really pathetic.

[dissention]

The fact is there are more LIBERAL Op-Ed columnist than there are conservatives or even centrists for that matter!

Oh, really? Give me some numbers, then.

Neat little factoid Joshy,

Additionally, The New York Times editorial page has not endorsed a Republican Party candidate for president since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956

Once again, there's a marked difference between the editorial opinions and the reporting. You can't seem to grasp that.

You ever hear of Daniel Okrent?

Most definitely; he's quite the cracker. You ever hear of Okrent's Law?

He also noted that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration.

:shocked:

Another reason to call him a cracker.

Since the invasion in Iraq, the Times has almost always referred to "insurgents" rather than "terrorists" being responsible for the bombing and other acts of violence.

:laugh: Your desperation is showing.

That's all your going to do...laugh? Oh wait..

Bless your little heart. You don't know how to use Lexis-Nexis do you?

That's what I said to you when you first began posting. I'm glad you've learned to use it like the rest of us.

[strandinthewind]

Precisely. I mean, I think I read that she said Libby told her Wilson's wife was involved in the CIA but he did not tell her Plame's name. But the name is in her notebook? And just because Libby didn't say her proper name that doesn't mean he did not out her. Saying "Wilson's wife is in the CIA" is virtually the same as saying, "Plame is in the CIA". It just takes a little research to uncover the latter, more specific information. Its very clear she's lying and the NYT should be ashamed of themselves for continuing her employment. They're just whoring this out to sell papers. Its really pathetic.

Plus, if she could not remember, then why did she go to jail for months to protect that - she could have testified then that she did not remember :rolleyes:

[dissention]

Plus, if she could not remember, then why did she go to jail for months to protect that - she could have testified then that she did not remember :rolleyes:

Why did she go to jail when she had a waiver from Libby a year prior to her incarceration?

[strandinthewind]

Why did she go to jail when she had a waiver from Libby a year prior to her incarceration?

Not to mention his name all over her notes - what a sow. She lies more than Ann Coulter - but at least she has a better wardrobe :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Oh, really? Give me some numbers, then.

I'm talking about the NYT.



Once again, there's a marked difference between the editorial opinions and the reporting. You can't seem to grasp that.

But when the opinions start leaking into everything from...the "news" to movie reviews...you have to wonder?

Your desperation is showing.

I'm just giving you examples. The list could go on and on. But I know you well enough to know that I am not going to change your mind. And I think that you know me well enough to know that you are not going to change my mind...so why do we bother. It is just too damn addictive!;) Must be that suppressed gay love I have for you! :nod:

That's what I said to you when you first began posting. I'm glad you've learned to use it like the rest of us.

I have had access to Lexis-Nexis for about two years now. I knew exactly how to use it long before I ever became a ledgie.

[dissention]

Not to mention his name all over her notes - what a sow. She lies more than Ann Coulter - but at least she has a better wardrobe :laugh:

You need to make Huffington Post your homepage; it's invaluable, darling. Just posted:

White House Watch: Cheney resignation rumors fly
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051018/18whwatch.htm?track=rss

Minute Rice to replace him if he steps down. :shocked: And they posted that indictments may come down tomorrow.

[strandinthewind]

You need to make Huffington Post your homepage; it's invaluable, darling. Just posted:

White House Watch: Cheney resignation rumors fly
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051018/18whwatch.htm?track=rss

Minute Rice to replace him if he steps down. :shocked: And they posted that indictments may come down tomorrow.

OMG -

Cheney will blame it on the heart thing.

This is all happening so fast - I need my smelling salts :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

Well, I think Cheney had a by pass a month or so ago and he needs to resign for that. Notice how no one has seen him around since before Katrina :shrug:

[dissention]

I'm talking about the NYT.

As was I. Show me the numbers of liberal columnists vs. conservative columnists. The fact of the matter is that you really have no argument here because all things written by the likes of Dowd and Rich are clearly marked as opinion pieces, not news or pieces of reporting.

But when the opinions start leaking into everything from...the "news" to movie reviews...you have to wonder?

The New York Times is not a liberal paper; that's nothing but a myth. Whereas it may have or may not have been in the past, it currently is not one. Either you haven't been paying attention to the specifics of Plamegate or you are just naturally thick.

I'm just giving you examples. The list could go on and on. But I know you well enough to know that I am not going to change your mind. And I think that you know me well enough to know that you are not going to change my mind...so why do we bother. It is just too damn addictive!;) Must be that suppressed gay love I have for you! :nod:

That's probably it.

[dissention]

^^^^

Well, I think Cheney had a by pass a month or so ago and he needs to resign for that. Notice how no one has seen him around since before Katrina :shrug:

I thought he had knee surgery?

And his dimbulb wife was on the Today show this morning to hock her new book. Unfortunately, it's not a book of lesbian pornfiction like the last time around. Drats.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I thought he had knee surgery?

And his dimbulb wife was on the Today show this morning to hock her new book. Unfortunately, it's not a book of lesbian pornfiction like the last time around. Drats.

Oh come now....

[DavidMn]

OMG -

Cheney will blame it on the heart thing.

This is all happening so fast - I need my smelling salts :laugh:
Will CHeney say "ELIZABETH, I"M COMIN HOME!!! ITS THE BIG ONE!!!?":lol:

[strandinthewind]

I thought he had knee surgery?

And his dimbulb wife was on the Today show this morning to hock her new book. Unfortunately, it's not a book of lesbian pornfiction like the last time around. Drats.

I think they pulled a vein from his leg and that is what they are passing it off as. I have nothing to support this with, but I suspect it.

Also, his wife is a complete and utter BITCH :mad:

[dissention]

OMG -

Cheney will blame it on the heart thing.

This is all happening so fast - I need my smelling salts :laugh:

It's not happening fast enough; this has been two years in the making, dammit!!!

[dissention]

Oh come now....

Where are we going?

Lynn Cheney is the author of the classic lesbian pornfiction "Sisters." Have you not read it? I can post some excerpts taken straight from my copy.

[DavidMn]

I think they pulled a vein from his leg and that is what they are passing it off as. I have nothing to support this with, but I suspect it.

Also, his wife is a complete and utter BITCH :mad:You know, regarding Cheney's wife, whenever I'm watching tv, everytime her mug comes on the screen the room drops like 10 degrees in temprature....:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Where are we going?

Lynn Cheney is the author of the classic lesbian pornfiction "Sisters." Have you not read it? I can post some excerpts taken straight from my copy.

PLEASE POST THEM AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :xoxo: :xoxo:

[dissention]

You know, regarding Cheney's wife, whenever I'm watching tv, everytime her mug comes on the screen the room drops like 10 degrees in temprature....:laugh:

That woman can't even go to a gynecologist because they're all afraid of frostbite.

[dissention]

PLEASE POST THEM AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :xoxo: :xoxo:

"Not Adam and Eve...Eve and Eve...."

Let me find them, I typed them out last time and saved them somewhere.

[strandinthewind]

That woman can't even go to a gynecologist because they're all afraid of frostbite.


The pap smear stick freezes upon insertion and then usually breaks off - poor sore Dick later that night :laugh:

[DavidMn]

PLEASE POST THEM AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :xoxo: :xoxo:I second that. I'd love to see them.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Where are we going?

Maybe New York City. I hate you for living closer to my favorite city, than I do! :( :xoxo:

Lynn Cheney is the author of the classic lesbian pornfiction "Sisters." Have you not read it? I can post some excerpts taken straight from my copy.

I actually do have it.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I need a smoke break...be back...

[SuzeQuze]

The pap smear stick freezes upon insertion and then usually breaks off - poor sore Dick later that night :laugh:

She probly has a bunch of broken swabs there since no one's going near it, not even Dick Vader.

[DavidMn]

The pap smear stick freezes upon insertion and then usually breaks off - poor sore Dick later that night :laugh:Wordsmith you are.....:lol:

[DavidMn]

I need a smoke break...be back...WHat brand do you smoke?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

WHat brand do you smoke?

Marlboro...ususally menthol. I am now trying out the new 72's. They are really short...

[sara1998]

I need a smoke break...be back...
hahahahaha.........If I were on the right, I'd need a smoke right about now, too....

[strandinthewind]

More rumors - about the investigation, not Cheney. Apparently, someone has flipped. If the identity of the staffer is accurate, this thing could also implicate Bolton, our esteemed UN ambassador (& one of Jubitch's jailhouse visitors less than 2 weeks before she walked out of jail).

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

(Did someone post this already - if so :sorry: )

[dissention]

(Did someone post this already - if so :sorry: )

Yes, I did a couple of pages ago. The staffer is John Hannah.

[strandinthewind]

Yes, I did a couple of pages ago. The staffer is John Hannah.

Sorry - I thought it had been, but could not remember :cool:

First comes Frist, then comes Cheney, then comes DeLay in the felony basket :laugh:

[irishgrl]

Polly put the kettle on, We'll all have TEA!