🚀 go-pugleaf

"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
> by Chris Field
> Posted Jul 20, 2004
>
> For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
> "mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
> offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the
Times'
> newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
> nonsense? No.
>
> What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal rag
is
> that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
> positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only earned the
> proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.
>
> This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
the
> biggest story on Tuesday.
>
> If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard or
read
> that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
> Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
> advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal
investigation
> for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.
>
> But if the New York Times was your only source of news, you could very
> easily have missed this not-overly-surprising story that a Clinton
official
> did something seemingly underhanded. In this case it was the taking of
> documents which the AP said "were highly classified and included critical
> assessments about the Clinton adminstration's handling of the millennium
> terror threats as well as identification of America's terror
vulnerabilities
> at airports and seaports."
>
> The AP also reported that "some drafts of a sensitive after-action report
on
> the Clinton administration's handling of al Qaeda terror threats during
the
> December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing" (emphasis added).
>
> What was Berger's response to questions about documents that are still
> missing? Said the former Clinton advisor: "When I was informed by the
> Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned
> everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had
> accidentally discarded" (emphasis added).
>
> Let's take a quick look at how a few other major newspapers treated this
> story.
>   a.. The Washington Post had a significant article on Page A2 titled "FBI
> Probes Berger for Document Removal: Former Clinton Aide Inadvertently Took
> Papers From Archives, His Attorney Says." The piece was complete with a
> picture of Mr. Berger.
>
>
>   b.. USA Today's cover page, above the fold, featured "Clinton Advisor
> Targeted in Probe: Classified Materials Taken from Archives." It, too,
> included a picture of the Clinton lackey.
>
>
>   c.. In the Washington Times we were also treated to a Berger picture in
an
> major article on Page A3 titled "Berger Investigated for Taking Classified
> Reports."
>
>
>   d.. The Wall Street Journal even included a picture of Berger with their
> piece on Page A2 headlined "Clinton Aide Berger Is Subject of Criminal
> Probe."
> So, how did the New York Times treat this major story? They buried a
small,
> six-paragraph, 220-word story in a box at the bottom of Page A16 --
without
> a picture -- with the title "Clinton Aide Took Classified Material."
Notice
> the Times didn't mention Berger's name or position in the title; instead,
> they simply called him an "aide" -- as though he worked for the Clinton
> White House as a secretary or a staff researcher. The Times article goes
on
> to omit the fact that Berger "accidentally discarded" some highly
classified
> documents.

Why am I not surprised?



> Exactly what news does the New York Times consider "fit to print"?
>
>

Whatever is good for the Liberals and Democrats and/or bad for Conservatives
and Republicans.

NOYB wrote:

> "jim--" <me@me.com> wrote in message
> news:GNCdndBO4fC94mDdRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>>
>> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
>> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> > If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
>> > by Chris Field
>> > Posted Jul 20, 2004
>> >
>> > For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
>> > "mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
>> > offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the
>> Times'
>> > newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
>> > nonsense? No.
>> >
>> > What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal
> rag
>> is
>> > that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
>> > positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only earned
> the
>> > proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.
>> >
>> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
>> the
>> > biggest story on Tuesday.
>> >
>> > If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard or
>> read
>> > that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
>> > Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
>> > advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal
>> investigation
>> > for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.



Maybe he was removing documents in order to prevent the Bush
Administration from destroying them, sort of like the Pentagon destroyed
Bush's military record, eh?

NOYB wrote:

> "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:TkfLc.399$id.385@news02.roc.ny...
>> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
>> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> >
>> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
>> the
>> > biggest story on Tuesday.
>> >
>>
>> Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.
>
> And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:
>
> "...Berger inadvertently removed..."
>
> Inadvertently?  According to whom?  Berger?  Eyewitnesses say that he
> "inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.
>
>
>

This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.
Did you not take a basic civics class - ever?

NOYB wrote:

> "Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2m5ej5FcerssU3@uni-berlin.de...
>> NOYB wrote:
>>
>> > "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:TkfLc.399$id.385@news02.roc.ny...
>> >> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
> arguably
>> >> the
>> >> > biggest story on Tuesday.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.
>> >
>> > And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:
>> >
>> > "...Berger inadvertently removed..."
>> >
>> > Inadvertently?  According to whom?  Berger?  Eyewitnesses say that he
>> > "inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
>> convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.
>
> The guy admitted to removing documents.  That's illegal.  If it was
> inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as intentionally
> removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.
>
> I suspect it was intentional.  The NY Times suspects it was "inadvertent".
> However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
> unequivocally that it was inadvertent.
>
>

You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
who gets his news from CBN?

"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:qygLc.7131$f4.1233@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2m5icaFj24rjU2@uni-berlin.de...
> > NOYB wrote:
> >
> > > "Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2m5ej5FcerssU3@uni-berlin.de...
> > >> NOYB wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> > news:TkfLc.399$id.385@news02.roc.ny...
> > >> >> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
> > >> >> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
> > > arguably
> > >> >> the
> > >> >> > biggest story on Tuesday.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.
> > >> >
> > >> > And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:
> > >> >
> > >> > "...Berger inadvertently removed..."
> > >> >
> > >> > Inadvertently?  According to whom?  Berger?  Eyewitnesses say that
he
> > >> > "inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
> > >> convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.
> > >
> > > The guy admitted to removing documents.  That's illegal.  If it was
> > > inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as
> intentionally
> > > removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.
> > >
> > > I suspect it was intentional.  The NY Times suspects it was
> "inadvertent".
> > > However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
> > > unequivocally that it was inadvertent.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
> > inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
> > who gets his news from CBN?
>
> Yeah.  That's my perspective.  And I'm 33, not 32 you dimwit.
Interestingly,
> when I first came on rec.boats and starting slapping you around, I was not
> even 30.  That's pretty sad for you.
>
> The CBN news link was from a Yahoo news search.  The same story was
> confirmed in the Reuters link that I provided.
>
>

Krause cannot attack the message, only the messenger...his typical MO.

NOYB wrote:

> "Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2m5icaFj24rjU2@uni-berlin.de...
>> NOYB wrote:
>>
>> > "Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:2m5ej5FcerssU3@uni-berlin.de...
>> >> NOYB wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:TkfLc.399$id.385@news02.roc.ny...
>> >> >> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
>> > arguably
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > biggest story on Tuesday.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.
>> >> >
>> >> > And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:
>> >> >
>> >> > "...Berger inadvertently removed..."
>> >> >
>> >> > Inadvertently?  According to whom?  Berger?  Eyewitnesses say that he
>> >> > "inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
>> >> convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.
>> >
>> > The guy admitted to removing documents.  That's illegal.  If it was
>> > inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as
> intentionally
>> > removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.
>> >
>> > I suspect it was intentional.  The NY Times suspects it was
> "inadvertent".
>> > However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
>> > unequivocally that it was inadvertent.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
>> inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
>> who gets his news from CBN?
>
> Yeah.  That's my perspective.  And I'm 33, not 32 you dimwit. Interestingly,
> when I first came on rec.boats and starting slapping you around, I was not
> even 30.  That's pretty sad for you.

If I thought you or your remarks had any significance in the real world,
 I'd remember your age, and I'd refer to you by name. But as you are an
anonymous twit, why should I attribute any real meaning to anything you
post?

"jim--" <me@me.com> wrote in message
news:GNCdndBO4fC94mDdRVn-jg@comcast.com...
>
> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
> > by Chris Field
> > Posted Jul 20, 2004
> >
> > For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
> > "mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
> > offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the
> Times'
> > newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
> > nonsense? No.
> >
> > What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal
rag
> is
> > that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
> > positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only earned
the
> > proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.
> >
> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
> the
> > biggest story on Tuesday.
> >
> > If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard or
> read
> > that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
> > Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
> > advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal
> investigation
> > for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.
> >
> > But if the New York Times was your only source of news, you could very
> > easily have missed this not-overly-surprising story that a Clinton
> official
> > did something seemingly underhanded. In this case it was the taking of
> > documents which the AP said "were highly classified and included
critical
> > assessments about the Clinton adminstration's handling of the millennium
> > terror threats as well as identification of America's terror
> vulnerabilities
> > at airports and seaports."
> >
> > The AP also reported that "some drafts of a sensitive after-action
report
> on
> > the Clinton administration's handling of al Qaeda terror threats during
> the
> > December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing" (emphasis
added).
> >
> > What was Berger's response to questions about documents that are still
> > missing? Said the former Clinton advisor: "When I was informed by the
> > Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned
> > everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had
> > accidentally discarded" (emphasis added).
> >
> > Let's take a quick look at how a few other major newspapers treated this
> > story.
> >   a.. The Washington Post had a significant article on Page A2 titled
"FBI
> > Probes Berger for Document Removal: Former Clinton Aide Inadvertently
Took
> > Papers From Archives, His Attorney Says." The piece was complete with a
> > picture of Mr. Berger.
> >
> >
> >   b.. USA Today's cover page, above the fold, featured "Clinton Advisor
> > Targeted in Probe: Classified Materials Taken from Archives." It, too,
> > included a picture of the Clinton lackey.
> >
> >
> >   c.. In the Washington Times we were also treated to a Berger picture
in
> an
> > major article on Page A3 titled "Berger Investigated for Taking
Classified
> > Reports."
> >
> >
> >   d.. The Wall Street Journal even included a picture of Berger with
their
> > piece on Page A2 headlined "Clinton Aide Berger Is Subject of Criminal
> > Probe."
> > So, how did the New York Times treat this major story? They buried a
> small,
> > six-paragraph, 220-word story in a box at the bottom of Page A16 --
> without
> > a picture -- with the title "Clinton Aide Took Classified Material."
> Notice
> > the Times didn't mention Berger's name or position in the title;
instead,
> > they simply called him an "aide" -- as though he worked for the Clinton
> > White House as a secretary or a staff researcher. The Times article goes
> on
> > to omit the fact that Berger "accidentally discarded" some highly
> classified
> > documents.
>
> Why am I not surprised?


Because you have a brain that works.


>
>
>
> > Exactly what news does the New York Times consider "fit to print"?
> >
> >
>
> Whatever is good for the Liberals and Democrats and/or bad for
Conservatives
> and Republicans.

You can bet the farm that this Berger story won't go away.

"NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

>
> This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
the
> biggest story on Tuesday.
>

Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site. Perhaps they wanted
to wait until they had something to write, rather than puking all over
themselves like the news sources designed for people like you - people who
claim to have ADD because they're too lazy to read more than a paragraph,
or, heaven forbid, a book.

"Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2m5dtjFit7o2U7@uni-berlin.de...
> NOYB wrote:
>
> > "jim--" <me@me.com> wrote in message
> > news:GNCdndBO4fC94mDdRVn-jg@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> > If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
> >> > by Chris Field
> >> > Posted Jul 20, 2004
> >> >
> >> > For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
> >> > "mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
> >> > offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the
> >> Times'
> >> > newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
> >> > nonsense? No.
> >> >
> >> > What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal
> > rag
> >> is
> >> > that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
> >> > positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only
earned
> > the
> >> > proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.
> >> >
> >> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
> >> the
> >> > biggest story on Tuesday.
> >> >
> >> > If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard
or
> >> read
> >> > that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
> >> > Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
> >> > advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal
> >> investigation
> >> > for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.
>
>
>
> Maybe he was removing documents in order to prevent the Bush
> Administration from destroying them, sort of like the Pentagon destroyed
> Bush's military record, eh?

Yes, perhaps.  Of course, since Clarke wrote the items that Berger stole,
then perhaps Clarke kept copies for himself...and Berger wouldn't have
needed to steal those to keep Bush from destroying them.  Berger was
covering something up.

Perhaps that's why Clinton has been over in Europe practically defending
Bush's decision to invade Iraq?  He's cut a deal in return for the Bush
administration making the Berger situation "go away".

"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TkfLc.399$id.385@news02.roc.ny...
> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> >
> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
> the
> > biggest story on Tuesday.
> >
>
> Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently?  According to whom?  Berger?  Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.

"Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2m5ej5FcerssU3@uni-berlin.de...
> NOYB wrote:
>
> > "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:TkfLc.399$id.385@news02.roc.ny...
> >> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
> >> the
> >> > biggest story on Tuesday.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.
> >
> > And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:
> >
> > "...Berger inadvertently removed..."
> >
> > Inadvertently?  According to whom?  Berger?  Eyewitnesses say that he
> > "inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.
> >
> >
> >
>
> This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
> convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.

The guy admitted to removing documents.  That's illegal.  If it was
inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as intentionally
removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.

I suspect it was intentional.  The NY Times suspects it was "inadvertent".
However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
unequivocally that it was inadvertent.

"Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2m5icaFj24rjU2@uni-berlin.de...
> NOYB wrote:
>
> > "Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2m5ej5FcerssU3@uni-berlin.de...
> >> NOYB wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:TkfLc.399$id.385@news02.roc.ny...
> >> >> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
> > arguably
> >> >> the
> >> >> > biggest story on Tuesday.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.
> >> >
> >> > And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:
> >> >
> >> > "...Berger inadvertently removed..."
> >> >
> >> > Inadvertently?  According to whom?  Berger?  Eyewitnesses say that he
> >> > "inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
> >> convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.
> >
> > The guy admitted to removing documents.  That's illegal.  If it was
> > inadvertent, then it's not quite as egregious an infraction as
intentionally
> > removing them...but it's illegal nonetheless.
> >
> > I suspect it was intentional.  The NY Times suspects it was
"inadvertent".
> > However, as an unbiased news outlet, the NY Times should not say
> > unequivocally that it was inadvertent.
> >
> >
>
> You suspect? Is that from your perspective as a 32-year-old dentist
> inexperienced in the world, living in a backwater part of the country,
> who gets his news from CBN?

Yeah.  That's my perspective.  And I'm 33, not 32 you dimwit. Interestingly,
when I first came on rec.boats and starting slapping you around, I was not
even 30.  That's pretty sad for you.

The CBN news link was from a Yahoo news search.  The same story was
confirmed in the Reuters link that I provided.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:39:54 GMT, "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote:

>If They're Not Biased, How Did the Times Miss This?
>by Chris Field
>Posted Jul 20, 2004
>
>For years, conservatives have been decrying the liberal bias of the
>"mainstream" media, with the New York Times often cited has the most
>offensive perpetrator. Of course, denials of such bias fly out of the Times'
>newsroom, but are their cries anything more than complete and utter
>nonsense? No.
>
>What the Times doesn't understand about their reputation as a liberal rag is
>that reputations are, more often than not, earned -- whether they are
>positive or negative. And in their case, the Times has not only earned the
>proper reputation but also is actively living up to it.
>
>This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably the
>biggest story on Tuesday.
>
>If you paid attention to the news at all Tuesday morning, you heard or read
>that Sandy Berger, President Clinton's national security advisor (the
>Condoleezza Rice of Bill and Hillary's White House) and an "informal
>advisor" for John Kerry, is the subject of a federal criminal investigation
>for removing highly classified documents from the National Archives.
>
>But if the New York Times was your only source of news, you could very
>easily have missed this not-overly-surprising story that a Clinton official
>did something seemingly underhanded. In this case it was the taking of
>documents which the AP said "were highly classified and included critical
>assessments about the Clinton adminstration's handling of the millennium
>terror threats as well as identification of America's terror vulnerabilities
>at airports and seaports."
>
>The AP also reported that "some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on
>the Clinton administration's handling of al Qaeda terror threats during the
>December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing" (emphasis added).
>
>What was Berger's response to questions about documents that are still
>missing? Said the former Clinton advisor: "When I was informed by the
>Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned
>everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had
>accidentally discarded" (emphasis added).
>
>Let's take a quick look at how a few other major newspapers treated this
>story.
>  a.. The Washington Post had a significant article on Page A2 titled "FBI
>Probes Berger for Document Removal: Former Clinton Aide Inadvertently Took
>Papers From Archives, His Attorney Says." The piece was complete with a
>picture of Mr. Berger.
>
>
>  b.. USA Today's cover page, above the fold, featured "Clinton Advisor
>Targeted in Probe: Classified Materials Taken from Archives." It, too,
>included a picture of the Clinton lackey.
>
>
>  c.. In the Washington Times we were also treated to a Berger picture in an
>major article on Page A3 titled "Berger Investigated for Taking Classified
>Reports."
>
>
>  d.. The Wall Street Journal even included a picture of Berger with their
>piece on Page A2 headlined "Clinton Aide Berger Is Subject of Criminal
>Probe."
>So, how did the New York Times treat this major story? They buried a small,
>six-paragraph, 220-word story in a box at the bottom of Page A16 -- without
>a picture -- with the title "Clinton Aide Took Classified Material." Notice
>the Times didn't mention Berger's name or position in the title; instead,
>they simply called him an "aide" -- as though he worked for the Clinton
>White House as a secretary or a staff researcher. The Times article goes on
>to omit the fact that Berger "accidentally discarded" some highly classified
>documents.
>
>Exactly what news does the New York Times consider "fit to print"?
>


But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
wing fantasy........


Dave

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:44:16 -0400, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

>NOYB wrote:
>
>> "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:TkfLc.399$id.385@news02.roc.ny...
>>> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> >
>>> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was arguably
>>> the
>>> > biggest story on Tuesday.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.
>>
>> And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:
>>
>> "...Berger inadvertently removed..."
>>
>> Inadvertently?  According to whom?  Berger?  Eyewitnesses say that he
>> "inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.
>>
>>
>>
>
>This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
>convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.

Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
> But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
> wing fantasy........

Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?

DSK

Dave Hall wrote:

>
> Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...
>
> Dave
>



Lied? Lies.

Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
his deficit spending.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:28:36 -0400, DSK wrote:

> Dave Hall wrote:
>> But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
>> wing fantasy........
>
> Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
> other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
> splash in TV news?


Then there is NewsMax.  I didn't see anything on their site about the
investigation of Halliburton doing business with Iran.

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1090400147176660.xml

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/96714/1/.html

thunder wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:28:36 -0400, DSK wrote:
>
>> Dave Hall wrote:
>>> But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
>>> wing fantasy........
>>
>> Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
>> other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
>> splash in TV news?
>
>
> Then there is NewsMax.  I didn't see anything on their site about the
> investigation of Halliburton doing business with Iran.
>
> http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1090400147176660.xml
>
> http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/96714/1/.html


Is anyone surprised corporations engage in war profiteering?

Halliburton's activities in Iran investigated by U.S.

By T. Christian Miller and Peter Wallsten

Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - Another Halliburton controversy erupted Tuesday, this time
fueled by a grand-jury investigation into *whether the oil-services
giant violated federal sanctions by illegally operating in Iran while
Vice President Dick Cheney was running the company.*

The investigation centers on Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., a
subsidiary registered in the Cayman Islands, with headquarters in Dubai,
that provides oil-field services in Iran. The unit's operations in Iran
included Cheney's stint as CEO from 1995 to 2000, when he frequently
urged the lifting of such sanctions.

Numerous U.S. companies operate in Iran, but under strict guidelines
requiring that their subsidiaries have a foreign registry and no U.S.
employees, and act independently of the parent company. At issue is
whether Halliburton's subsidiary met those criteria.


--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
<piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dave Hall wrote:
>
>>
>> Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
>
>
>Lied? Lies.
>
>Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
>criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
>about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
>He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
>wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
>EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
>administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
>pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
>lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
>finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
>lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
>about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
>funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
>recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
>He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
>his deficit spending.


To quote someone:

>"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
>convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:28:36 -0400, DSK <dsk@dontbotherme.com> wrote:

>Dave Hall wrote:
>> But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
>> wing fantasy........
>
>Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
>other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
>splash in TV news?

Because once the cat was let out of the bag, they had no choice but to
acknowledge it, lest their silence draw suspicion as to their agenda
and motives. If you listen real carefully to the subtle differences in
adjectives used to report this incident, you can almost see the wheels
of spin working depending on which news source you watch or read.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
> <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dave Hall wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Lied? Lies.
>>
>>Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
>>criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
>>about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
>>He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
>>wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
>>EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
>>administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
>>pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
>>lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
>>finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
>>lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
>>about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
>>funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
>>recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
>>He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
>>his deficit spending.
>
>
> To quote someone:
>
>>"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
>>convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."
>
> Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?
>
> Dave
>
>
>

Not at all. There are dozens of examples of Bush's lies, in which he
said one thing and then did another, or deliberately obfuscated his
actual position. The man lies about everything.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

>>Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
>>other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
>>splash in TV news?
>

Dave Hall wrote:
> Because once the cat was let out of the bag, they had no choice but to
> acknowledge it, lest their silence draw suspicion as to their agenda
> and motives. If you listen real carefully to the subtle differences in
> adjectives used to report this incident, you can almost see the wheels
> of spin working depending on which news source you watch or read.

Oh, I get it... they're being incredibly devious by reporting the news,
including stuff that goes totally against their supposed agenda...

Dave, do you really believe this tripe yourself, or are you just hoping
that some of your fellow dittoheads are dumb & paranoid enough swallow it?

DSK

So I guess since President Bush has never been convicted of any of the
things you accuse him of doing, you must be a real ignorant dipstick.

Harry, you are making this way to easy.  You are beginning to sound more and
more like Basskisser.


"Harry Krause" <piedtypecase@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2m5ej5FcerssU3@uni-berlin.de...
> NOYB wrote:
>
> > "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:TkfLc.399$id.385@news02.roc.ny...
> >> "NOYB" <noyb@noyb.com> wrote in message
> >> news:eyeLc.7010$f4.7003@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
> >> the
> >> > biggest story on Tuesday.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.
> >
> > And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:
> >
> > "...Berger inadvertently removed..."
> >
> > Inadvertently?  According to whom?  Berger?  Eyewitnesses say that he
> > "inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.
> >
> >
> >
>
> This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
> convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.
> Did you not take a basic civics class - ever?

"jim--" <me@me.com> wrote in message news:4Zqdna0T->
> Krause cannot attack the message, only the messenger...his typical MO.

That is why Krause ignore posts where he does not know something personal
about the person.

"Dave Hall" <nojunk_n3cvj@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:gs5tf0pno7hfhfjn2rk3k438796adgrlam@4ax.com...

>
> >"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
> >convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."
>
> Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?
>
> Dave
>
>
>

Based on THAT logic, the Iraqis we killed should be brought back to life,
since they died for nothing.

"DSK" <dsk@dontbotherme.com> wrote in message
news:5ozLc.4183$QO.3703@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
> >>other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
> >>splash in TV news?
> >
>
> Dave Hall wrote:
> > Because once the cat was let out of the bag, they had no choice but to
> > acknowledge it, lest their silence draw suspicion as to their agenda
> > and motives. If you listen real carefully to the subtle differences in
> > adjectives used to report this incident, you can almost see the wheels
> > of spin working depending on which news source you watch or read.
>
> Oh, I get it... they're being incredibly devious by reporting the news,
> including stuff that goes totally against their supposed agenda...
>
> Dave, do you really believe this tripe yourself, or are you just hoping
> that some of your fellow dittoheads are dumb & paranoid enough swallow it?
>
> DSK
>

His minister told him. We shouldn't insult the guy until we've had a chance
to roll him around the newsgroup a bit. I wonder if Dave can get him to stop
by.