If the NYT should be prosecuted, why shouldn't Bush? ...

You're sort of all over the place now. Is The Times the AL or the NL?

I'd compare The Times to the Colts right now. Just on firepower alone, it can dominate. But come playoff time, its unaddressed weaknesses come to the forefront, and it gets thrashed by whatever comes down the pike.

 

If you want to divert the argument at hand, that's fine. My point is the Bush Administration has 2 wins to its credit, supposedly, and neither is really all that impressive a win. In fact, the "win" in Iraq, I would definitely argue, is not a win at all. The mission has NOT been accomplished.

Want to keep being a douchenozzle? That's fine. But in the morning, you'll still be a douchenozzle.

 

I don't know when the declaration of winning the war came into play. Boom said something about this allegedly dumber than dirt administration beating up on The Times at will, and I agreed. Nothing was said about the war in Iraq.

So argue about that all you want. You'll be arguing with yourself.

 

Yeah, I'm sure the Times editors are absolutely shaking over this crack bunch's idiotic claims.

Give me a break.

And this administration isn't "allegedly" dumber than dirt. It is dumber than dirt. Only a group of very stupid people would've pulled the shit they've pulled and expected no one to notice, no one to say anything and for it not to hurt the Republican party for years to come.

At the end of the day, the Times is still hammering these assclowns, has far, far more credibility with the majority of Americans and will be around long after this country says good riddance to and tries to forget Fredo. All the posturing, all the feigned outrage, all of the bullshit won't change that.

 

Yeah, the administration's victory against the New York Times in the court of public opinion is so convincing that a protest in front of the NYT building this weekend drew Michelle Malkin . . . and about 20 others.

When you berate the NYT for publishing information you yourself have disclosed numerous times, when any terrorist with an IQ above a radish knows that his financial data has long been montiored, when anyone can get information on the super-top-secret SWIFT program by going to, uh, its Website, any politically-motivated outrage toward the NYT is going to be recognized for exactly what it is.

By most people, anyway.

 

Which is 20 or 21 more people than the vocal supporters of Judy Miller these days.

 

And while the Judy Miller situation is at the top of the administration's list of most important things to point out, it falls somewhere around 2,000 on the list of important shit the American public cares about.

I'm willing to bet right now that no more 10 percent of the American public could pick Judy Miller out of a lineup with the Beetles.

The administration and its supporters can scream and shout about Miller all they want. That situation pales in comparison to so many other things. It's kind of like rolling up to a 40-car pileup (actually, with Fredo and Co., it'd be more like a 1,000-car pileup) on the Interstate and focusing on a woman with a few scratches while 20 people are dying.

 

This administration liked Judy Miller well enough when she was an efficient pipeline for the hiigher-ups' bullshit.

 

Gee, dog, the media sure thought the Judy Miller issue was important, until they finally got around to doing their damn homework on the whole thing.

In fact, I doubt the media did much homework. They just got their ass handed to them when the facts trickled out on their own.

That's why the administration you love to kick around can use the Times as a whipping boy whenever it feels like it.

The public may not give a shit, but it knows the media is dumber than the administration that is supposedly dumber than dirt.

 

It was important when she was IN JAIL.

No matter how you slice it up, a journalist going to jail for refusing to name sources in a White House leak scandal is NEWS. If you think otherwise, you're an ... ah hell, nevermind.

 

Yeahhhhh . . . wellllll . . . when an administration resorts to the truth but infrequently (and NEVER, when a topspinning lie will do the job), it can take a little longer for the
higher-grade dailies to sort things out . . .

 

And we've evolved into this again, I see.

The question of the thread still remains, yet somehow we morphed into a Judy Miller debate. If the NYT is guilty of treason, then couldn't you apply the same logic to the Bush administration? All other answers, quips, responses and retorts should probably wait until that actual question is answered, right?