http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET

**Exclusive**

Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book
publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter
James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks,
President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to
eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without
the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying,
according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the
article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and
alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to
conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive
newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book --
which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release
and sale.

"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush
Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks,
sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is
being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES]
signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing...

The major media outlets have become nothing more than the propaganda arm of
the DNC.

"Mule" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET

**Exclusive**

Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book
publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter
James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks,
President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to
eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without
the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying,
according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the
article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and
alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to
conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive
newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book --
which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release
and sale.

"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush
Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks,
sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is
being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES]
signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing...

I expect there'll be some reports of collusion with the Democrats in the Senate also. Too
coincidental that this story, several years old, broke the day the Senate voted to stop the Patriot
Act filibuster.


On 16 Dec 2005 11:28:15 -0800, "Mule" wrote:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm

NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET

**Exclusive**

Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book
publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter
James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks,
President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to
eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without
the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying,
according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the
article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and
alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to
conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive
newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book --
which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release
and sale.

"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush
Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks,
sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is
being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES]
signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing...

--
John Herring

Hope your Christmas is Spectacular!
....and your New Year even Better!

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:30:31 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
I expect there'll be some reports of collusion with the Democrats in the Senate also. Too
coincidental that this story, several years old, broke the day the Senate voted to stop the Patriot
Act filibuster.


Actually, there was no filibuster. There was a threat of a filibuster.
The unPatriot Act stinks, and for the moment at least, some Senators
realize that.

I hear Fritz changed his vote at the end so he could regurgitate it next
year.

This, by the way, is an example of what I meant by good things happening
when Bush is down in the polls.

You are correct. The vote was to stop the debate. Fritz changed his vote to correct it, but
emphasized that the debate would continue.
--
John Herring

Hope your Christmas is Spectacular!
....and your New Year even Better!

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:46:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:30:31 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
I expect there'll be some reports of collusion with the Democrats in the Senate also. Too
coincidental that this story, several years old, broke the day the Senate voted to stop the Patriot
Act filibuster.

Actually, there was no filibuster. There was a threat of a filibuster.
The unPatriot Act stinks, and for the moment at least, some Senators
realize that.

I hear Fritz changed his vote at the end so he could regurgitate it next
year.

This, by the way, is an example of what I meant by good things happening
when Bush is down in the polls.

You are correct. The vote was to stop the debate. Fritz changed his vote to correct it, but
emphasized that the debate would continue.
--
John Herring



Five Republicans joined the call for real debate and so the Bush thug
push to short-circuit Patriot Act reform was soundly defeated in a
Senate vote today.

This vote paves the way for a bipartisan filibuster to restore checks
and balances and protect the freedoms of innocent Americans.

The vote was 53 to 47. Seven short of the 60 needed. "Soundly defeated" indeed. Note that is wasn't
a filibuster, it was, and still is, a debate.
--
John Herring

Hope your Christmas is Spectacular!
....and your New Year even Better!

JohnH wrote:


The vote was 53 to 47. Seven short of the 60 needed. "Soundly defeated" indeed.


ROTFLMAO........if memory serves me well, a national vote decided by
the same percentage, just thirteen months ago, was a "Rout!" a
"Mandate" a "Total Repudiation of Moderates and Liberals".........
"Vindication for Bush, Limbaugh, and the Conservative Agenda," "An
overhwelming stamp of approval for the war in Iraq"......... yada,
yada, yada

funny how standards change, :-)

wrote in message
oups.com...

JohnH wrote:


The vote was 53 to 47. Seven short of the 60 needed. "Soundly defeated"
indeed.


ROTFLMAO........if memory serves me well, a national vote decided by
the same percentage, just thirteen months ago, was a "Rout!" a
"Mandate" a "Total Repudiation of Moderates and Liberals".........
"Vindication for Bush, Limbaugh, and the Conservative Agenda," "An
overhwelming stamp of approval for the war in Iraq"......... yada,
yada, yada

funny how standards change, :-)


Yeah, imagine anyone winning by a mere 3.5 million votes calling it a rout.
LOL!

Chuck
You must read completely different newspapers or read completely different
essays than I do. I don't think I read any such comments, even by partisans
in rec.boats.


wrote in message
oups.com...

JohnH wrote:


The vote was 53 to 47. Seven short of the 60 needed. "Soundly defeated"
indeed.


ROTFLMAO........if memory serves me well, a national vote decided by
the same percentage, just thirteen months ago, was a "Rout!" a
"Mandate" a "Total Repudiation of Moderates and Liberals".........
"Vindication for Bush, Limbaugh, and the Conservative Agenda," "An
overhwelming stamp of approval for the war in Iraq"......... yada,
yada, yada

funny how standards change, :-)

Harry,
Why did the independent exit polls match the election results?

Is it possible that you are losing it?



"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
JohnH wrote:

The vote was 53 to 47. Seven short of the 60 needed. "Soundly defeated"
indeed.

ROTFLMAO........if memory serves me well, a national vote decided by
the same percentage, just thirteen months ago, was a "Rout!" a
"Mandate" a "Total Repudiation of Moderates and Liberals".........
"Vindication for Bush, Limbaugh, and the Conservative Agenda," "An
overhwelming stamp of approval for the war in Iraq"......... yada,
yada, yada

funny how standards change, :-)


Yeah, imagine anyone winning by a mere 3.5 million votes calling it a
rout. LOL!


Diebold. Nothing more.

--
George W. Bush: American Nero.

On 16 Dec 2005 18:30:05 -0800, wrote:


JohnH wrote:


The vote was 53 to 47. Seven short of the 60 needed. "Soundly defeated" indeed.


ROTFLMAO........if memory serves me well, a national vote decided by
the same percentage, just thirteen months ago, was a "Rout!" a
"Mandate" a "Total Repudiation of Moderates and Liberals".........
"Vindication for Bush, Limbaugh, and the Conservative Agenda," "An
overhwelming stamp of approval for the war in Iraq"......... yada,
yada, yada

funny how standards change, :-)

There you are! Why didn't you address my question New Year's resolutions?

I don't recall the words 'rout', 'total repudiation', 'vindication', 'overwhelming' being used.
Could you show me?
--
John Herring

Hope your Christmas is Spectacular!
....and your New Year even Better!