If the NYT can read and study 92,000 pages of wikileaks stuff, why could they not read & report on the measly 2000+ pages each of ObamaCare, ObamaBank, GovernmentMotors, and the other shit that has been shoved down our windpipes to the pits of our stomachs?
92,000 classified documents pertaining to Afghanistan War were leaked by Wikileaks this weekend. SPIEGEL, the New York Times and the Guardian have analyzed the classified documents already.
July 26th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
July 26th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
July 26th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I didn’t make an announcement, but ‘Mike’ is also guest blogging while I’m twiddling my fingers and avoiding politics.
July 27th, 2010 at 12:42 am
It’s real simple. Publishing the wikileaks material can help kill Americans and Afghanis who would like freedom. So, the Times publishes. Not publishing the Obamacare, Obamabank , etc can kill Americans. So, the Times keeps it quiet. It’s really that simple. If it hurts Americans, that’s what the Times does. I don’t understand the long term business plan but there it is.
July 27th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
‘Long term business plan’.
Riiight… wanting the worst for your customers isn’t really the best money-making strategy.
July 27th, 2010 at 5:29 am
I knew it was someone else – Pam doesn’t say “shit”…
July 27th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
July 27th, 2010 at 10:09 am
’nuff said. I’d love to see the NYT answer these questions, but I won’t hold my breath. Obamacare would view it as a health issue, issue a DNR and bury me in potter field.
July 27th, 2010 at 1:45 pm