jcd11235 0 #26 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteVery true. That's exactly why it seems more probable that it is the WH and not the NYT holding up the op-ed. I don't see it that way. This guy is complaining specifically about the NYT. If I was shopping an op-ed, I wouldn't focus on one single outlet. If he's really "the man" the modern day "deep throat" over policy at the White House, the press would've jumped on it. No, I think he was vetted by the NYT and they decided themselves to keep a distance. Which indicates for me that NYT is willing to run the piece as soon as the author can deliver it, and not holding it up.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #27 December 19, 2006 QuoteIMO it looks like it's the White House, not the NYT, that is applying pressure. I think that's what SkyDekker was implying.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #28 December 19, 2006 yes I was indeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #29 December 19, 2006 QuoteIMO it looks like it's the White House, not the NYT, that is applying pressure. Your credibility just went up 0.01%. But don't get cocky. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #30 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteIMO it looks like it's the White House, not the NYT, that is applying pressure. Your credibility just went up 0.01%. But don't get cocky. Let's say this is accurate then. Why wouldn't the NYT break this as a story? Something doesn't add up. Even if this guy was being blocked by the White House, the NYT is not his only avenue to express his opinion.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 December 19, 2006 QuoteLet's say this is accurate then. Why wouldn't the NYT break this as a story? Something doesn't add up. Even if this guy was being blocked by the White House, the NYT is not his only avenue to express his opinion. As has been previously stated, perhaps NYT does not yet have the story, and are awaiting the author to obtain clearance for it before he can sell it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #32 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteIMO it looks like it's the White House, not the NYT, that is applying pressure. Your credibility just went up 0.01%. But don't get cocky. Gloating is overrated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #33 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteLet's say this is accurate then. Why wouldn't the NYT break this as a story? Something doesn't add up. Even if this guy was being blocked by the White House, the NYT is not his only avenue to express his opinion. As has been previously stated, perhaps NYT does not yet have the story, and are awaiting the author to obtain clearance for it before he can sell it. I think he's talking about the White House censoring the story, not the story itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #34 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteLet's say this is accurate then. Why wouldn't the NYT break this as a story? Something doesn't add up. Even if this guy was being blocked by the White House, the NYT is not his only avenue to express his opinion. As has been previously stated, perhaps NYT does not yet have the story, and are awaiting the author to obtain clearance for it before he can sell it. No, I don't mean the op-ed. I mean why doesn't the NYT assign a reporter to cover the obstacles that this former-aide is encountering, and then breaking the context of the op-ed as part of the story?So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #35 December 19, 2006 QuoteNo, I don't mean the op-ed. I mean why doesn't the NYT assign a reporter to cover the obstacles that this former-aide is encountering, and then breaking the context of the op-ed as part of the story? Good question. Perhaps the WH's desire to suspend the First Amendment in this case is a bigger story than the original op-ed. You know how us liberals like to take the Constitution seriously.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #36 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo, I don't mean the op-ed. I mean why doesn't the NYT assign a reporter to cover the obstacles that this former-aide is encountering, and then breaking the context of the op-ed as part of the story? Good question. Perhaps the WH's desire to suspend the First Amendment in this case is a bigger story than the original op-ed. You know how us liberals like to take the Constitution seriously. You're validating my point. The NYT has, time and again, not given any care to the desires of the administration as to what is printed, or not printed in the news. If this issue was as big as this former aide is complaining, the NYT would be jumping at the chance to expose it.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #37 December 19, 2006 QuoteYou're validating my point. The NYT has, time and again, not given any care to the desires of the administration as to what is printed, or not printed in the news. If this issue was as big as this former aide is complaining, the NYT would be jumping at the chance to expose it. Why should the NYT care what the administration feels? The First Amendment should trump this administration's desires. Unfortunately, this administration seems to be trying to suspend the First Amendment. Remember back shortly after 9/11 when WH spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "Americans had better watch what they say?" Quote I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.Source I've never had the impression that preserving the Bill Of Rights has ever been very high on this administration's list of priorities. I seriously doubt that NYT would suspend publication if they had the op-ed in their hands.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #38 December 19, 2006 QuoteRemember back shortly after 9/11 when WH spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "Americans had better watch what they say?" Quote I'm aware of the press reports about what he said. I have not seen the actual transcript of the show itself. But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is.Source I remember exactly when he said that and how outraged I was for him presuming to speak to the American people that way. He took a lot of shit for that remark, and deservedly so. Ari Fleischer: poster child of mediocrity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #39 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo, I don't mean the op-ed. I mean why doesn't the NYT assign a reporter to cover the obstacles that this former-aide is encountering, and then breaking the context of the op-ed as part of the story? Good question. Perhaps the WH's desire to suspend the First Amendment in this case is a bigger story than the original op-ed. You know how us liberals like to take the Constitution seriously. You're validating my point. The NYT has, time and again, not given any care to the desires of the administration as to what is printed, or not printed in the news. If this issue was as big as this former aide is complaining, the NYT would be jumping at the chance to expose it. Apparently the NYT IS jumping at the chance. It was going to publish it on the op-ed page on 12/14, but was blocked from doing so by the NSC.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #40 December 19, 2006 QuoteApparently the NYT IS jumping at the chance. It was going to publish it on the op-ed page on 12/14, but was blocked from doing so by the NSC. It only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #41 December 19, 2006 Perhaps the official still wants to remain in good standing in the Republican party...... but I think this pretty much screws his standing with MOST of the people in this current administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #42 December 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo, I don't mean the op-ed. I mean why doesn't the NYT assign a reporter to cover the obstacles that this former-aide is encountering, and then breaking the context of the op-ed as part of the story? Good question. Perhaps the WH's desire to suspend the First Amendment in this case is a bigger story than the original op-ed. You know how us liberals like to take the Constitution seriously. You're validating my point. The NYT has, time and again, not given any care to the desires of the administration as to what is printed, or not printed in the news. If this issue was as big as this former aide is complaining, the NYT would be jumping at the chance to expose it. Apparently the NYT IS jumping at the chance. It was going to publish it on the op-ed page on 12/14, but was blocked from doing so by the NSC. The NSC doesn't have that kind of power. The same NSC requested that the NYT restrain from reports in the past. The NYT could simply turn this into a news investigation and publish what they want. That they've not done so yet is something I find interesting. They could've easily turned this into a "story" within a week if they chose to.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #43 December 19, 2006 >The NSC doesn't have that kind of power. They're referring to NSC staffers at the White House. From my understanding: When White House workers are hired they are required to sign a statement that says they will always submit any work to a CIA panel to clear it before publication. Leverett did so with all his previous articles, including articles that covered this subject matter. They were all cleared. When he wrote this op-ed, the white house NSC staff talked to the CIA and had it blocked. Ironically they approved the publication of a much larger document that is a superset of his op-ed - but since it did not appear in any paper it did not cause PR problems. It can be found here: http://tcf.org/publications/internationalaffairs/leverett_diplomatic.pdf The problem is not that the NYT is holding out or not holding out. The "problem" (if you can call it that) is that Leverett is obeying the letter of the law when it comes to getting CIA approval to publish, and the White House is using that process to prevent publication of an op-ed critical to the administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #44 December 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteApparently the NYT IS jumping at the chance. It was going to publish it on the op-ed page on 12/14, but was blocked from doing so by the NSC. It only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? I'm sure you can look it up for yourself, just like I did.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #45 December 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteApparently the NYT IS jumping at the chance. It was going to publish it on the op-ed page on 12/14, but was blocked from doing so by the NSC. It only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? I'm sure you can look it up for yourself, just like I did. I did look it up and found nothing about the NYT being blocked by the NSC. That's why I asked for a link. In other words, I'm calling bullshit on your claim of the NYT being blocked by the NSC. And I'm still waiting to see something about "hundreds of thousands of unemployed that the right predicted" as a result of Florida's minimum wage increase. Maybe I'll keep an add-on post for all the unsubstantiated claims I've called you on, but you never followed up on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #46 December 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteApparently the NYT IS jumping at the chance. It was going to publish it on the op-ed page on 12/14, but was blocked from doing so by the NSC. It only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? I'm sure you can look it up for yourself, just like I did. I did look it up and found nothing about the NYT being blocked by the NSC. That's why I asked for a link. In other words, I'm calling bullshit on your claim of the NYT being blocked by the NSC. . It was in the NYT, yesterday. First thing that came up in a Google search! And you "found nothing"! Bwahahahah. What did you look for, "Pot of gold at the end of the rainbow"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #47 December 20, 2006 I'm aware that the NYT wrote about this issue. What I'm calling bullshit on is your assertion that they were blocked by the NSC. I thought this would have been obvious from my post QuoteIt only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? So? Got a link and a quote to back up your claim? Or is this gonna be another game of semantics dodgeball? Then again, you could just admit you were wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #48 December 20, 2006 QuoteI'm aware that the NYT wrote about this issue. What I'm calling bullshit on is your assertion that they were blocked by the NSC. I thought this would have been obvious from my post QuoteIt only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? So? Got a link and a quote to back up your claim? Or is this gonna be another game of semantics dodgeball? Then again, you could just admit you were wrong. Just because YOU can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before calling bullshit on people, do your own homework. If you always want others to do your homework for you, you'll never get any better at finding information. It's there, you just have to look. There are none so blind as those that will not see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #49 December 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm aware that the NYT wrote about this issue. What I'm calling bullshit on is your assertion that they were blocked by the NSC. I thought this would have been obvious from my post QuoteIt only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? So? Got a link and a quote to back up your claim? Or is this gonna be another game of semantics dodgeball? Then again, you could just admit you were wrong. Just because YOU can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before calling bullshit on people, do your own homework. If you always want others to do your homework for you, you'll never get any better at finding information. It's there, you just have to look. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Sematics dodgeball it is. How unsurprising. It goes to character. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,182 #50 December 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI'm aware that the NYT wrote about this issue. What I'm calling bullshit on is your assertion that they were blocked by the NSC. I thought this would have been obvious from my post QuoteIt only took them five days to report on it. That's what I call jumping. Even though they are reporting on this, I missed where they, the New York Times, were blocked by the NSC. How about a link??? So? Got a link and a quote to back up your claim? Or is this gonna be another game of semantics dodgeball? Then again, you could just admit you were wrong. Just because YOU can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before calling bullshit on people, do your own homework. If you always want others to do your homework for you, you'll never get any better at finding information. It's there, you just have to look. There are none so blind as those that will not see. Sematics dodgeball it is. How unsurprising. It goes to character. From New York Times, 12/19/2006 Among the publications approved, he said, was a 32-page paper published two weeks ago by the Century Foundation, “Dealing With Teheran,” urging a new diplomatic approach to Iran. After its publication, Mr. Leverett said, he spoke with Op-Ed editors of The Times about writing with his wife a short article based on the longer document. The Op-Ed editor, David J. Shipley, confirmed that he had planned to publish the article last Thursday and that he still hoped to publish it. The Publications Review Board reviewed the longer paper on its own, but this time the C.I.A. passed the shorter article to the National Security Council for review. Council reviewers informed the agency on Wednesday that they had found classified information in the article, and the publication was blocked. EXACTLY what I wrote in the post you have been calling BS. Not exactly hard to find, was it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
