Friday, December 16, 2005


THE NYTIMES HAS MADE ANOTHER TRAITOROUS LEAK - WITH HELP FROM TRAITORS IN THE CIA. Proof that it is traitorous - and that the NYTIMES knows it - is this tidbit from the WASHPOST:
The Times said it held off on publishing its story about the NSA program for a year after administration officials said its disclosure would harm national security.

To besmirch Bush at a moment of triumph. To diminish the PR power of the Iraqi election.

The NYTIMES would rather hurt Bush than help the GWOT or the Iraqi people or the spread of democracy in the Arab Middle East. The NYTIMES has put partisan domestic squabble with Bush ahead of the current global war. IN ADDITION, their leak alerts the enemy and makes it tougher for us to find them and stop them BEFORE they attack again. THEREFORE: the NYTIMES has endangered ALL our lives - and our entire economy. THEREFORE: The dozen or so CIA leakers and the NYTIMES owner and publisher and its editors should be prosecuted for treason, found guilty and executed.


NOTE: The NYTIMES article makes it clear that the White House informed Congressional leaders about these actions (including updates to Intel' committee leaders of BOTH parties). This should make it clear to EVERYONE - except the left-wing moonbats running the NYTIMES and the Democrat Party these days - that this operation was NOT undertaken lightly, and that it was NOT some "rogue operation" of the executive branch. A special executive order was signed, and Congress was informed, and kept informed. THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT THIS IN ANY WAY.

The ONLY illegal thing related to this news IS THE LEAK ITSELF. The leakers should be tried for treason, and executed when found guilty.

ADDENDUM: DRUDGE claims that the NYIMES leaked this news to generally coincide with the release of a book by JAMES RISEN - the author of the article. I think that this MIGHT be true, but it still doesn't explain why it was done TODAY OF ALL DAYS and not tomorrow or next week. SO I stand by my contention.



Not the Senator said...

Maybe they're trying to make up for holding this last year when it probably would have cost Bush the election.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Indeed, if your going to execute the new york times, perhaps you should also execute every one who voted in favor of the patriot act, as well as the president for drafting it, after all it violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

also, they stirred up a hornets nest of terrorism, by going into Iraq prematurly, without a detailed thought out plan, costing the lives of more Iraqis and More U.S troops then neccessary.

If your going to execute writers of the new york times , why not execute congress and the president for it too?

Anonymous said...

The ONLY illegal thing related to this news IS THE LEAK ITSELF. The leakers should be tried for treason, and executed when found guilty

wow. who needs courts when we have all-knowing beings like yourself ?

what an asshat

Anonymous said...

hey anonymous! we went into iraq prematurely?

no - we left prematurely after Gulf War I.

stirred up a hornets nest of terrorism?

wake up fool.
the election went well.
Iraqi's throughout the world are incredibly happy with the situation and many are thankful americans have the balls to do what had to be done to bring freedom to an oppressed people in spite of the resistance of chirac and the rest of the scum who benefitted from the oil for food program.

Reliapundit said...

to the anonyomous who called me an all-knowing asshat: SHEESH!

even russ feingold said on TV this morning that the leak was ILLEGAL!

leaking stuff which damages our war-making capability (and thereby helps the enemy)during war-time IS TREASON. look it up.

you are a jerk and a fool and a dupe _ AT BEST!

Anonymous said...

Reliapundit... merry Xmas from all your friends @ 86th

Anonymous said...

I would first like to say me, and the Anonymous that called you an asshat, are 2 different people.

and second of all, sure the election went well, But oh wait THERES STILL AN INSERGENCY!!!!!!



now, Im not advocating their violence, as a stratagist myself, I think it would have been great for people TO THINK IT OUT FIRST!

I agree we did leave the gulf war early. However, that doesn't change the fact that we went into Iraq Guns blazing hoping to "Shock and Awww" out enimies into submition. Fat chance, we had no planning for a long drawn out insergency, I belive donald rummsfeld himself said the insergency would only las a few months at most. very poor forsight, I thank god he isn't a military general, otherwise I feel sorry for the troops he'd command.

Reliapundit said...

147AM anonymous:

by any reasonable standard this war and this occupatuion has GINE VERY VERY WELL!

We have had low casualties and brought a nation from tyranny to constitutional democracy faster than anywhere else ever - EXCEPT maybe afghanistan.

SURE: it has not gone perfectly well. it never does!

rumsfled has led the USA to TWO of our greatest wins EVER. at a MOST crusicl time, using NEWS methods and a NEW doctrine.


we are VERy lucky to have him as Sec Def.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Very Luckey, especialy the troops who have to drive through the streets of iraq with vehicals with NO armor plating, and when they ask him why he gives this responce

"You can put all the armor in the world on a tank and it can still be blown up"

Which I'll admit is true, but atleast that tank can't be shot threw by a fucking 9MM

All I hear out of rumsfeld is excuses,

And to say "oh it's not perfect but nothing is"

it's BULL SHIT, if the people planing this war spent more then 5 seconds studying the history of this reigon they'd know they have a histroy of disliking Western invaders. They would have known there was going to be a long drawn out insergency, and then planed for it.

Now, Im not agianst the Iraq war, I think it's great what we've done for those people, but I disaprove of the way we went in there, with no plan.

Forgive me if i find the whole "make it up as you go along" philosophy a bit idiotic when going into a war.

Reliapundit said...

the troops love rummy. i know some, and they think he and bush and the mission are great and doing fine.

and the BS charge that they're making it up as they go along is jjst that: bs.

no plan survives cointact with the enemy.

as for why we went in: only 3 of the 23 reasons listed in th4 congressional joint res 114 - which authorized bush to atack saddam - has ANYTHING to do with WMD - and they did NOT only have to dio with stockpiles.

WHAT IS MORE: both duelfer and kay testified under oath that saddam WAS in violation of the unscr's which constituted the 1991 armistice.

therefore, how we went to war was A-OK.

ad bush SPECIFICALLY talked about democratization of the arab miuddle east via a democratic irag in his september 2002 address to the UN general assembly. this was a MONTH BEFORE ther unsc passed unscr 1441.

so, i'd say you are wrong on the fcats and the interpreation of the facts.

get with it!