| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| NYT justifies 'withholding Davis' CIA link information at Obama administration's plea' | |
| 2011-02-27 | |
How Damaging what? You don't get outside your bubble much, do you? "The New York Times had agreed to temporarily withhold information about Mr. Davis's ties to the agency at the request of the Obama administration, which argued that disclosure of his specific job would put his life at risk. Several foreign news organizations have disclosed some aspects of Mr. Davis's work with the CIA," admitted the paper in its story on Monday after "American officials lifted their request to withhold publication. Oh, temporarily. I get it. In his bid to justify this, the paper's public editor Arthur Brisbane put forward his explanation by saying: "As profoundly unpalatable as it is, I think the Times did the only thing it could do." And exactly how does this square with the NY Slimes revealing the details of how W's administration tracked terrorists through their financial dealings? That story truly did not need to see the light of day, was far more deniable, hurt America far worse than this one ever will, and gave us nothing in return. Exactly what is it that Obean has done for you that makes you keep coming back for more? Oh, I forgot you guys were trying to protect your "credibility" because you supported Obean during the presidential election. Carry on, wh0res. I enjoy watching you guys taking it in the backside while trying not to scream in the hope of nobody noticing. | |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #5 Now the Ruskies and ISI are claiming Davis was selling nuke material to the AlQ's? That's going to be hard to climb down from. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-02-27 17:22 |
| #4 Now the Ruskies and ISI are claiming Davis was selling nuke material to the AlQ's? Time to renew my National Inquirer subscription? http://in.news.yahoo.com/cia-spy-davis-giving-nuclear-bomb-material-al-20110219-224833-452.html?submitter=nokilli |
| Posted by: Muggsy Glink 2011-02-27 10:32 |
| #3 "How can a news outlet stay credible when readers learn later that it has concealed what it knows?" "It was a brutally hard call that, for some, damaged The Times's standing. The NYTs is credible and has standing? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2011-02-27 09:10 |
| #2 Anyone with a lick of sense knows that Pakistan is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, riddled with Islamists, jihadis, arms dealers, drug smugglers, ISI agents, CIA agents, double agents, triple agents, secret Asians, etc. I don't need to have this all spelled out. I can only pity those who do. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-02-27 05:46 |
| #1 One thing did get buried in all this hoo-ha. I found it somewhere on the intertubes, can't be sure, but it sounds plausible. Right after the Davis shootout, 2 other CIA agents were called to the scene. They were close by in a car & were approaching through heavy traffic. They hit & killed a motorcyclist, and could go no further. They were not taken into custody, left the scene & shortly after were able to leave Pakistan. AFAIK, this part of the story has not been publicized in Pakistan. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-02-27 05:42 |