> Doesn't that also apply to Novak?

Is the frame of reference law or journalistic ethics? Right now it looks to me 
like Novak acted as a journalist, but abused his position in doing so. I 
suppose that you might think that the New York Times acted out of spite, but I 
don't agree.

> > The other hand is potential harm to this country and eh,
> Do you mean Plame? What harm? She was exposed over a decade ago.

No she wasn't and no, that isn't what I am talking about. The New York Times 
was accused of hurting US interests, is what I am talking about.
 
> > if al_Qaeda doesn't already suspect something of the kind is 
> happening, they are pretty stupid.
> 
> According to the NYT article that exposed this program it was 
> working:

yeah, according to unnamed officials. Those suspects, where are they? Those 
Islamic charities -- isn't that how we wound up deporting Cat Sevens, for 
crying out loud? That's the problem with getting all tricksy with your public 
statements -- people stop believing a word you say.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four 
times a year.
http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly

Archive: 
http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:5/messageid:211144
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5

Reply via email to