XDA

Net earnings for the despicable, traitorous, totally in the tank for Obama, New York Times fell below the published expectations by about 40%; and in fact earnings fell by 82% from last year at this time. There are certainly chapters left in the lengthy saga of the dowdy old grey lady but it's beginning to look like the story will end in chapter 13.

Nice going, Pinch (or is it Putz? or Paunch? I can't recall). Really well done.

Labels: New York Times Decline

Former theater critic Frank Rich is so deep into Bush Derangement Syndrome, that he accuses the whole administration of war crimes, namely torture in this prissy, hysterical op ed. He also says that the energetic efforts the administration has taken to defeat Muslim extremists world wide, by taking the fight to them, has actually made us more vulnerable to attack. The logic of that position escapes me, but it is the source of his accusations that we have indeed tortured people which interests me. Here is what he writes regarding the source of that accusation:

Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated detainee abuse for the Army, concluded that “there is no longer any doubt” that “war crimes were committed.” Ms. Mayer uncovered another damning verdict: Red Cross investigators flatly told the C.I.A. last year that America was practicing torture and vulnerable to war-crimes charges.

And there are links! Followed, the first one reveal some interesting things: Here is the principal source for the general's findings, a report from Physicians for Human Rights:

The physicians' group said that its experts, who had experience studying torture's effects, spent two days with each former captive and conducted intensive exams and interviews. They administered tests to detect exaggeration. In two of the 11 cases, the group was able to review medical records.

Oh, so the source was a small sample of released detainees, interviewed long after their release, and an even smaller sample of medical records and we can only guess what they contained.

The second link reveals this:

Ms. Mayer acknowledges that Red Cross investigators based their account largely on interviews with the prisoners

Notwithstanding the problems with these sources, we know that what the left considers torture by us is merely the soft foreplay of the real torture the Jihadists actually use (to the silence of the lefty journalists).

We know too that the training manual of al Qaeda (the Manchester document) tells the captured to accuse falsely their captors of torture at ever turn. So the primary and nearly exclusive source of those accusing us of torture are those who are trained to lie.

Has any American 'torturer' confessed? Has any so called torture been captured on film? Is there an unimpeachable source to these 'findings'? Or is it all based on the words of the Jihadists, schooled to lie?

Just as they see torture in the slightest action of our guys while remaining blind to the electric drill work, et al ., of the enemy, the left is eager to believe the lying Jihadists and accuse our guys of lying.

Rich, as usual, is completely full of it. When we actually fight back against those who wage war against us, we defeat them and world wide terrorists activity drops. When we treat it like crime and prosecute the few we catch after their attack on us, the al Qaeda types proliferate.

Labels: false accusations of torture, New York Times Decline

Here is the lengthy editorial last year (July 8, 2007) by the failing, traitorous New York Times declaring defeat in Iraq and calling for swift, complete withdrawal (retreat) damn the consequences. This was (is? who knows?) Obama's position as well. No one in authority listened to them, thank God, and instead we have lower violence levels, functional defeat, but not eradication, yet, of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, functional disbanding of the most violent militias and completion of 15 of the 18 benchmarks (16 if you recognize that the sharing of oil revenue is being accomplished through the budget) set by Congress.

Incredibly telling is this tidbit.

Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.

Keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse?

As predictions go, it is difficult to imagine one more wrong.

Labels: New York Times Decline

The publicly traded stock of the traitorous, despicable New York Times hit a 10 year low and is expected to go even lower in the next year or so. Must be some kind of right wing plot.

The stock sank 7 percent, or $1.05, to $14.01 yesterday, near its lowest point in 10 years and 77 percent off its 52-week high of $24.76.

The drubbing came after Lehman Brothers analyst Craig Huber slammed the Times' shares for being too expensive, compared with Gannett and McClatchy.

Huber also ratcheted down his previous price target to $8 a share from $12 a share, due to the industry having deteriorated faster than he earlier predicted, adding, "We think the shares have significant further downside risk over the next year as the stock is the most expensive in the [newspaper] group, plus Street estimates remain way too high in our opinion."

He urges the company, which is run by CEO Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., to cut its dividend, claiming it should utilize the money to pare down the company's $1.05 billion debt.

Schadenfreude is over-rated, but then again Karma is a black hearted one.

Labels: New York Times Decline

Read this article at the excellent Gateway Pundit showing the evolution of New York Times coverage of the Haditha battle in November, 2005. Here is a taste:

The New York Times October 6, 2007

Last year, when accounts of the killing of 24 Iraqis in Haditha by a group
of marines came to light, it seemed that the Iraq war had produced its defining
atrocity, just as the conflict in Vietnam had spawned the My Lai massacre a
generation ago.

But on Thursday, a senior military investigator recommended dropping murder
charges against the ranking enlisted marine accused in the 2005 killings, just
as he had done earlier in the cases of two other marines charged in the case.
The recommendation may well have ended prosecutors’ chances of winning any
murder convictions in the killings of the apparently unarmed men, women and
children.

That's The New York Times special way of saying "I'm sorry" for condemning the Haditha Marines to hell for the "apparent" cold-blooded murder of innocents before their trial even started.

And, isn't it interesting how The New York Times is still searching for an atrocity to define the War in Iraq?

An Al-Qaeda atrocity like the Yazidi bombings, the murder of a brave young Sunni Sheik, torture chamber drawings, or dismembering and booby-trapping dead soldier's bodies just won't do.

It must be an American atrocity.
Sometimes it's hard to figure out just who they are rooting for.

Then read John Hinderaker's further takedown of the yesterday's NYT article on the subject. Additional taste:

In addition, the Times criticizes Lt. Col. Paul Ware, who recommended the dismissals:

The cases also reflect the particular views of Lt. Col. Paul J. Ware, who
presided over the hearings and concluded that all three cases lacked sufficient
evidence. He made clear in his recommendations to the commander who ultimately
decides the cases that he felt that the killings should be considered in context
— that of a war zone where the enemy ruthlessly employed civilians as cover.

Well, that's a "particular" view, I guess, but isn't it obviously a correct one? In some respects, the Times' critique of Col. Ware's work is almost humorous:

[Gary D. Solis, a former Marine judge] added: “He’s aggressive, and he seems to
make his judgments without regard for anything but the law. He must know that
people — civilians, primarily — are going to howl about this, but that doesn’t
seem to be a concern.”

This can only have been intended as a compliment, but it is far from clear that the Times sees it that way. On the contrary:

Other military law experts also noted that in his two reports on the charges
against Lance Corporals Sharratt and Tatum, Colonel Ware revealed a willingness
to give the men the benefit of the doubt, and to consider the impact of the
prosecutions on the morale of troops still fighting in Iraq.

"Giving the men the benefit of the doubt" is also known as the presumption of innocence, a bedrock principle of our system of justice which the Times selectively supports.

Then tell me the New York Times is a force for good in America.

Labels: New York Times Decline

In what can only be called a bizarrro world opinion piece today, the NYT editors put the ultimate spin on recent census bureau information about incomes--it's all bad news to the cognoscenti and it's all Mr. Bush's fault. No, really. Behold, beginning with the lead: The Census Bureau reported yesterday that median household income rose 0.7 percent last year — it’s second annual increase in a row— to $48,201. The share of households living in poverty fell to 12.3 percent from 12.6 percent in 2005.

OK, income is on average up and poverty is down. (And look at our 'poverty.' People in the slums of any South American city would laugh at us calling American homeowners with two cars, air conditioning and two color TVs poor. It's a point worth remembering).

So how can 'income up, poverty down' be bad news? Like this, answers the far seeing NYT editors:

The gains against poverty last year were remarkably narrow. The poverty rate declined among the elderly, but it remained unchanged for people under 65. Analyzed by race, only Hispanics saw poverty decline on average while other groups experienced no gains.

So two group gains and the others stay where they were. Still not bad news for any sane person.
Over all, the new data on incomes and poverty mesh consistently with the pattern of the last five years, in which the spoils of the nation’s economic growth have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthy and the extremely wealthy, leaving little for everybody else.

I see, those who earn a lot of money earned even more money and those who only earn a little money only earned a little more. Oh, the horror!

What do we need to do to end this endless cycle of misery and inequality? The NYT knows:

What are needed are policies to help spread benefits broadly — be it more progressive taxation, or policies to strengthen public education and increase access to affordable health care.

Oh, I see, I get the picture, we need socialism. We need Robin Hood robbing the rich and giving to the poor and more money into our failing government schools and free health care for the poor. The NYT supporting these suspect 'fixes' is like seeing the sun at mid-day. Unfortunately, making a more progressive tax rate hurts the economy and actually rakes in less money to the government. More money doesn't mean better schools. otherwise Washington DC's schools would be the best and not the worst in our nation, a national disgrace, in fact. Health care? I thought the subject was earnings? How would socialized medicine run by the government help poor people earn more money? The truly poor get medicaid already.

Final words of wisdom: Unfortunately, these policies are unlikely to come from the current White House. This administration prefers tax cuts for the lucky ones in the top five percent.

Tax cuts for the rich, the lucky ones--not the hard working risk takers, just the lucky ones. Of course.

Labels: New York Times Decline