Monday, September 11, 2006

Again they give terrorists information!

As stated previously the editor is on vacation. The following article and first few comments come from It was chosen due to its unbiased nature and dedication to the Cold Hard Facts.

It's unbelievable. On 9/11 exactly five years after they betrayed our country to Al Qaida, New York Times reporters MATT RICHTEL and MIGUEL HELFT hand over another important piece of information to enemies. By revealing that companies employ people to masquerade as a customer in order obtain telephone his records illegally, it makes it that much harder for the FBI to do the same thing. We were this close to obtaining Bin Laden, but no you blew it, MATT RICHTEL and MIGUEL HELFT. What does your editor think he runs, an information source.

As the article further revealed, private detectives often hire these companies to find out if a client's wife is committing Adultery. Adultery is a serious scourge, and this tool gave us the edge in stopping it. But now that MATT RICHTEL and MIGUEL HELFT spilled the beans, detectives will have to use something else. So wives can now cheat all they want, and we can't do a thing about it. I suppose MATT RICHTEL and MIGUEL HELFT are proud of themselves, getting rid of America's Moral Values one step at a time.

But worse, your paper will put the phone companies on guard, so they won't give out our confidential information to intruders, and some off those intruders could be the FBI. Before all the FBI had to do to get Verizon to hand over Osama's phone records was call Verizon and have someone pretend to be Bin Laden. Verizon would fall for the ruse, hand over the records, and then we might be able to nab him. But now the Verizon Customer Service People will be on their guards, they'll want proof that an FBI agent is Bin Laden, and he won't be able to get the call records.

First reveal the wiretapping. Then reveal the secret prisons. After that tell the whole world we torture people. Now this. You might as well demoralize the entire American people by telling them how badly we are losing the war in Iraq. Oh wait, you do that too. This has to stop.

And you know what else is wrong with this article. This article written on September 11, 2006, exactly five years after Osama Bin Laden crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, neglects to mention how far we've come in the war on terror, just to make Bush look bad. It doesn't even mention 9/11; I guess MATT RICHTEL and MIGUEL HELFT don't care about the orphans.

Mr. President if these newspapers are going to fight dirty, you've got to fight dirty too. I want you to declare martial law on the New York Times. This is wartime, Mr. President; there can be no half-measures. President Adams had congress pass a law to shut down newspapers when it wasn't even wartime, and historians consider this Adam's finest hour. When war came to President Lincoln, he shut down papers too. The longer you let the NY Times flagrantly defame you, he harder it will be on the American People. Seize the moment. MARTIAL LAW MARTIAL LAW MARTIAL LAW!


Steven Jones said...

First of all, I am not a weanie.

And as for the blog post, isn't it a little ridiculous to say that the New York Times is helping Bin Laden. I mean the article didn't have anything to do with national security, so um in my opinion you sound kind of silly,, you know.

Free speech is our most important right, and I for one will not see it trampled, so actually that's about it.

Joe Stevens said...

How dare you tarnish the brilliance of that article with your brutish and insulting comment. I will smite you in the name of national security. I will challenge you to Duel of honor. Normally the aggrieved party chooses weapons, but as you are a cowardly liberal, I'll choose them, just so we don't end up fighting with novels or cups of tea.

I choose Stinger missle launchers. Ten paces turn and fire, and another enemy of America goes bam.

steven Jones said...

A duel. I don't know it sounds kind of dangerous, and I don't own a Stinger missle launcher. THey might kinda be illegal actually. Wouldn't you rather talk it over in a starbucks or something?