New York Times Keeps Mum For Its Own

David Rohde, a reporter for the New York Times, was captured in Afghanistan seven months ago and a few days ago he escaped and is on his way to safety. I am happy he escaped and hope he is none the worse for wear.

The story of his capture was not made public by the NYT. Bill Keller decided that it would put him in danger if the story was published so the took the “agonizing” decision to keep it under wraps.

Deciding not to report initially on reporter David Rohde’s capture by the Taliban for seven months was “an agonizing position that we revisited over and over again,” New York Times executive editor Bill Keller said Sunday.

“All along, we were told by people that probably the wisest course for David’s safety was to keep it quiet,” Keller said in an interview on CNN. My Way News

This is the same New York Times that disclosed one secret government plan after another even after being asked not to so that our troops would not be placed in further danger. The NYT only held one story and did not do that for very long. The paper decided that it was in the public’s interest to know about the secret programs.

When it came to one of their own, the paper decided to keep the story quiet so as not to endanger the employee.

Where was the public’s interest?

This is further proof that the NYT is an anti American paper. They took great pride in hurting America when George Bush was trying to protect us even though they were told it could place our troops in further danger.

This should demonstrate the bias of the NYT as well as their hatred of our troops.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

28 Responses to “New York Times Keeps Mum For Its Own”

  1. Judy says:

    what were the NYT thinking?

    • Blake says:

      Judy, the NY Times hasn’t thought at all for a long time. There was a time when journalists were principled, but no longer- its all biased, anti American rant- its been so long since I saw a conservative paper, at least 16 years, but journalism has changed, and not for the better.
      The NY times is just the worst of the lot.
      At least the National Inquirer doesn’t pretend to have ethics, they are upfront and honest about that.

  2. victoria says:

    This should demonstrate the bias of the NYT as well as their hatred of our troops.

    If your talking about this should demonstrate to the left…. All I can say is I guess you can keep hoping.

  3. Darrel says:

    The NYT’s was a major cheer leader and shill for Bush’s illegal and immoral war against Iraq and rather than provide good skeptical scrutiny, went along with the herd and consistently passed along Bush administration misinformation.

    At least they later apologized for such blatantly poor journalist behavior.

    The NYT’s is the premier newspaper in America, and to some degree, the world. That didn’t happen by accident. It is for grownups and probably not suitable for the politically/emotionally stunted who would prefer to dine on childish falsehoods as delivered the Drudge/Hannity/Savage etc.,. There is no conservative counter part.

    They’ll all be gone soon enough.


    • Blake says:

      The NYT used to be something respected- not so anymore- they are not fit to wipe my butt with- Premier- Hah! There is no such thing anymore. The fact that you would think they are fair just demonstrates how left you are Darrel.

    • Blake says:

      First, get your facts straight- the war was not illegal, although by definition all war is immoral. The times has never been a shill for Bush, or have you not read those fools Krugman and the “woman scorned” Maureen Dowd? Even the one “conservative”, David Brooks hammered Bush relentlessly. Trying to change history is an honored Dem tradition, but do not try it here.

      • Darrel says:

        BLK: the one “conservative”, David Brooks>>

        I don’t read newspapers and I don’t read the NYT’s. But I do know David Brooks is not the “one conservative” at the NYT’s.

        Have you heard of… “John Tierney?”

        See also:

        The New York Times has hired Ross G. Douthat, a 29-year-old conservative writer and editor at The Atlantic… (March 11, 2009)

        Was Bill Kristol “conservative?” Yes, I think so.

        Perhaps you should consider whether your comments are true before you post them?


        • Big Dog says:

          Tierney is a Libertarian who is moderately conservative. Kristol was there for the last year of Bush’s term so it is not like he was a shill for Bush and the war since it started much earlier and Douthat was hired after Obama took office so he could not have written anything about Bush for the NYT.

  4. Big Dog says:

    A war cannot be illegal if it is authorized by Congress. They did and it is legal. You said something about the law with regard to abortion. You said something about how it is legal because it is the law.

    The war was legal.

    Immorality is a personal decision. One man’s morality on not another’s. I think abortion is immoral even if it is legal. But, I recognize that it is legal.

    NYT is sinking fast. Revenue down, subscriptions down, ads down. And they did not shill for Bush.

    Skeptical scrutiny. Funny you should say that seeing as how none of them provided that with regard to Obama.

    Another double standard.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “A war cannot be illegal if it is authorized by Congress.”

      The US does not exist in a vacuum and has binding obligations with regard to the UN and how it acts internationally.


      Iraq war illegal, says Annan

      The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

      He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.”



      “In November 2008, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom, stated that British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith’s advice to the British Government contained “no hard evidence” that Iraq had defied UN resolutions “in a manner justifying resort to force” and that the invasion was “a serious violation of international law and of the rule of law.”


      “Richard Perle, a senior member of the Bush Administration’s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, conceded in November 2003 that the invasion was illegal but still justified.” LINK

      Good overview here.

      Regarding abortion… this just in:

      Newly Released Tapes: Nixon Said Abortion Necessary When You Have A Black And A White


      • Blake says:

        The UN is a neutered organization even I can ignore with impunity. They should all be bitch- slapped back to their countries of origin.

      • Blake says:

        Do remember that the UN does not rule America, and its laws are not binding on us. Our laws and Constitution trump anything they do or say. Period.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Our laws and Constitution trump anything they do or say.”

          The US has treaties and legally binding obligations with countries and the UN. US treaties have the same status as law.


        • Blake says:

          Not where I am concerned- the UN is an illegitimate organization I refuse to recognize, and if I had my way, they would be whipped out of NYC.

  5. Big Dog says:

    When you have a black and a white or a rape was the quote. Nixon came from another time. A lot of old people feel that way.

    The UN does not make our laws for us. You forget that Bush went to the UN and they dragged their feet and played around. Our country is run by our Congress. We do not need UN approval for our Congress to authorize war. We have a Constitution and it lays out how we do things. Admittedly, Congress did not specifically say “I declare war” but it authorized military action. The UN probably wanted to be involved because part of the authorization dealt with UN resolutions that were violated for 14 years.

    Regardless, we are a sovereign nation and are not ruled by the UN. We do not need permission to go to war. And Kofi was as corrupt as they come. If you want illegal tell him to look in the mirror.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “part of the authorization dealt with UN resolutions that were violated for 14 years.>>

      So do UN violations matter, or not? You seem to suggest here that they do. But then you dismiss, with a wave of your hand, the US violating it’s agreements and obligations with the UN, which it is bound to up hold.

      You could see Saddam saying something similar:

      “The UN does not make our laws for us… Our country is run by [me]. We do not need UN approval for our Congress to authorize [whatever].

      A strong argument can be made that the Iraq war was illegal under international law. Some argue that it was even illegal under US law (since Congress ducked it’s obligation and waffled), but that’s a weaker case.

      Bigd: “We do not need permission to go to war.”>>

      Only in the same sense that Saddam didn’t need permission to attack Kuwait.

      But that’s not what we, and the world community said at the time was it?

      You can’t have it both ways.


      • Blake says:

        D- the UN would never have the testicular fortitude to actually DO anything substantial- just ask Iran, or N. Korea- if you are waiting on the UN you are backing out.

        • Darrel says:

          Ah, the UN has no standing army and thus does nothing other than what the member nations use it to do.

          Get informed.

          “It’s a bureaucracy certainly, but not huge,” says former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The annual core [UN] functions cost about $1.25 billion, or she says, “roughly what the Pentagon spends every 32 hours.” —

        • Blake says:

          Because any member of the permanent council can block any resolution, nothing gets done. Get informed, Darrel.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Because any member of the permanent council can block any resolution, nothing gets done.”

          Nothing gets done.

          It’s almost impossible for a person to comprehend the amount of good the UN has accomplished in the world. And with so little. And much of the credit goes to the US. Too bad there is a group of Americans on the far right that are so ignorant of this.

          Short list of…


          1. Deploying more than 35 peace-keeping missions. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation.

          2. Credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts

          3. The UN has enabled people in over 45 countries to participate in free and fair elections

          5. UNICEF spends more than $800 million a year, primarily on immunization, health care, nutrition and basic education in 138 countries.

          6. UN Human Rights Commission has focused world attention on cases of torture, disappearance, and arbitrary detention and has generated international pressure.

          8. Has helped minimize the threat of a nuclear war by inspecting nuclear reactors in 90 [countries].

          11. The UN was a major factor in bringing about the downfall of the apartheid system.

          12. More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

          13. Aiding Palestinian Refugees with free schooling, essential health care, relief assistance and key social services virtually without interruption. There are 2.9 million refugees in the Middle East served by UNRWA.

          14. Alleviating Chronic Hunger and Rural Poverty in Developing Countries, providing credit that has benefited over 230 million people in nearly 100 developing countries.

          17. Providing Safe Drinking Water ­ Available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade.

          18. Eradicating Smallpox ­ through vaccinations and monitoring. Helped wipe out polio from the Western Hemisphere, with global eradication expected soon.

          19. Pressing for Universal Immunization of polio, tetanus, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and tuberculosis ­ has a 80% immunization rate, saving the lives of more than 3 million children each year.

          20. Reducing child mortality rates, halved since 1960, increasing the average life expectancy from 37 to 67 years.

          21. Fighting parasitic diseases, such as saving the lives of 7 million children from going blind from the river blindness and rescued many others from guinea worm and other tropical diseases.

          <a href=""Additional 33 examples here

        • Blake says:

          Do your UN examples, Darrel, include the rapes that the UN troops were actively engaged in in Rawanda?

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Do your UN examples, Darrel, include the rapes that the UN troops were actively engaged in in Rawanda?”>>


          We had a local radio host who like to ignorantly bash the UN. He distributed a 13 point piece of garbage which had all the standard anti-UN lies and smear. I ended up going to war with the guy and had him fired in about a month.

          Almost all of the claims (given as questions) on his list were pure lies. The last one, number 13, actually wasn’t a lie. Here is the response I wrote to number #13 on this list, in 2003:

          Isn’t it true that the UN has been implicated in numerous scandals involving sexual abuse in numerous countries?

          ANSWER: Yes. They are embarrassing. It is a fact that any large organization with tens of thousands of members and volunteer’s from all over the world is going to have individuals that do bad things and break the law. The US military has had numerous sexual scandals, in numerous countries. So has the Catholic Church. So have the Jehovah’s Witnesses. So has ANY organization of similar size where adults are mixed with children, and have power over them. This is not to suggest this makes it in any sense alright or any less of a tragedy.

          Regarding the military:
          “Sexual harassment is widespread in the military. In one 1995 Pentagon survey of 90,000 female soldiers in various branches of the military, 60 percent said they had been subject to such abuse, and nearly 10 percent reported being sexually assaulted.” —

          Ten percent of 90,000 is 9,000 incidences of sexual assault. That’s embarrassing.
          Many UN operations are huge, and involve tens of thousands of people from all over the world. As your article cites:
          “In 1992 there were 21,000 Nato peacekeepers and aid workers, there were police from 40 countries trying to keep Bosnia’s warring factions apart.”
          Terrible abuses are much more prone to happen in poor war torn countries where the enforcement of basic laws has broken down and people are desperate. Regarding Bosnia, as your article points out:

          “The British were on the whole extremely good and very professional, setting a great example. But there were policemen from other countries who should not have been in uniform.”

          And: “The UN’s refugee agency, which carried out the inquiry, told of “a shameful catalogue of sexual abuse.”

          CNN reported, regarding a scandal in Africa:
          “In a statement Annan called for a thorough and urgent investigation of the allegations.
          He said there was a “policy of zero tolerance for any such acts perpetrated by anyone employed by or affiliated with the United Nations.”

          The statement said Annan “intends to act forcefully should any of these allegations be confirmed.”

          That is an appropriate response. Contrast that with how the Catholic church and Jehovah’s Witness organization have responded to their thousands of instances of pedophilia. (Everyone knows about the Catholic scandal of course but to learn about the organization called “silent Lambs” which was put together to help the tens of thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses affected by the child abuse epidemic going on in their organization, go to: These organizations have publicly stated they DO NOT have a zero tolerance policy. As a matter of policy they have told victims not to go to the police. Their abusers have remained members in good standing, and they have been shown to actively cover it up, for decades, and move the offenders around even long after such methods had been exposed.
          As evidence, consider that both of these organizations have been sued and found culpable for covering up the abuses. The UN is guilty of hiring people and accepting volunteers who have participated in instances of sexual abuse. They were terminated, and hopefully prosecuted by the law. This is an appropriate response. Do you know of any instances in which the UN has been found culpable, at a high level, in actively covering such things up? If so, then they should be held legally responsible and are open to having to pay damages. Where are the cases showing this? By the year 2000 the Catholic church had paid out an estimated ONE BILLION DOLLARS in damages for it’s role in abetting and coving up it’s child abusing priests going back as far as the 1930’s, in several countries [It’s not 2 billion]. And the courts were just getting warmed up. How much has the UN had to pay? This would show that they have been convicted of being culpable in such behavior. Any examples? I don’t know of any, I couldn’t find any, and you don’t site any.

          You site a article that says:
          “Imagine the screaming headlines and worldwide outrage if the Catholic Church or any other church allowed sexual abuse of children on such a massive scale.”

          How ironic. This was written in May 2002, and since then an endless cascade of “screaming headlines and worldwide outrage” certainly has followed, and quite rightly, because nothing REMOTELY compares with the size and scope of the Catholic child abuse disaster. Not even close.”

          Got any other poop to throw Blake? I doubt you’ve got anything I haven’t seen before.

          If you would like to see the roast of his 1-12, just let me know and I’ll post it in our forum.


      • Blake says:

        D- we have had to carry the UN’s load since it was created, so it should come as no surprise that we had to enforce the resolutions the UN had passed, or the UN is truly the toothless socialistic organization it appears to be.

  6. Big Dog says:

    UN, full of corrupt people. Peacekeepers who rape young women and spread AIDS. Leaders who run scams and get rich from corruption and so called peacekeepers who help Israel’s enemies.

    They are worthless and we would be better off without them.