Question:What does untenable mean?

1. (of theories etc) incapable of being defended or justified

Untenable means incapable of being defended, as an argument, thesis, etc.; indefensible. ChaCha, open 24/7 for all questions.

The definition of untenable is 1: not able to be defended or 2: not able to be occupied. Text again!

If as the Bush has said the NYT put America at risk why aren't they doing something about it ?

Q: 1) Officials won't act aggressively against an institution they're claiming puts American lives at risk, because it's politically untenable. That would mean the administration is putting politics ahead of aggressively prosecuting behavior it says endangers American lives.2) The administration doesn't genuinely believe The Times has put our national security at risk at all, and hence won't act. If this is the case, both Snow and Cheney blatantly and repeatedly lied.Which is it ? Did they endanger the American public and if so why aren't charges pending ? Is this just more deflection on the part of the White House to wipe more mud off it's shoes ? If they really believe these accusations are true shouldn't they follow up on them ? Seriously ?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-sargent/white-house-assault-on-bi_b_23908.htmlDo they get to lable a paper traiterous but do nothing about it but point fingers and pass out lables ? Show us on what grounds the NYT's earned this ?http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_gunland.htmlThis is the only transcript I've found so far fitting your description. If this was out five years ago then why is the New York Times posting it now considered treason ? Could you actually post the link your referencing next time rather then just alluding to it ? As for the Huffington source I was merely linking a source for where the idea for the question came from. Thanks for the helpfull information so far .

A: Well first of all, surely you can find better sources of inspiration than Arianna Huffington. She's a self-promoting entertainer who gained her notoriety on Comedy Central (kind of like Rush Limbaugh... get it?)Now to your original rant. Nobody has said that what the NYT did was illegal, although it may be. The key point (supported this past weekend by Republicans AND Democrats) was that after the NYT was asked to not reveal how wire transfers of money were being tracked to find terrorists' off-shore sources of financial support, they went ahead and revealed it anyway.Their expressed rationale?... the information was in the public interest. Well, what, pray tell is NOT in the "public interest"? If someone leaked to the NYT that we were about to capture Osama bin Laden tomorrow, would they reveal that? Surely the public would be interested!Our government has a right (in fact an OBLIGATION) to not reveal publicly all of the things it does to protect and defend American citizens. It cannot break the law (Note: this activity was revealed and approved in advance by congressional oversight committees). For God's sake... every day the editors of the NYT choose NOT to report hundreds of stories. Editors exercise their personal judgement on these decisions. So don't act as if there's some "obligation" to publish. 65 years ago this kind of anti-administration driven pseudo-journalism would not have happened. Not from the left, not from the right and not even from the radical fringe.To all of you liberal knee jerk Bush-haters I'd say this: learn to think for yourselves. Stop parroting the radical left unless you want to be marginalized and ridiculed as a member of the wacko fringe.