IMO the NYTimes needs to be sued by relatives of dead soldiers since they helped the enemy and contributed to their deaths.
Posted on 07/16/2006 4:03:32 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom
It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.
Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.
One result has been a frayed democratic fabric in a country founded on a constitutional system of checks and balances. Another has been a less effective war on terror.
The Guantánamo Bay Prison
This whole sorry story has been on vivid display since the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions and United States law both applied to the Guantánamo Bay detention camp. For one brief, shining moment, it appeared that the administration realized it had met a check that it could not simply ignore. The White House sent out signals that the president was ready to work with Congress in creating a proper procedure for trying the hundreds of men who have spent years now locked up as suspected terrorists without any hope of due process.
But by week’s end it was clear that the president’s idea of cooperation was purely cosmetic.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land" worker for Prez. Klinton and her husband. Live with it NYT.
IMO the NYTimes needs to be sued by relatives of dead soldiers since they helped the enemy and contributed to their deaths.
Delusional?
More like hallucinatory.
don't you just love those early sunday morning al-jazeera press releases.
Ever cooperative congress?
MUWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism
How is this statement compatible with that opening? You began by saying Bush's priority was expanding presidential power.
Of course we always like to bash the NYT, but they are steering very close to "Loose Change" territory. Before the election they will have an editorial titled "Disturbing 9-11 Questions That Won't Go Away." Their credibility is evaporating rapidly even among non-DU democrats with this hysterical caterwauling.
They are really, REALLY P.O.'d about the complaints about their blowing our terror-fighting secrets.
Now that the world is on the verge of WW III, they publish this garbage?
The New York Times is exhibiting the behavior of an alcoholic who has been forced to go to rehab, and refuses to admit reality at any cost.
9/11 never happened.
Nuts.
Mr Burns of the Simpsons would describe them as becoming more and more "impotent as a Nevada boxing commissioner"
I don't even read their entire headlines anymore. Everytime I see NYT, I go on to the next article. They can blab until they're blue in the face, but they've blown it big time in the Big Apple and have become the anus of the newsmedia.
We need that picture "Not that Sh!t again"
the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear.
Yes it is, our President is doing every thing that he can to protect us and the liberals that hate America are trying to tie his hands.
"procedure for trying the hundreds of men who have spent years now locked up as suspected terrorists without any hope of due process."
This is factually wrong.
Dozens - not hundreds - of "trials" are being entertained, and those are for specific war crimes.
The rest are considered POWs and will remain under lock and key for as long as the military decides they should. They will not get trials of any knd.
His manager described this treasonous act as: incredible courage.
You took the words right out of my mouth! What about "ever obstructionist Senate"?
Is the transformation to the Moonbat Times complete yet? The odd flash of sanity say in the crossword throws you on occasion.
He should be arrested.
At the very least, he should be refused entry into the U.S. (bio says he lives in S. Africa)
Pure liberal projection. That's what Slick would be doing if 9/11 had happened on his watch.
 |
| What amazes me is that the NY Times has never even once in the last 30 years considered that the presidential powers deemed constitutional for 200 years and lost in the mid '70s are in error and the problem. If one is to claim that expanding presidential powers is wrong doesn't one necessarily have to test the hypothesis that it may be right? Was the United States stronger before the '70s or since then? Are we better off with one elected person making these tough decisions or 535 conceited fools, only 3 of whom any one person can vote for/against (unless you are a Chicago Democrat) or a nationally known and elected executive? Should foreign policy be in the hands of a John Kerry, William Jefferson, Patrick Leahy or Carl Levin or the Executive Administration that can attract the best and the brightest for it's staff? |
This paper once held in respect for its coverage of world events now has an agenda of two things, constantly bash President Bush's war on terror any way possible and make gay marriage legal.once known as 'the gray old lady' has become 'THE GAY OLD LADDIE'and 'The Terrorist Guide to Winning'.
Where was the NY Slimes when 18 of Clinton's executive priviledges had to be bought forth before the US Supreme Court for rulings in order to keep his butt from impeachment? All 18 of these were power grabs!
Well if anyone had any doubt before the Editors of the Time just made it clear they are the active allies of the Terrorists. It was NOT mistaken judgment or a difference of opinion, they are knowing working for Al Qeda.
Hey NYT...STFU...if you know what I mean!...In Thai / Laos..Jaw Saul Wow!!!!!!!
The photo spread compliments the sentiment nicely.
I use to be uncomfortable when any Conservative started calling anyone on the other side a "traitor" simply because they disagreed with us. However the conduct of the Political Leftists in the last couple of years has changed my mind completely. Their conduct goes beyond merely having a different political opinion or playing tought politics. They are knowingly, and willinglyg, giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the USA.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- According to William Shakespeare, King Richard III proclaimed that winter was the season of troubles. But that was 1482 -- and this is 2006. For us, it's a summer of discontent. If one is to believe the so-called mainstream media, compared to the challenges facing George W. Bush, England's last Plantagenet had it easy.
History documents that Richard's reign was marked by internal rebellion, treachery, betrayal, external threats and war. The king, abandoned by his feckless friends, met what his detractors describe as a well-deserved end in the bloody battle of Bosworth Field. Those who chronicle current events are now forecasting a similar -- though perhaps less sanguinary -- demise for President Bush. With great glee, the potentates of the press point to a growing list of hot-spots, calamities and crises -- and prognosticate gloom and doom:
I really cannot understand just what North was trying to do.
IMHO Making any comparison of Bush to England's most evil monarch in any well meaning reference does nothing to help Bush's (or our) cause. I can only add fuel to the burning desire of anti-bushites to see Bush in the most negative light.
"If one is to believe the so-called mainstream media,..."
Well, if he lives in SA, I guess hes a third party. But I pretty much agree that he should be denied entry to the US!
Very good. I noticed the post about the Times never looking up from its belly button, but I don't really think that's the organ they're concentrating on........
And, yes, I know the belly button isn't considered an organ, humor me? LOL!
Not bothering to read that crap. What is the REAL agenda of the NYTimes?
Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.
By changing one word, we can recast this screed's perspective, and show the Times for the partisan propagandists they are. Because you sure didn't notice any articles condemning Roosevelt for his clearly (and formally) unconstitutional expansion of executive powers during WWII and the Depression. Yet George Bush, faced with a far more shadowy war being fought on our home turf, is painted as a Machiavellian schemer manipulating his way to tyranny.
When the Times loses its absorbency, it will have lost its only reason for existing.
They have been at it for close to 40 years, longer really. Search Ramsey Clark, Medea (Susie) Benjamin, Gael Murphy, Leslie Cagen, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, john F kerry, Tom Hayden and his ex-wife Janey Fonda...they just changed tactics and or organizations.
Go hire some more stringers who cheerlead for Iraqi "insurgent" snipers that are targeting American boys and girls, New York Times.
What utter bullshite.
Au contraire, NYT. If anything, our courageous President
has gone overboard in doing everything legally--he's not
about to give the Left any reason to impeach him.
"We here at the NY Times just can't name any specific examples...so we'll **allude** to things going on behind the scenes so that your imagination might infer Bush Administration rule-breaking at places like Gitmo. Then we'll openly break national security laws by publishing legal, top secret homeland defense programs."
That's factually incorrect. In Chicago, you only get to vote for three candidates, you just get to vote for them lots of times. Also, you can vote post mortem. Same in New Jersey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.