Saturday, June 24, 2006

Please protect us from the....New York Times?

_________________________

The newest national threat to make us all run screaming to our Republican overlords for protection is not another bunch of unarmed men with dark clothes and loud mouths.

No, the clear and present danger is none other than the New York Times.

In what has to be one of the stupidest examples of right-wing propaganda I've seen since, well, yesterday, Heather MacDonald who writes for the Weekly Standard, minces no words:

BY NOW IT'S UNDENIABLE: The New York Times is a national security threat. So drunk is it on its own power and so antagonistic to the Bush administration that it will expose every classified antiterror program it finds out about, no matter how legal the program, how carefully crafted to safeguard civil liberties, or how vital to protecting American lives.

How do you really feel Heather? Don't spare our feelings.

The procedure for obtaining that information could not be more solicitous of privacy and the rule of law: Agents are only allowed to seek information based on intelligence tying specific individuals to al Qaeda; they must document the intelligence behind every search request and maintain an electronic record of every search; and, in an inspired civil liberties innovation that would undoubtedly garner kudos from the Times had a Democratic administration devised it, a board of independent auditors from banks reviews the subpoena requests to make sure that only terror suspects' transactions are traced. Any use of the data for criminal investigations into drug trafficking, say, or tax fraud is banned. The administration briefed congressional leaders and the 9/11 Commission about the system.

There is nothing about this program that exudes even a whiff of illegality. The Supreme Court has squarely held that bank records are not constitutionally protected private information.

What dear Heather fails to understand is that after five years of screw-ups, murderous patriotism, and constant lies that make Nixon look saintly, no one with even one ounce of common sense trusts the Supreme Court, the 9/11 Commission and sweet Jesus in a candy store, our congressional leaders!

There is nothing about this program that exudes even a whiff of illegality.

Except that it comes from this administration.

See Heather, oddly enough, is right about one thing: the New York Times has it in for this president. And for very good reasons.

The Times doesn't like religiously insane would-be dictators having access to more information about anyone or anything than is absolutely necessary.

They're funny that way. And of course, in wingnut world, to argue with The Leader makes you a national security threat.

But we couldn't end it this way. No, Heather has to pick up her Louisville Slugger and approach the corpse of the dead horse:

The Times offers a third justification for its reckless breach of national security: "The program . . . is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records." Indeed. And 9/11 marked a significant departure from most Americans' experience of jet travel.

Oh! Snap! You got 'em with that one Heather.

You've done your duty as a good member of The Leader's Propaganda Arm. I'm sure someday you will have a nice shiny medal on your uniform. It will look great with your obligatory American flag armband, and reflect well in your shiny jack boots.

Sure, it's considered childish to compare the Neo-Cons to Nazis these days.

But hell, what would you compare them to?




5 Comments:

Blogger Again said...

No, the clear and present danger is none other than the New York Times.

degeneration is a disease - it spares no public institution of the infected body, it seems...

(i wonder, if the final bastion to surrender is Hollywood...)

Sun Jun 25, 01:19:00 AM  
Blogger Again said...

oooops - i fear my post might be misunderstandable, because, yes, until now, the NYT may be some of the last information brokers with some reliability, but i remember vaguely that they supported the Iraq War by not that professional statements - right? So i fear with the flank already open they can't stand the witchhunt very long...

because i guess, someone like Heather wouldn't write anything on her own..

Sun Jun 25, 06:36:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are some links that I believe will be interested

Fri Aug 04, 04:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are some links that I believe will be interested

Wed Aug 09, 10:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very pretty design! Keep up the good work. Thanks.
»

Wed Aug 16, 01:13:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home