Carol Platt Liebau: The Leftist View

Friday, June 30, 2006

The Leftist View

Laughably, Eleanor Clift is attempting to defend the New York Times. She reasons: Because Congress hasn't revealed classified information during wartime, it's up to the press to do it. Is this really the best the liberals have got?

Clift doesn't even use the facts as a basis for her arguments. She writes:

These editorial decisions are not made lightly, but whichever side you take in the debate, this is not treason. The administration doth protest too much.

'Scuse me, but can anyone find anyone speaking for the administration who used the word "treason"? Methinks Miss Clift doth protest too much.

In any case, if the American people share her view that Congress has failed adequatedly to perform its oversight function of the executive branch, they can vote out their representatives. But how, exactly, are we supposed to get rid of the New York Times?

14 Comments:

Blogger stackja1945 said...

Ignore the NYT and it will go away.

10:59 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Me thinks George makes Nixon look saintly. Cheney destroyed his third president.

12:41 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...

The problem ditto, is that you think. Careful. You'll hurt yourself.

4:44 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:49 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Carol writes, "'Scuse me, but can anyone find anyone speaking for the administration who used the word "treason"? Methinks Miss Clift doth protest too much."

"We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous." Rep. Peter King R-NY

"In my opinion, that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy; therefore it is an act of treason.” Sen. Jim Bunning R-KY

"I remind you of the case of the Treason Times, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Global Relief Foundation." Michelle Malkinn Republican Pundit

So Carol, are you planning on publically renouncing Rep. King, Sen. Bunning, and Michelle Malkin--or are you going to hide behind the precise wording of your carefully parsed statement? Yeah, I thought so.

10:44 PM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

The backlash against the press was swift and uncompromising. In a fit of rage and misguided patriotism the rightists came off as crackpots.

Vice President Dick Cheney – “The article made it more difficult for us to prevent attacks in the future" and "will enable the terrorists to look for ways to defeat our efforts."

President Bush - "The fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."

Tony Snow - “The newspaper ought to think long and hard about whether a public's right to know in some cases might override somebody's right to live.”

Sen. Jim Bunning - “Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez should empanel a grand jury to decide whether NY Times editors and writers involved should be indicted for treason.”

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) - "We're at war, and for the Times to release information about secret operations and methods is treasonous".

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) – The Times had "compromised" the program and "violated the Espionage Act."

Melanie Morgan - "If he (Bill Keller) were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber."

Michelle Malkin: "The New York Times and their reckless anonymous sources …come out, come out, you cowards."

Cal Thomas - " When you give information to the other side, you're simply setting yourself up for another attack or defeat."

Editors of National Review: " Murderers will get the resources they need to carry out their grisly business. The Times has ensured that the public today is less safe."

NewsMax - "The New York Times, now rapidly taking on the role of Osama bin Laden's reliable informant."

Melanie Morgan - "I see it as treason, plain and simple, and my advice to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is chop-chop, hurry up, let's get the indictments going, and get these guys behind jail."

Ann Coulter - “If that is not treason, then we're not prosecuting anymore.”

William Kristol - "I think the Justice Department has an obligation to consider prosecution. ... This isn't a partisan thing of the Bush administration. This is a U.S. government secret program in a time of war, willfully exposed for no good reason."

L. Brent Bozell III - "The New York Times needs to be reminded ... that on September 11, 2001, something really awful happened... And the last thing we need is them aiding and abetting the terrorist movement."

Rush Limbaugh -"If you look at The New York Times it's clear that they're trying to help the terrorists. 80 percent of their subscribers have to be jihadists."

Andrew C. McCarthy - The New York Times was presented with a simple choice: help protect American national security or help al Qaeda. Yet again, it sided with al Qaeda."

Newt Gingrich - "My sense is that they hate George W. Bush so much that they would be prepared to cripple America in order to go after the president."

Michael Barone - "Why do they hate us?"

Morton M. Kondracke - "And for God's sake, The New York Times ought to look down the street and remember where 9-11 happened."

Heather Mac Donald - "By now it's undeniable: The New York Times is a national security threat."

12:27 AM  
Blogger Dittohead said...

Last week the president said, “Congress was briefed. And what we did was fully authorized under the law.”

Today we learn that he lied.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The White House said they briefed the Congress on this matter and there is no law called into question. Do you believe that a law is called into question and that this program might have been illegal?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m on the Intelligence Committee. I can tell you when I was briefed and when the committee was briefed — and that was when it became apparent that the New York Times had the story and was going to run it. And that’s when and why they came to us and briefed us.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you knew nothing about it before the New York Times was asking questions?

FEINSTEIN: That’s correct.

1:39 PM  
Blogger Jessica said...

Twister,

Which one of those individuals is a spokesperson for the administration?

If you said "none of them", you are correct.

10:04 AM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Jessica asks, "Which one of those individuals is a spokesperson for the administration?"

Wow, Jessica! You chose the "hide behind the precise wording of your carefully parsed statement" option I offered to Carol.

Now, Amber, please show me where Eleanor Clift said the administration used the word "treason." If you said "she didn't"," then you are correct. That was just rhetorical slight of hand on Carol's part.

You see, Amber, rather than deal directly with the claims from any number of Republicans (noted by myself and dittohead) that the NY Times committed treason or aided and abetted the enemy, Carol decided to play intentionally deceitful word games. She deliberately engaged in intentional deception.

Carol, congratulations. Your cheap parlor tricks managed to bamboozle the exceedingly gullible Amber.

11:44 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

Twister's Straw Man Take Down:

1. Respond to the author's post with inaccurate and misleading data.

2. Close your post by stating that pointing out the obvious deception contained in the post would be tantamount to admitting defeat.

3. Wait ...

4. Someone takes the bait and points out the blatant deception in Twister's post.

5. POUNCE !

6. Feel all smug and superior.


Oh well. I guess it'll have to do in place of actual victory in the arena of political debate.

1:55 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Greg, you may want to check your meds, because your last post was even more delusional than we have come to expect from you.

7:54 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

My meds are GOOD!

10:10 AM  
Blogger amber said...

Twister, On what thread did you ask me a question? I was out of town and am just getting caught up here.

4:15 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

If anyone should be prosecuted, it would be the person who leaked the classified information. That is a crime.

12:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google