Slice 'n Dice
Patterico eviscerates LA Times Washington Bureau Chief Doyle McManus, and rightfully so.
Frankly, McManus' explanations and rationalizations are as arrogant, disingenuous and ineffectual as Bill Keller's -- and that's saying something.
It is impossible both to support America winning the war on terror and to support what these newspapers have done. Impossible.
Frankly, McManus' explanations and rationalizations are as arrogant, disingenuous and ineffectual as Bill Keller's -- and that's saying something.
It is impossible both to support America winning the war on terror and to support what these newspapers have done. Impossible.
posted by Carol Platt Liebau at 10:13 AM
9 Comments:
As Michelle Malkin says.... Boo-Freakin-hoo!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gee, didn't the Bush admnistration tell the public that they were working with other nations, financial institutions and banking industry to freeze terrorist assests and funding sources right after 9/11?
Yep!
Dittohead, there is a difference between saying what your are going to do on a high level of generality and revealing specifically how you are going to do it.
Thus, Bush might say, "we are going to invade Iraq". Should the NY Times then publish details of the battle plan?
There is patriotic dissent and there is treasonous dissent. An example of the former is the debate that led to the vote to commit our troops to the overthrow of Saddam. An example of the latter is actively obstructing or encouraging others to obstruct that effort. For example the NY Times provides information to terrorists (the enemy) they didn't have, namely our battle plans. Murtha is an example of encouraging others to, well, surrender. I suppose one could characterize that as patriotic dissent, assuming surrender is in our best interest. Assuming he is not really undermining a policy already in place, that surrender would somehow be supportive of the war against terrorists.
Impossible.
There is patriotic dissent and there is treasonous dissent. An example of the former is the debate that led to the vote to commit our troops to the overthrow of Saddam. An example of the latter is actively obstructing or encouraging others to obstruct that effort. For example the NY Times provides information to terrorists (the enemy) they didn't have, namely our battle plans. Murtha is an example of encouraging others to, well, surrender. I suppose one could characterize that as patriotic dissent, assuming surrender is in our best interest. Assuming he is not really undermining a policy already in place, that surrender would somehow be supportive of the war against terrorists.
Impossible.
Well it certainly sounds like NYT had alot of meetings and discussions with the administration, former admistrators and other experts. And they decided it should go to press.
Time will tell if they did or did not do the proper thing.
And let us remember NYT journalist Judy Miller sat in prison for six months while Bush and Scouter said nothing and then finally Bush admitted to being the leaker. So Bush really can't be trusted to tell the truth.
We also know from NSA wiretapping that those few members in Congress were sworn to secrecy and could not discuss with anyone the possible illegality of the program.
Ditto:
Am I correct to gather from your postings that you consider EVERYTHING President Bush stands for to be wrong and EVERYONE who differs with him to be right?
As Dodger says, there is patriotic dissent and there is treasonous dissent.
Patriotic dissent: "I think George W. Bush is no more than the second greatest president in US history, and barely makes the list of top five human beings of all time."
Treasonous dissent: Anything else.
Post a Comment
<< Home