Of course today it is imperative to look skeptically at anything the Times 'reports', but in an article which attempts to say the Bush WHite House DOES support real torture:
Associates (janitors ? newbie trainees? Assistant Attorneys General? Jason Blair?)
Pressure? "Alberto, have you spoken with the head of the Foreign Actions Directorate at the CIA?" or "Alberto we have pictures of your daughter in flagrante with your Doberman"
to endorse policies that they saw as effective in safeguarding Americans - listening to phone calls from Quetta and/or Islamabad, or Swat to muslims brotherhood members's cell phones in Chicago? or kidnapping citizens off the streets of Chicago and sending them to a dungeon in southern Egypt to have their fingernails torn off?
even though the practices brought the condemnation of other governments, human rights groups and Democrats in Congress. When was it established that the good feeling towards us of Hu Jintao, or Jacques Chirac was an effective tool in safeguarding americans, or that the reccomendation of HRW (now a Soros minion) or Amnesty International had ANY BEARING AT ALL on the personal security of Americans, except as they see it, from the american govt?
Critics say Mr. Gonzales turned his agency into an arm of the Bush White House, undermining the department’s independence. It IS an arm of the Bush White House. The Constitution insists that the Justice Dept as part of the executive is subordinate to the white house, ANY white house. Any AG or employee can resign in protest anytime they please. Congress can investigate policies of the admin or in the justice dept if they see fit that this subordination has led to criminal activity. But "Critics say"? Harry Reid? John Conyers?
That paragraph at the top is a statement of fact? It is gobbeldygook hiding a clear political objective. Papers which have political and or social objectives as the purpose of their organization have a long history. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it is identified. Around the turn of the last century they acquired a name. YELLOW PRESS.
Let's move on to some kind of meat (?)
Associates at the Justice Department said Mr. Gonzales seldom resisted pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and David S. Addington, Mr. Cheney’s counsel, to endorse policies that they saw as effective in safeguarding Americans, even though the practices brought the condemnation of other governments, human rights groups and Democrats in Congress. Critics say Mr. Gonzales turned his agency into an arm of the Bush White House, undermining the department’s independence.Let's pull this apart.
Associates (janitors ? newbie trainees? Assistant Attorneys General? Jason Blair?)
Pressure? "Alberto, have you spoken with the head of the Foreign Actions Directorate at the CIA?" or "Alberto we have pictures of your daughter in flagrante with your Doberman"
to endorse policies that they saw as effective in safeguarding Americans - listening to phone calls from Quetta and/or Islamabad, or Swat to muslims brotherhood members's cell phones in Chicago? or kidnapping citizens off the streets of Chicago and sending them to a dungeon in southern Egypt to have their fingernails torn off?
even though the practices brought the condemnation of other governments, human rights groups and Democrats in Congress. When was it established that the good feeling towards us of Hu Jintao, or Jacques Chirac was an effective tool in safeguarding americans, or that the reccomendation of HRW (now a Soros minion) or Amnesty International had ANY BEARING AT ALL on the personal security of Americans, except as they see it, from the american govt?
Critics say Mr. Gonzales turned his agency into an arm of the Bush White House, undermining the department’s independence. It IS an arm of the Bush White House. The Constitution insists that the Justice Dept as part of the executive is subordinate to the white house, ANY white house. Any AG or employee can resign in protest anytime they please. Congress can investigate policies of the admin or in the justice dept if they see fit that this subordination has led to criminal activity. But "Critics say"? Harry Reid? John Conyers?
That paragraph at the top is a statement of fact? It is gobbeldygook hiding a clear political objective. Papers which have political and or social objectives as the purpose of their organization have a long history. There is nothing wrong with that as long as it is identified. Around the turn of the last century they acquired a name. YELLOW PRESS.
Let's move on to some kind of meat (?)
Continue reading The internal compass of the New York Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment