Wednesday digest
- The screw-you element of the Democratic party doesn't even try to hide its contempt for America's fighting men and women. Meanwhile, amputees back from Iraq want to go jogging with the President.
I'm just sayin'.
- The NYT continues to dig itself deeper into a hole.
First, they say that details about the terrorist financing scheme have already been in the public eye for four years and so they suggest that revealing its existence is no big deal. I would ask, then why even publish it, especially now? It couldn't be because it would help raise more suspicions regarding civil liberties six months after the wiretap story, would it? Nor could it be because it would help take the wind out of the sails of increasingly favourable public opinion on Iraq after the elimination of Zarqawi, I suppose?
Then, they say that the program is a political red herring for the Administration, but in the next breath suggest that its very existence is a sign of increasing centralization of power in the White House without acknowledging the fact that it was approved by Congress. So they downplay its importance but then raise suspicions about it? What is it that the NYT is reporting here, exactly? Something irrelevant and redundant with little political impact or a danger to the freedoms of Americans? I thought the job of the press was to report the news, not create it. Sounds like the NYT hasn't decided one way or the other on that one.
Methinks they doth protest too much. The more they try to rationalize their decision, the more their vendetta against the Bush White House comes into plain view.
- Anyways, here's some real news that we'd hear more about in the liberal mainstream media if the cue-giving NYT would get over their fascination with fully legal anti-terrorist programs.
- Greed is good.
- A shadow of her former hotness, indeed. Now that she's admitted that she's country, can we expect her to do an adaptation of "I Ain't As Good As I Once Was" with the word "hot" substituted for "good"?
(Dixie Chicks "fans", you won't get that one.)
posted by Road Hammer @ 7:59 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Somewhere Gordon Gekko is smiling!
Thanks Cuba ... I'll watch ... but not convinced that a PBS doc on Cheney winning bureaucratic turf wars justifies the NYT's flimsy excuses on the terror financing story.
They were trying to politically undermine the Administration, plain and simple.
I always thought Steven Keaton was a good dad, though.
So the whole thing with the amputee was what, staged?
You're damn straight that if the approval ratings for any politician were in the toilet and a veteran of the war came knockin' that the politican would want it caught on film. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I also think he would still jog with the guy even if his approval ratings were in the 80s. It seems that this administration is the only friend the troops have in today's America at times. The fact that a guy who lost two legs wants to go jogging with the Pres is demonstrative of that in my opinion.
Saj, Al Gore will not be a candidate in 2008. I would bet big, big bucks on it. You're talking about a guy who in 1991, when he had presidential ambitions, called the internal combustion engine "mankind's greatest enemy". Anyone who needs to win Michigan, West Virginia, Ohio and the rest of the rust belt would not say that unless he meant it. Gore has the courage of his convictions, which is hard to recognize in this day and age.
Sure it was politically motivated.
The soldier was motivated to jog with a politician.
Post a Comment
<< Home