Thursday, June 29, 2006
Bush is right, the NY Times was wrong to do what they did
Why am I saying such a thing and risking the wrath of Kos, who appearently controls all of left-blogostan with his mighty e-mails?
Because, it has occured to me that when Bush & CO said that the NY Times revealed the existance of a secret program, they were correct! Of course the program revealed was something Bush & CO said they would do. Of course "follow the money" is the obvious thing to do in persuing those who perpetrated a criminal act (*). But since when does Bush & CO actually do what they said they'd do? Since when do they do the right or appropriate thing, e.g. in fighting terrorism? The SWIFT program may have been a secret hidden in plain site, but, it was still a secret. Perhaps there are more secrets like this? Perhaps Bush & CO have only appeared to act like bumbling fools who have since 9/11 been giving Al Qaeda exactly what it wants? Perhaps they are merely setting a trap? I am reminded of the late great Phil Hartman's portrayal of Reagan here.
< / snark >
* those who would claim that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are more than mere criminals are giving the terrorists credit for their cause that they do not deserve. For a party which has been so good at framing issues in their favor and thus must understand the power of framing, it is amazing how easily the Republicans (as well as too many Democrats) framed 9/11 exactly how the terrorists wanted it to be framed -- as a key salvo in a war, a clash of civilizations. Are Bush & CO, who are so smart about the power of framing in terms of domestic issues and who realize that often it's he who frames the issues that wins the debate, that stupid that they allowed Al Qaeda to win the hearts of minds of many accross the world by letting Al Qaeda frame the 9/11 attacks? Do they really not care how many enemies we create? Or did they let Al Qaeda frame the issue on purpose? Are certain people, who claim to be so patriotic, really that anti-American? Am I being paranoid or a Cassandra? Certainly, they don't like the American (democratic system of) government (cf. Norquist) ...
Speaking of which, if what the Times did was treasonous, is Grover "drown the government" Norquist also guilty of treason for his speech?
Because, it has occured to me that when Bush & CO said that the NY Times revealed the existance of a secret program, they were correct! Of course the program revealed was something Bush & CO said they would do. Of course "follow the money" is the obvious thing to do in persuing those who perpetrated a criminal act (*). But since when does Bush & CO actually do what they said they'd do? Since when do they do the right or appropriate thing, e.g. in fighting terrorism? The SWIFT program may have been a secret hidden in plain site, but, it was still a secret. Perhaps there are more secrets like this? Perhaps Bush & CO have only appeared to act like bumbling fools who have since 9/11 been giving Al Qaeda exactly what it wants? Perhaps they are merely setting a trap? I am reminded of the late great Phil Hartman's portrayal of Reagan here.
< / snark >
* those who would claim that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are more than mere criminals are giving the terrorists credit for their cause that they do not deserve. For a party which has been so good at framing issues in their favor and thus must understand the power of framing, it is amazing how easily the Republicans (as well as too many Democrats) framed 9/11 exactly how the terrorists wanted it to be framed -- as a key salvo in a war, a clash of civilizations. Are Bush & CO, who are so smart about the power of framing in terms of domestic issues and who realize that often it's he who frames the issues that wins the debate, that stupid that they allowed Al Qaeda to win the hearts of minds of many accross the world by letting Al Qaeda frame the 9/11 attacks? Do they really not care how many enemies we create? Or did they let Al Qaeda frame the issue on purpose? Are certain people, who claim to be so patriotic, really that anti-American? Am I being paranoid or a Cassandra? Certainly, they don't like the American (democratic system of) government (cf. Norquist) ...
Speaking of which, if what the Times did was treasonous, is Grover "drown the government" Norquist also guilty of treason for his speech?
# posted by alberich @ 11:11 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Given the results of their being in power just about everything Republicans has the effect of weakening the United States so it could be considered treasonous.
Since there is no declared war you wouldn't think that what the Times did could be treason. But I'm sure that Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia (RATS) won't let those petty details keep them from upholding the death penalty for anyone the Commander in Chief wants to kill. Not as soon as they have a fifth vote they can depend on. Who ever thought that Anthony Kennedy would be too independent for them?
Since there is no declared war you wouldn't think that what the Times did could be treason. But I'm sure that Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia (RATS) won't let those petty details keep them from upholding the death penalty for anyone the Commander in Chief wants to kill. Not as soon as they have a fifth vote they can depend on. Who ever thought that Anthony Kennedy would be too independent for them?
Kennedy has decided to become the next O'Connor: how long until he has a sex change ;)
Actually, even if it were a time of war, what the NY Times is alleged to have done would not reach the standards of treason (unless, of course, the people involved were Jewish or something, cf. the Rosenberg case -- in which case, the Man would make sure that Jews were involved at every stage of the lynching to cover their asses) as the founders, themselves guilty of treason, wanted treason to be an incredibly difficult crime to prove in this country.
Of course, as you point out, we cannot trust Antonin "Original Intent" Scalia to actually follow the clear original intent of the Founders on anything of importance to this country's tradition of liberty.
Post a Comment
Actually, even if it were a time of war, what the NY Times is alleged to have done would not reach the standards of treason (unless, of course, the people involved were Jewish or something, cf. the Rosenberg case -- in which case, the Man would make sure that Jews were involved at every stage of the lynching to cover their asses) as the founders, themselves guilty of treason, wanted treason to be an incredibly difficult crime to prove in this country.
Of course, as you point out, we cannot trust Antonin "Original Intent" Scalia to actually follow the clear original intent of the Founders on anything of importance to this country's tradition of liberty.
<< Home
