The Incorrect And Floundering New York Times
The editorial below was in today's New York Times. What is worse than this, and the utter ineptitude shown by the Times, is a full page ad comparing Nixon to Bush in terms of wiretapping. They state in the ad that Nixon broke the law and lied to America, just as Bush has done.
Now, the Times has pulled some brain-dead stunts before, but this full page ad takes the cake as we are about to end 2005; it is clear that the battle lines have been drawn between the Leftist media and the administration. The Times has yet to admit the fact that their great "savior" Bill Clinton used taps under FISA, and without warrants. This same fact applies to Jimmy Carter as well, but then again, facts have never stood in the Times' way when it comes to low blows.
The open government law that guaranteed greater freedom of information to the public will soon be 40 years old and desperately in need of legislative overhaul, thanks to the Bush administration. The White House's sweeping enlargement of agency powers has already nearly doubled the rate of newly classified documents to 15 million a year. At the same time, the administration has choked back the annual volume of documents declassified for public access, from 200 million in 1998 to 44 million lately.
Is the Times whining that the administration would like to keep some of it's war on terror programs secret? Or is this a signal that they, too, realize that they are beating a dead dog with this NSA non-story? I am sure that they were especially disheartened with the news of the new Rasmussen poll released yesterday.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.
Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
(Hat-Tip: Michelle Malkin) She put this news release up on her site yesterday. That news also proves what I stated above: They are losing the fight on this issue.
At the heart of this thickening veil are direct presidential orders and former Attorney General John Ashcroft's blanket assurance of legal defense to any agency erring on the side of secrecy in sealing off documents. This reversed the Clinton administration's "presumption of disclosure" when it came to public requests. The 9/11 commission has already pointed out that this general retreat from the intent of the law hardly discourages terrorists; in fact, it was the government's internal failure to share information that contributed to that tragedy.
First of all, citing Clinton is not exactly the greatest move. Clinton's failures to engage the terrorists as they relentlessly attacked us and our interests abroad led to 9/11. That was a FACT that the 9/11 Commission refused to address evan as Jamie Gorelick--former Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno--sat on the Commission's panel. Secondly, Clinton's "loose and fast" way of handling sensitive material also reared it's ugly head during the Los Alamos scandla where Chinese agents were allowed to take sensitive ICBM technology; a scandal that brought up allegations of Clinton accepting campaign contributions from the Chinese in exchange for the technology. This, of course was never proven, and mostly due to the wall erected by Gorelick. And as for a "retreat" from releasing information, it will not deter the terrorists, but it should give them pause; that which they do not know may hurt them the worst.
Innocuous White House press pool reports are now subject to classification, while historians complain of yearlong delays before academic requests are even acknowledged, never mind fulfilled. Environmentalists can't see routine dam and river drainage maps in the name of homeland security. Attempts by firearm agents to keep data on illegal gun traffic from those filing public lawsuits have now been ruled improper twice by the courts.
Damn those courts for not abiding by the ideological bias the times possesses, and I am so sad that enviro-nuts cannot keep track of their favorite waterway. This is a mix-mash of garbage--carping by the Left that boo-hoo, we did not get our way--that is absolutely pathetic.
A turnaround is urgently needed, including penalties for delays, which now can run into years, and an independent watchdog working for the public. Bipartisan interest in reform is stirring, and in an attempt to head off Congressional involvement, President Bush recently ordered better information access at federal agencies. But his order's details are pro forma public relations, at best, and no match for legislation proposed by Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, and Senators John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. They would push the disclosure pendulum back toward center and put muscle back in the law for the public.
Do you not just love how they want teeth put back into the release of data and information from the government, but they refuse to call for investigations into the leaks? And no wonder because to these fools, they believe they were entitled to this information. They believe we, all of us, are entitled to this sort of information. The Times is willing to waste space on their editorial pages with tripe such as this, practically caterwauling that this matters more, yet they do not even understand that they helped in the commission of a crime.
Revealing classified material is a crime. It can be punishable by jail time, and the reporters who revealed this NSA program should be sharing a cell with whoever leaked the story to the Times in the first place. This editorial is the epitome of three important things. Bloggers have taken back the free exchange of ideas, and report the news far better than the MSM is. The Times editorial staff obviously has no clue what they are talking about when it comes to legal matters. And finally, they have just pushed their newspaper down the evolutionary scale.
No longer is this rag even suitable for lining the bottom of the bird-cage.
The Bunny ;)
The editorial below was in today's New York Times. What is worse than this, and the utter ineptitude shown by the Times, is a full page ad comparing Nixon to Bush in terms of wiretapping. They state in the ad that Nixon broke the law and lied to America, just as Bush has done.
Now, the Times has pulled some brain-dead stunts before, but this full page ad takes the cake as we are about to end 2005; it is clear that the battle lines have been drawn between the Leftist media and the administration. The Times has yet to admit the fact that their great "savior" Bill Clinton used taps under FISA, and without warrants. This same fact applies to Jimmy Carter as well, but then again, facts have never stood in the Times' way when it comes to low blows.
The open government law that guaranteed greater freedom of information to the public will soon be 40 years old and desperately in need of legislative overhaul, thanks to the Bush administration. The White House's sweeping enlargement of agency powers has already nearly doubled the rate of newly classified documents to 15 million a year. At the same time, the administration has choked back the annual volume of documents declassified for public access, from 200 million in 1998 to 44 million lately.
Is the Times whining that the administration would like to keep some of it's war on terror programs secret? Or is this a signal that they, too, realize that they are beating a dead dog with this NSA non-story? I am sure that they were especially disheartened with the news of the new Rasmussen poll released yesterday.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.
Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans believe the NSA should be allowed to listen in on conversations between terror suspects and people living in the United States. That view is shared by 51% of Democrats and 57% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
(Hat-Tip: Michelle Malkin) She put this news release up on her site yesterday. That news also proves what I stated above: They are losing the fight on this issue.
At the heart of this thickening veil are direct presidential orders and former Attorney General John Ashcroft's blanket assurance of legal defense to any agency erring on the side of secrecy in sealing off documents. This reversed the Clinton administration's "presumption of disclosure" when it came to public requests. The 9/11 commission has already pointed out that this general retreat from the intent of the law hardly discourages terrorists; in fact, it was the government's internal failure to share information that contributed to that tragedy.
First of all, citing Clinton is not exactly the greatest move. Clinton's failures to engage the terrorists as they relentlessly attacked us and our interests abroad led to 9/11. That was a FACT that the 9/11 Commission refused to address evan as Jamie Gorelick--former Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno--sat on the Commission's panel. Secondly, Clinton's "loose and fast" way of handling sensitive material also reared it's ugly head during the Los Alamos scandla where Chinese agents were allowed to take sensitive ICBM technology; a scandal that brought up allegations of Clinton accepting campaign contributions from the Chinese in exchange for the technology. This, of course was never proven, and mostly due to the wall erected by Gorelick. And as for a "retreat" from releasing information, it will not deter the terrorists, but it should give them pause; that which they do not know may hurt them the worst.
Innocuous White House press pool reports are now subject to classification, while historians complain of yearlong delays before academic requests are even acknowledged, never mind fulfilled. Environmentalists can't see routine dam and river drainage maps in the name of homeland security. Attempts by firearm agents to keep data on illegal gun traffic from those filing public lawsuits have now been ruled improper twice by the courts.
Damn those courts for not abiding by the ideological bias the times possesses, and I am so sad that enviro-nuts cannot keep track of their favorite waterway. This is a mix-mash of garbage--carping by the Left that boo-hoo, we did not get our way--that is absolutely pathetic.
A turnaround is urgently needed, including penalties for delays, which now can run into years, and an independent watchdog working for the public. Bipartisan interest in reform is stirring, and in an attempt to head off Congressional involvement, President Bush recently ordered better information access at federal agencies. But his order's details are pro forma public relations, at best, and no match for legislation proposed by Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, and Senators John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. They would push the disclosure pendulum back toward center and put muscle back in the law for the public.
Do you not just love how they want teeth put back into the release of data and information from the government, but they refuse to call for investigations into the leaks? And no wonder because to these fools, they believe they were entitled to this information. They believe we, all of us, are entitled to this sort of information. The Times is willing to waste space on their editorial pages with tripe such as this, practically caterwauling that this matters more, yet they do not even understand that they helped in the commission of a crime.
Revealing classified material is a crime. It can be punishable by jail time, and the reporters who revealed this NSA program should be sharing a cell with whoever leaked the story to the Times in the first place. This editorial is the epitome of three important things. Bloggers have taken back the free exchange of ideas, and report the news far better than the MSM is. The Times editorial staff obviously has no clue what they are talking about when it comes to legal matters. And finally, they have just pushed their newspaper down the evolutionary scale.
No longer is this rag even suitable for lining the bottom of the bird-cage.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home