Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Glenn did an interview with Helen Thomas a while back and it's interesting to see how, even with Bush's approval numbers in the sewer, along with most of his administration's morals and ethics, nothing has changed amongst our illustrious press corps.
link at sig
Glad I asked. I slunk away yesterday and didn't come back until much later when some twit hacked me off to the extent that my simian fingers took to bangin' on the keyboard of their own volition.
November 14, 2001-“Every day [Hussein’s nuclear sites] turn out a little bit of nuclear materials. Do we wait for Saddam and hope for the best, do we wait and hope he doesn’t do what we know he is capable of . . . or do we take some preemptive action?”-Perle He cited testimony from Dr. Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi defector.
The Stovepipe, by Seymour M. Hersh, October 2003
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/03 [...]
"Prosecution for future crimes"
Interesting how that "Minority Report" concept has tainted the jurisprudence for citizens of the US and the globe.
If one ponders the preemptive, offensive posture the PAct 1&2 codify, there is room to predict all states and nations' people are suspect for potential lawless acts against the laws pertaining to anarchy, insurrection, corporate/economic terrorism, and all the rest of patriot-oriented neurosis.
It's that-- pin the rabble-rousers to the cross, before they knew they were free and innocent advantage.
Is this not the goal of an opinion writer, to win people over to your side? So what is the complaint?
I think the point being made was that the shift in opinion is due to GW no longer being in a powerful position politically, not because Joe klein read this blog and changed his mind.
Secondly, the first citation of Klein you listed was made in 2002, which is before Klein, as well as most people, knew what was going on in Abu Graib, so how should he be held to account for developing an opinion based on the available facts?
in 2002, Saddam was in control of "Abu Graib". Most people knew what was goig on there then, and it had nothing to do with US treatment of detainess at Guantanamo.
...since many here would not agree that since Arab rockets killed [arbitrary number I assume] 20 Israelis, then it's OK to TORTURE to DEATH 20 Arabs? Do my eyes deceive me?
I'm sorry, but that thing isn't human. Can't be.
that justice need not be pursued; the administration should allow the establishment of special prosecutors in the matters of torture and the TSP. Beyond this (and considerably easier for the new administration), the government should drop it's opposition to civil suits by victims such as Maher Arar which are already in the courts.
The WH press room has ceased to have any useful function as a daily source of information useful to reporting. The media would better spend their time taking their laptops to a starbucks and browse for something actually useful. If they needed a WH statement, just go to the WH website and download.
Dear Glenn,
If you have not already seen it, Fred Barnes has an article on The Weekly Standard website that quotes approvingly Cheney's defense of the lack of transparency in the policy making processes of which he was a central part, especially as they relate to enhancing the power of the presidency to decide how to treat suspected terrorists. What is particularly striking about Barnes' article is that it is framed in terms of whether Cheney felt personally attacked by the criticisms he has received for his role in shaping policy. For example, consider this excerpt from the article:
"Cheney was reminded that during the campaign last fall Biden had called him a "dangerous." Cheney grinned. "I didn't take personally," he said." (errors are from the article)
What Cheney (and Barnes, apparently) fails to even consider is that Biden's remarks were aimed at the office of the VP, not the particular person occupying the office. The failure to note the distinction is symptomatic of the growing tendency not to think of our leaders in legal terms, terms which define the powers of people in their role as government officials, but in terms of personalities who may or may not be offended. As you have written about time and time again, one effect of this tendency is to trade questions over legal authority and responsibility for questions about what kind of person occupies the office. A consequence is that people draw the conclusion that Bush, Cheney, etc. should not be held accountable from the premise that they did what they did out of good intentions. The inference is a non-sequiter, but one people are more inclined to make when assessments of personal character--rather than legal authority--become the basis for deciding questions of responsibility and punishment of government officials
Thanks.
And a belated Happy New Year.
Oh, all right. I forgive you.
Jewish? About as Jewish as a blueberry bagel.
Surely Liberal Uber Alles' (I mean Electro's) post at 10:23 merits deletion in spite of it being O/T.-- ethics_professor
Although the post was apparently deleted, I disagree.
That single post demonstrated perfectly the complete and total lack of legitimate argument that many, if not all, of our beloved trolls and other rightwing shills have in their support of the Bush/Cheney reign of terror on the world.
Had that post lead to a breakdown of the continuity of the thread, perhaps a case could be made for deleting it but it didn't because it didn't generate the expected response.
If, in fact, it was made by someone with a history of spamming the board with nothing but inane degenerate comments, Electro or Thrasher for instance, then deleting would be appropriate but the infantile language of the post itself, should not be cause for deletion simply because that type of post is educational.
jebbie @ gaggleThe WH press room has ceased to have any useful function as a daily source of information useful to reporting. The media would better spend their time taking their laptops to a starbucks and browse for something actually useful. If they needed a WH statement, just go to the WH website and download.
-- casual_observer
Which is precisely why journalists need to take a step back and realize why the WH Press Room has devolved into a meaningless excercise in the advance of futility.
Taking WH press releases and advancing them as "news" isn't journalism, it's stenography. An aggressive press corps in the Helen Thomas mold would be a boon to both the profession of journalism and the country as a whole. Our political leadership NEEDS to be asked unscripted questions and a good place to start is the WH Press Room.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
