NYT Sees Shark, Jumps Same
This is the most clearcut, open admission of the New York Times utter and complete bias that they could possibly come up with. The first paragraph says it all:
It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration’s response to the terror attacks is becoming clear. Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power.
This just floors me. Literally puking up the farthest of the far left's talking points and stating them as pure fact. One could point out that what the NYT sees as "expanding presidential power" could just as easily be argued as "reclaiming powers improperly grabbed by Congress". But that argument would fall on deaf ears, for the gray lady is completely senile at this point.
Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.
One result has been a frayed democratic fabric in a country founded on a constitutional system of checks and balances. Another has been a less effective war on terror.
Nothing about the NYT's complicity in exposing legal programs with proper, even excessive, oversight. Nothing about a newspaper that thinks it's proper to publish pictures of Iraqi gunmen trying to kill Americans. Nothing about the incessant attempts by the NYT to undermine the administration and morale both here and among our troops.
This entire editorial stinks like a week old fish left lying in the sun.
Keller gone by the end of summer. Pinch gone at the next shareholder's meeting. And this editorial alone should be enough to drop the NYT circulation figure by another couple percentage points.
Other Links to this Post
-
Sister Toldjah — July 16, 2006 @ 9:37 am
-
Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Our Treasonous New York Times — July 16, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
By eLarson, July 16, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden
It shows for certain that the NYT can’t see beyond Osama bin Laden. I suspect if OBL were to turn up dead, the NYT would declare victory and wonder why it all didn’t end right there.
By crosspatch, July 16, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Next shareholders meeting is probably next spring. Accuracy in Media reported on the last meeting and it is included in their June A report.