When the Bush administration began I didn’t have much faith that they would make good decisions but I never expected to see the editorial board of the New York Times become so unflinchingly vituperative in response. They see the president’s lawbreaking on domestic surveillance as criminal, and they sound like the political blogosphere in denouncing it.
Finally, Mr. Bush said it was vital to national security to give amnesty to any company that turned over data on Americans without a court order. The purpose of this amnesty is not to protect national secrets — that could be done during a trial — but to make sure that the full damage to Americans’ civil liberties is never revealed. Mr. Bush also objects to a provision that would create a committee to examine his warrantless spying program.
Mr. Bush wanted the House to approve the Senate’s version of the bill, which includes Mr. Bush’s amnesty and does not do nearly as good a job of preserving Americans’ rights. We were glad the House ignored his bluster. If the Senate cannot summon the courage and good sense to follow suit, there is no rush to pass a law.
The president will continue to claim the country is in grave danger over this issue, but it is not. The real danger is for Mr. Bush. A good law — like the House bill — would allow Americans to finally see the breathtaking extent of his lawless behavior.
After eight year of the administration, the Times is blunt and unafraid in its condemnation. If only they had taken that attitude from the moment it became obvious that it was appropriate.
“After eight year of the administration, the Times is blunt and unafraid in its condemnation. If only they had taken that attitude from the moment it became obvious that it was appropriate.”
That would be going back to the run up to the 2000 election when the Republicans were purging voter rolls and rigging voting machines without complaint from the Democrats.
Yes, gratifying to read. The NYT can smell a lame (REALLY lame) duck as well as the scent of blood in the water. Just wish they had found their indignation and journalistic objectivity a year into the beginning of Bush’s tenure instead of (in the case of this editorial) a year from the end of it.
Trying to change the rules after they’ve been broken? Now where have I heard that before…
I get very little solace in the fact the Times has suddenly had an epiphany that what this administration has done since its inception is conduct itself in a chronic and consciously lawless manner. While it is refreshing to see commentary such as this in a major news publication, the fact of the matter is this conduct has been out there for all to see since the very beginning. But media outlets such as the Times have chosen, for the most part, to ignore it. Or worse yet, contribute to the narratives that the administration has constructed which have given cover for everything that has gone on.
So I take their newfound vituperative language and their tut-tutting about the illegal activities of the Bush administration to just be so much arrogant Monday-morning quarterbacking bullshit. As far as I’m concerned, the Times makes a good bird cage liner. That’s about it. They have totally betrayed their charter as a journalistic publication by their actions and conduct for the last seven plus years. It’s going to take a hell of a lot more than an opinion piece done in hindsight to restore their credibility.
That’s right.
The NYT is suddenly speaking out now that it’s somewhat acceptable to point out this administration’s flaws. (which is sort of like pointing out the iceberg 30 seconds before the Titanic hit it…)
It’s stunning and saddening to see how the NYT seemingly bends its reporting and editorializing to fit what some FOX News opinion poll finds tolerable.
>>The purpose of this amnesty is not to protect national secrets — that could be done during a trial — but to make sure that the full damage to Americans’ civil liberties is never revealed.
Yes, that’s it. The amnesty is hardly about the ‘what’ – it’s almost entirely about the ‘how’ and the ‘why.’
The ‘how’ and the ‘why’ are what Americans deserve to know, and the president has no right to hide.
While it is nice to see The NYT finally speak out against this blatant lawbreaking by the Bush Administration, I can’t help but recall the original story (from the NYT) revealing the existence of this “program” that they delayed publishing for a year AFTER he was re-elected. They had the story before the 2004 election, but caved to the administration’s arguments that it would harm national security. In reality, it would have caused Bush to lose his re-election attempt.
So this late condemnation of the Bush Administration does little toward giving us the last four years back.
I’m so jaded at this point that I think it’s more than likely that the NYT has lost incentive to enable Bush. The question is; who high up the NYT food chain bailed on Bush and why?