Comments on: Et tu, NY Times?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 23 May 2013 15:05:32 +0000

Many people don’t want to see. It’s too much work to fight an enemy once you see them. They pretend such does not exist.

They’re like a soldier putting on a blindfold and doing spray and pray in order to kill all the insurgents in a village. So long as he has ammo, he thinks he’ll win. Let’s just ignore the fact that without seeing the enemy, attacking or defending anything is pretty random.

By: George W.

George W. — Thu, 23 May 2013 14:04:27 +0000

A follow-up to my note above:

Don’t Criminalize the Investigations. Immunize the Witnesses!
by Michael Ledeen
May 22nd, 2013 – 9:11 pm

“Keep your eye on the mission, which is to save us from an ambitious tyranny. We cannot accomplish this life-and-death task if we turn it over to the lawyers. It’s a political mission, not a law enforcement roundup. We need to know, in detail, what happened. We have to know the details, which will, if we are good, enable us to dismantle an enormously ambitious attempt to change America in precisely the way Alexis de Tocqueville predicted. …”

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2013/05/22/dont-criminalize-the-investigations-immunize-the-witnesses/

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Thu, 23 May 2013 01:31:30 +0000

This theater of death and evil continues on I see.

We long ago passed the point of no return, so we might as well ride this death train to the end, one way or another.

By: George W.

George W. — Thu, 23 May 2013 01:10:45 +0000

Andrew McCarthy at National Review argues against a special counsel. He says that the IRS scandal is primarily a political problem (our tax laws have created “a perversely complex regulatory framework that gives the IRS … enormous discretionary power to discriminate and intimidate”).

We need full public disclosure, not a legal process which will will be shrouded in secrecy for a long time until an airtight case is built. How long will that take? Much of the rest of Obama’s second term? No wonder liberals want a special prosecutor.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348982/no-special-counsel-irs-scandal-andrew-c-mccarthy

By: southpaw

southpaw — Thu, 23 May 2013 00:15:49 +0000

Neo- I definitely do miss a column here and there.
As Ann and you both put it, the USA article sounds confused. Besides that, I think her argument is a straw man- nobody is attacking liberalism for scandals. They’re blaming the democrat party and the media and Obama for being corrupt and abusing power for it’s own end. I agree that liberalism should be on the side of liberty, but that isn’t what the modern democrat party embraces. They use government programs to acquire and maintain power for the sake of power. I also agree a true liberal (as i understand the original meaning) would be outraged at the abuse of government power, the intrusion and intimidation of free speech and so on. To that end, the modern day democratic voter doesn’t care about those things in the broader sense that those rights apply to all of us- they only apply to democrats. So I think she is arguing on behalf of ideals and values that only a very small percentage of her party practice or acknowledge.
On the Weiner thing- I thought she had more class. Now that she has that experience on her hands- if Eric Holder and Anthony Weiner run on the same ticket- she’s got a right to the job the Weiner-Holder ticket could have a woman on it.

By: Lizzy

Lizzy — Wed, 22 May 2013 23:09:51 +0000

Neo – I read Keller’s piece and was quickly reminded why I haven’t read an NYT editorial or opinion column in a while. He’s loaded this plea for a special prosecutor with so much wiggle room (“determine if what happened was criminal, or just dumb”) and so often dismisses its importance that the message seems to be: oh, just do it to shut the Republicans up and end all of this scandal distraction.
I do wonder if Keller stepped back from participating in the more critical editorial on investigating the press because of his past involvement in these national security scoops. He may no longer be Executive Editor, but he was during the early part of Obama’s presidency, and as the AP & Rosen subpoenas show, the DOJ likes to cast a wide net.

By: OlderandWheezier

OlderandWheezier — Wed, 22 May 2013 22:46:57 +0000

Powers once was romantically involved with Weiner. Falling for someone like that? Confused is too kind a word..

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Wed, 22 May 2013 21:06:37 +0000

Lizzy: Yes, since the Times has built a lot of its reputation on publishing security leaks, I would think Keller would be much more concerned about the AP and Rosen. But note that the Times had a big editorial about that today, so maybe that's the way it's being handled, and Keller is taking on the IRS thing, which is being handled in a milder way. You'll see what I mean if you compare his piece to the editorial.

By: Lizzy

Lizzy — Wed, 22 May 2013 21:01:07 +0000

It was the NYT that repeatedly published national security info during the Bush presidency that damaged intelligence-gathering capabilities (i.e. the terrorist finance tracking program). Keller himself has recounted meeting with Bush where he was asked to sit on a story and he chose not to. Interesting that Keller is more interested in the IRS leaks given the likely vulnerability of his own reporters like James Risen.
I’ll remain skeptical on this for now.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Wed, 22 May 2013 20:59:11 +0000

Ann: she sounds confused because I think she is. It’s a confusing experience to have your fundamental beliefs shaken. People tend to rationalize and defend them for quite some time—sometimes for the rest of their lives.