"...an army of straw men and a fleet of red herrings."

[kentuck]

The Times is back on the truth wagon this morning!
=====================================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/opinion/02thu2.html

<snip>
In his State of the Union address and in a follow-up speech in Nashville yesterday, Mr. Bush threw out a dizzying array of misleading analogies, propaganda slogans and false choices: Congress authorized the president to spy on Americans and knew all about it ... 9/11 could have been prevented by warrantless spying ... you can't fight terrorism and also obey the law ... and Democrats are not just soft on national defense, they actually don't want to beat Al Qaeda.

"Let me put it to you in Texan," Mr. Bush drawled at the Grand Ole Opry House yesterday. "If Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know."

Yes, and so does every American. But that has nothing to do with Mr. Bush's decision to toss out the Constitution and judicial process by authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant. Let's be clear: the president and his team had the ability to monitor calls by Qaeda operatives into and out of the United States before 9/11 and got even more authority to do it after the attacks. They never needed to resort to extralegal and probably unconstitutional methods.

Mr. Bush said the warrantless spying was vetted by lawyers in the Justice Department, which is cold comfort. They also endorsed the abuse of prisoners and the indefinite detention of "unlawful enemy combatants" without charges or trials.

[ewagner]

1. Just from what you posted

I can't believe the NYT is actually using language this tough..

to which I say:

It's about damned time!

[ourbluenation]

2. k/r

[BlueEyedSon]

3. DOH! A message from anti-bizarro-world!

kicked & rec'd.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Do you suppose people have finally decided,

even at the Times, that Bush has gone too far?

[gratuitous]

5. The Times has tough-talked in the editorials before

But somehow the skepticism of the editorial page never quite makes it into their news reporting, which continues to transcribe every word from the RNC blast faxes without betraying a smidgen of suspicion that it may be something less than true.

[Elidor]

6. How true

But this is just about the closest they've come to calling him a liar.

[gratuitous]

7. Also a tip-off in their statement

That the warrantless spying is "probably" unconstitutional. Uhm, there's no "probably" about it, Times. Read the Fourth Amendment again. Read the FISA laws. There is no independent legal opinion that can be cited or brought to bear on the side of unfettered, warrantless government domestic spying as being constitutional. But there's that "probably" sitting there in the editorial, like a big side door for the lawless Bush administration to sidle out of.

[Jujiman]

8. The Truth Is Bush Spied Before 9-11!

They are STILL LYING!!
SNIP...
Let's be clear: the president and his team had the ability to monitor calls by Qaeda operatives into and out of the United States before 9/11 and got even more authority to do it after the attacks.

They are STILL NOT REPORTING that BUSH SPIED BEFORE 9-11!!!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

Most of the media is complicit in NOT telling the Truth!

:wtf: