DeMediacratic Nation: The Times; Afraid of Fearing the Right Thing to Fear

“why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?” – The New York ~~behind the~~ Times Editors

The NY Times editorial board is getting really angry with the Democrats, as are the Kos-mynauts; forget about Bush, oh yeah they hate him, but the Dems are really letting them down. This morning’s editorial is rife with misunderstanding and msm, Leftist “fear mongering;” the fear mongering that they are best at. There is so much to pick and pull apart that I chose to pick one paragraph only to look at; the boards logic and line of thought is mentally exhausting:

“But the problem with Congress last week was that Democrats were afraid to explain to Americans why the White House bill was so bad and so unnecessary — despite what the White House was claiming. There are good answers, if Democrats are willing to address voters as adults. To start, they should explain that — even if it were a good idea, and it’s not — the government does not have the capability to sort through billions of bits of electronic communication. And the larger question: why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?”

“…if Democrats are willing to address voters as adults,” Democrats do not know how to treat “voters” as adults as they rarely act like adults themselves. As for the Times, this spoon feeding editorial as with most of them is not speaking to adults as much as it is speaking to the immature child in all of us; leading child of course being the “board.”

In this one paragraph the board appears to treat the technical issue, “the government does not have the capability to sort through billions of bits of electronic communication,” as though like “immigration” it doesn’t have the man power. These “billions of bits” are not something physical that someone will “listen” too, but would in one instance identify whether the data was a domestic call rather than terrorist to terrorist in nature; one of the many pieces that will help protect against the “spying” on Americans the board is so concerned about.

Further and again, in this paragraph alone:

“And the larger question: why, six years after 9/11, is this sort of fishing expedition the supposed first line of defense in the war on terrorism?”

The board is comprised of completely clueless individuals or it is just so cynically disingenuous that it is blinded to the most basic elements of security and the need for data to sort or sift through; what don’t they get? This “larger question” is quite possibly the most stupid question I have ever heard and reveals the utter lack of understanding of their chosen subject to whine about.

A few weeks back the NIE was released; a commonsense reaction to it and to me an example of how bad the Times (and msm in general) is at reporting and is available at TCSDaily and written by Pejman Yousefzadeh. If this is how the reporting goes, why should I expect anything better from the Board?

From “Unintelligent Intelligence”:

“It may be that for different people, different parts of the NIE stick out. The part that stuck out for me was the reference to the fact that AQI was "the most visible and capable affiliate" of al Qaeda and that al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is "the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland." Contra the Times story, of course, nowhere in the NIE does it say that the war in Iraq "spawned" al Qaeda. Even if you want to argue that the war in Iraq did spawn AQI, you cannot say--as the Times did--that the NIE makes such an assertion. Indeed, nothing even resembling that comment appears in the NIE. Curiously enough, the Times story completely downplays language in the NIE discussing how al Qaeda's efforts have been curbed . . . while—again—making up claims about how the NIE says the Iraq war "spawned" AQI. Apparently, writers at the Times don't think that the rest of us can actually get access to and read the NIE.”

Also of interest should be “FISA: Don’t Mend It, End It” from Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO; again, does the NYTimes have a clue?:

“We should be equally affronted by the hypocrisy of congressional Democrats and the leftwing commentariat. It’s not national security or the “rule of law” they care about. It’s politics — plain, simple, and brass-knuckled. The calculation: If George W. Bush can be hurt a polling point or two (yes, there’s still room to go down) by posturing over law-breaking, it’s okay to roll the dice with our lives.”

“For nearly two years since the New York Times blew the NSA’s warrantless-surveillance program, the Left has transfigured itself into a whirling dervish of indignation over President Bush’s imperious trampling of “the rule of law.” Why? Because he failed to comply with the letter of FISA, which purports in certain instances to require the chief executive — the only elected official in the United States responsible for protecting our nation from foreign threats — to seek permission from a federal judge before monitoring international enemy communications into or out of the United States.”

Lastly, "Right is Right" had some interesting words yesterday on this very subject, not the Times but the MSM/Dem/Leftist lack..."Granting the President Power"

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8568572921329842857

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -