The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
I know this will surprise precisely none of you but here are the first two paragraphs from an editorial by the New York Times on July 26, 2007, headlined "Defying the Imperial Presidency":
The House Judiciary Committee did its duty yesterday, voting to cite Harriet Miers, the former White House counsel, and Joshua Bolten, the White House chief of staff, for contempt. The Bush administration has been acting lawlessly in refusing to hand over information that Congress needs to carry out its responsibility to oversee the executive branch and investigate its actions when needed. If the White House continues its obstruction, Congress should use all of the contempt powers at its disposal.
The committee really had no choice but to hold Ms. Miers in contempt. When she was subpoenaed to testify about the administration’s possibly illegal purge of nine United States attorneys, she simply refused to show up, citing executive privilege. Invoking privilege in response to particular questions might have been warranted — the courts could have decided that later. But simply flouting a Congressional subpoena is not an option.
And here are the first two graphs of their editorial today, called "A Pointless Partisan Fight":
The political feud between the White House and Congressional Republicans has now culminated in a House oversight committee vote to cite Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for criminal contempt. His supposed crime is failing to hand over some documents in an investigation of a botched gunrunning sting operation known as “Fast and Furious.”
The Republicans shamelessly turned what should be a routine matter into a pointless constitutional confrontation. And the White House responded as most administrations do at some point: it invoked executive privilege to make a political problem go away.
I know I should be disgusted to see such hypocrisy, but I'm almost just impressed that they can do it with a straight face.
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Consider the value of the NYT: When it support an inconvenient position, you can link liberals and they can't hand wave it away.
Jul '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Fred Cole
Consider the value of the NYT: When it support an inconvenient position, you can link liberals and they can't hand wave it away. · 24 minutes ago
Just preface the quotes with,"Here's what the deluded are saying..."
Or maybe,"More manipulative lies from the NYT..."
Nov '11
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
You should read the "straight news" pieces that Eric Holder's bootlicker Charlie Savage writes. They're way more offensive than this stupidity.
Sep '10
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
This is the top for double standards. The absolute top.
Jun '12
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
Mollie: ... I know I should be disgusted to see such hypocrisy, but I'm almost just impressed that they can do it with a straight face.
I dunno, does a malicious sneer count as a straight face? Just wonderin'.
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
gnarlydad: Mollie: ... I know I should be disgusted to see such hypocrisy, but I'm almost just impressed that they can do it with a straight face.
I dunno, does a malicious sneer count as a straight face? Just wonderin'. · 5 hours ago
That's kind of how I felt. Not angry, just impressed.
Aug '10
Re: The Hypocrisy Of The New York Times
"The 'right' wrong thing." Perfectly said.