By John Burtis
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Hush, now, The New York Times has just announced that the attorneys representing terror suspects hailing from Oregon, Florida, Virginia, and Ohio will now challenge, or sue or whatever, the President of the United States over his use of the NSa to monitor their clients' conversations. Clients who are, according to the Times' own story, tied to al-Qaeda. The Times then goes on to question why these particular men might have been "singled out."
Pardon me if I turn off my bleeding heart and and wonder first of all who's running the paper and then question the legal acumen of the defense attorneys.
Who is running the paper? The same guys that brought the story that claimed John Roberts wrote the notoriously anti-Semitic screed, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, while employed at the Reagan White House. Boy, that was a howler, especially so since anybody who took college history can lay that bit of doggerel at the feet of the Russian secret police in say, oh, about 1903. Of course it took a few days for the vaunted Times to get a handle on that bit editorial lack of oversight. But the Times let it ride for awhile, praying for damage, hoping the smear might stick.
The NSa leak article is written by an author who's tied to a book release, published by Simon & Schuster, a Times subsidiary. Then, of course, The Times also speaks of Yasser arafat's charisma and the utter "piety" of the wretched murderers in Hamas. and the The Times has gone out of their way to put the kibosh on the economy, over and over again, despite its continued growth. and there is no deficiency of irresponsible bias in the coverage of President Bush.
These stories, the numerous charges and firings for plagiarism, and stories made up from whole cloth alone tell you who runs the paper and why.
What? Clients tied to al-Qaeda? Singled out?
Why wouldn't the President of these United States, if he's in his right mind, not single out dudes of a like kind for some sort of surveillance, including their phone calls and e-mails to like-minded al-Qaeda guys back in al-Qaeda land? From my way of thinking, the impeachable offense is not listening in to these fellows when they have been identified, especially the ones named Muhammed, who seem to always be the trigger men in the major capers. and with al-Qaeda linked piracy on the high seas, roadside bombs, attacks in London and Spain, threats to the Brooklyn Bridge, rocket attacks on US ships, threats to use biological and nuclear weapons, he'd better damn well continue to do so.
as for the legal eagles, what else can they do but sue. They've got bums for clients, all of whom belong to or are associated with an ongoing criminal enterprise, al-Qaeda, and they've been fingered by other members, their own actions and phone calls. I think they'd have a bit better case if they could show a membership roster with a few O'Neills or a Smith, maybe a Johnson or Williams in the mix, but it always seems to be full of, like that proverbial e-mail I get every few days, middle eastern males, between 18 and 45.
But the big question remains, when will the Democrats jump on the lawyers' band-wagon and begin to support their "clients'" rights? Here are the prima facie cases, fresh for the plucking, where the dreaded and lawless Bush has directly trampled on common folks' rights. Right here. Poor simple folk who are simply tied to al-Qaeda and have been "singled out" for this affiliation. Here, at last, are the true victims of 9/11.
How soon will Harry Reid mount a rostrum to decry their treatment? When will Ted Kennedy demand their release? When will that infamous "Winter Soldier", John Kerry, recalling his own involvement in the most heinous of fictive atrocities, impetrate for hearings on their behalf, and drag out all manner of charlatans and mountebanks to lie again under oath in their defense? When will these political heavyweights be joined in their hour of decision by The NY Times? at what point will Hillary Clinton eschew that La-Z-Boy recliner on the fence and pick a side? How rapidly and with which turns of phrase will al-Zawahiri parrot these solons and their newspaper of record in his next orotund pronouncement?
In the ongoing parody of the old abbott and Costello routine of, "Who's on first," which we are forced to endure like a seemingly endless round of cricket, The New York Times, the Democratic party, and al-Qaeda all scramble to get the same hackneyed messages out through all the old channels, newspapers and magazines. and in doing so their open alliance becomes as obvious as does their common rhetoric.
and when that wiley old fox Saddam Hussein begins to pantomime the Democratic playbook from the Iraqi dock, right down to his alleged torture at the hands of his american captors, including being bombarded with Neil Diamond songs played at high volume, he's playing to the crowd at The New York Times and its captive political audience.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement