[Rushtalk] New York Times editorial board says administration has 'lost all credibility

Paf Dvorak notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
Sat Jun 22 12:39:39 MDT 2013


At 10:16 AM 6/21/2013 -0700, Carl Spitzer wrote:
>Amazing their shills are no longer willing to take a dive for the cause.
>CWSIV

Well at least he's still black.


>
>New York Times editorial board says administration has 'lost all credibility'
>
>
>
>Published June 06, 2013
>
>FoxNews.com
>
>ny-times-building-660-AP.jpg
>   The New York Times building is shown in New York. (AP)
>
>
>The New York Times editorial board, which twice endorsed President 
>Obama and has championed many planks of his agenda, on Thursday 
>turned on the president over the government's mass collection of 
>phone data -- saying the administration has "lost all credibility."
>
>The grey lady's editorial section lately has shown frustration with 
>the administration's civil liberties record. It has criticized the 
>escalation of the lethal drone program, and it lashed out after the 
>Justice Department acknowledged seizing reporters' phone records last month.
>
>The report that the National Security Agency has been collecting 
>phone records from millions of Verizon subscribers appeared to be 
>the last straw.
>
><http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?_r=0>An 
>editorial published late Thursday
>[]
> said the administration was using the "same platitude" it uses in 
> every case of overreach -- that "terrorists are a real menace and 
> you should just trust us."
>
>The editorial continued: "Those reassurances have never been 
>persuasive -- whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency's 
>phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of 
>terrorism -- especially coming from a president who once promised 
>transparency and accountability. The administration has now lost all 
>credibility."
>
>The editorial board claimed Obama "is proving the truism that the 
>executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it."
>
>The language was a far cry from the Times' 
><http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?pagewanted=1>Oct<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?pagewanted=1>. 
>23, 2008, endorsement
>[]
> of then-candidate Obama. At the time, the Times praised Obama's 
> "cool head and sound judgment," and said he was "putting real flesh 
> on his early promises of hope and change."
>
>Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle voiced concern on Thursday 
>about the records collection effort. It was first reported by The 
>Guardian newspaper, which obtained a copy of a secret court order 
>allowing the government to collect phone call information - though 
>not monitor the calls themselves -- directly from Verizon. Civil 
>liberties-conscious lawmakers like Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., and 
>Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., cried foul, as did the American Civil Liberties Union.
>
>Lawmakers in the loop on the program tried to assuage concerns, 
>however. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, 
>R-Ga., who lead the Senate intelligence committee, defended the 
>program as necessary to keep the country safe.
>
>White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest also said there is 
>"extensive oversight" on such activity.
>
>"The order reprinted overnight does not allow the government to 
>listen in on anyone's telephone calls. The information acquired does 
>not include the content of any communications or the name of any 
>subscriber. It relates exclusively to call details, such as a 
>telephone number or the length of a telephone call," he said.
>
>The Times editorial described this explanation as "lame" -- "as 
>though there would be the slightest difficulty in matching numbers to names."
>
>"Essentially, the administration is saying that without any 
>individual suspicion of wrongdoing, the government is allowed to 
>know who Americans are calling every time they make a phone call, 
>for how long they talk and from where," the Times editorial board wrote.
>
>The Times editorial board has long opposed The Patriot Act, which 
>was the legal basis for the records collection, and reiterated that 
>opposition in light of the latest revelations.
>
>But the law's author, Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said Thursday 
>that this application of the law was "never the intent."
>
>
>
>
>Read more: 
><http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/06/new-york-times-editorial-board-says-administration-has-lost-all-credibility/>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/06/new-york-times-editorial-board-says-administration-has-lost-all-credibility/
>
>
>--
>ObombA did not win erection, Trotskite RINO Mitt Romney threw the
>election.  -- Rush Limbaugh
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com
>http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130622/e9825868/attachment-0002.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ebd8c71.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 320694 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130622/e9825868/attachment-0001.jpg 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ebd8c90.png
Type: image/png
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130622/e9825868/attachment-0001.png 
-------------- next part --------------
Paf Dvorak

<http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130622/e9825868/attachment-0003.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list