Surprise! Paper Of Record Not Particularly Concerned With Obama Drone Strike Policy
If there’s one major media outlet those on the Left go to for news and opinion, it would be the NY Times. The same NY Times that excoriated Bush for, well, everything he did. In this case, we’re talking about going after Islamist terrorists. We all remember the hysteria regarding Abu Ghraid. The constant drumbeat about waterboarding. Playing scary music at Gitmo. You name the Bush policy, they attacked it. Yet, here we have Obama’s drone strike policy, and they’re not particularly concerned, and at best mildly chide Obama for not being more forthcoming
It actually takes the NY Times Editorial Board four paragraphs before they even mention Obama’s name, then in the 5th
For years, Mr. Obama has stretched executive power to claim that the 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda gives him the unilateral authority to order people, including American citizens, killed away from any battlefield without judicial oversight or public accountability. He took a step in the right direction on Wednesday when he directed the Justice Department to give Congressional committees its classified legal advice on targeting Americans.
Anyone else get the feeling that the EdBoard got a tingling up their legs over what Obama directed the DOJ to do?
Officials say they only target belligerents covered by the 2001 legislation, but the public has no way of knowing under what criteria these targets are chosen. Nor does it know, absent publicly stated rules, how the 2001 law would be interpreted by future presidents. The confirmation hearing provides an opportunity for Mr. Brennan to explain his view on whether there is any check on presidential decision-making, especially when American citizens are targeted, and whether targeted killings are creating more militants than they are eliminating.
Mild wrist slap. We all remember how the Left discussed BCTs, Bush Created Terrorists, claiming that because President Bush dared to fight back against the group that attack the United States and killed 3,000 people he was creating more terrorists. Interestingly, the Fish Wrap EdBoard wants to leave it up to Brennan, rather than asking Obama himself.
After that, the biggest thing the Times offers is what they think the rules should be. That’s it. Nothing else. No condemnation for the strikes which can specifically target Americans abroad who have joined a terrorist group.
The only other article featured on the opinion pages is by Juliet Lapidos which points out that if we look back at Obama’s own words we see that his policy is “detain? No. Kill? Yes.”
The Washington Post also goes squishy on Obama’s policy, when they would have assaulted Bush. LA Times? Nothing. And, really, most media outlets and quite a bit of the liberal interest groups, pundits, and bloggers tend to put the program on Brennan’s shoulders, without implicating Obama as The Boss, while the same people would have directly Blamed Bush for the actions of low level military member.
It took a lot of guts to do what this young man did. They also offered him 20k in hush money. Fabulous. The proof in my opinion here is that...Read More
NoisyRoom.net Guess who’s meeting with our new BFF, Cuba? Russia. Moscow’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu had an intimate and cozy
This is the most simple of things: approve or disapprove the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama put off any decision for
Well, it’s certainly better off not having a president who sexually harasses women, was credibly accused of rape, impeached for