Ah, Dear Gentle Reader(s), one must thank the Grey Lady (a.k.a. The New York Times) for its continuing forebearance for the sly dissembling of the right wing punditry in its presentation of essays by one William Kristol.
Today presents an excellent example. Kristol has penned "Democrats Should Read Kipling," in which he extols the virtues of the administration's attempt to amend, and, thus, strengthen the nation's security, the FISA law. Therein, too, oh, by the way, incorporate immunity for past, possibly illegal, actions of certain telecommunications companies.
That is, Kristol extols the virtues of the domestic spying elements of FISA and excoriates the Democratic leaders of the House. He uses Kipling to say that the president and his administration have responsibility for decisions; the House, on the other hand merely has the luxury of obstruction without responsibility. Kristol makes it seem that the Democratic opposition to the proposed bill would be counter to the national security. He doesn't even mention the sticking point retroactive immunity until the penultimate paragraph of the essay. Nor does his point out that the Democratic House leadership is only balking at the immunity provision.
That is a wonderful characteristic of the right wing: obfuscate and hope no one will notice. Mr. Kristol is a grand master of the technique.
Too many charges and counter charges are flying about to get a clear understanding of the brouhaha. One that was raised recently, and is as yet unverified by your writer, DGR(s), is that the government has been tardy in paying its bills, so the telecoms have removed themselves from unfettered cooperation. Further, the telecoms indicate they will no longer cooperate with the government sans a legal order to so do.
One wonders why Mr. Kristol doesn't encourage the telecoms to "do their duty" and provide the unfettered access to our emails and phone calls and faxes, trusting that there will be monies forthcoming. Unless, of course, Mr. Kristol knows that the possibly illegal wiretapping of the administration's past actions are just that--illegal, calling into question the wisdom of his administration cronies which, according to Kipling, "...are obliged to take responsibility..."
Remember, DGR(s), when the right wing was flaying Mr. Clinton for "lying" under oath? When the right wing was calling for "respect for the law?"
Now they're calling for immunity for possible illegal actions--not illegal--possible illegal.
Trust, but verify.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Grey Lady's Mud Room 2.18.08
Posted by Unknown at 6:17 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
The courage of your conviction virtually demands your name, if we don't know you.