Thursday, June 29, 2006

Condemn the NY Times NOW? Gimme an effing break.

This latest charade of feigned outrage by Bush, Frist and the rest of the jackass Republicans in Congress who are seeking to formally condemn the NY Times for its reporting of a secret program which monitored bank records is just beyond petty and stupid.  Now, I don't know too much detail about this program, but even Jon Stewart didn't seem to think it was all that bad last night.

But that isn't really my point.  There is still (in theory) such a thing as freedom of the press in this country.  Yes, it is still there, and hasn't been repealed yet, even though it (1) isn't exercised responsibly and (2) has basically been turned into a mouthpiece for the Republican agenda of crimes, cronyism and corruption.  

And if you want to get all sanctimonious and start with your "condemnations", well glass house dwellers, maybe you should put your damn stones away.

And this is now, what, the third time that we have to hear the blowhards in this administration as well as Congress talk about how the NY Times (and other reporters) violated laws and ruined national security by DARING to expose the illegal wiretapping of US citizens' conversations, or by printing an Op-Ed by Joseph Wilson calling bullshit on Cheney, or by doing something as horrific as not toeing the Republican Party line.

There are threats of arresting reporters for printing stories that We the People have every right to know about.  Arresting reporters for daring to expose lies and crimes.  For exposing secret programs and torture, regardless of how long they were good little reporters and sat on the story for the benefit of the Republicans.  

But what about the bang-up job that the NY Times, and Judy Miller more specifically, did in the run up to the Iraq invasion?  Shouldn't they be condemned for actually covering up lies and holding back on truthful stories and facts which quite possibly would have kept our brave soldiers out of Iraq in the first place?

Oh, I know they won't be.  That they were shills for the neocons.  That Judy may have been more than "just a reporter".  But frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about any of that.  Let's call it how it is.  This fascist "government" of ours is so quick to kiss the feet of the same publication that kept stories about national security leaks and damage by top administration officials - hell, they hid their fucking complicity in this leak.  That they held off on reporting the lies about aluminum tubes "only being able to be used for nuclear purposes" when that was debunked by just about everyone.

The same war criminals had the warm and fuzzies for the NY Times when it printed all of the Judy Miller lies, I mean "stories" about Saddam and how Iraq was "gonna git us if we don't kill `em first".  And the neocon crooks were just peachy with the NY Times protecting Judy Miller in jail to save their asses (at least most of their asses).

Yeah, all that was just fine and dandy.  Protecting crimes, covering up evidence that would save this country and Iraq from destruction, death, disease, financial ruin, burying stories at the request of the administration or just ignoring many many many of the crimes and illegal acts by members of the administration gets you applause.  Not reporting on the damage that this administration's policies are causing to the working class, to the lower class, to the environment - that is a good thing.

And while we are at it, how about the excellent coverage of the 2004 election "discrepancies"?  Or the going along with the swiftboating of John Kerry?  Or the questioning of the WMDs that nobody could find but Bush and Cheney "were sure are there"?  Or ignoring the fact that the only "proof" of WMDs in Iraq was from a irresponsible and unreliable drunk known as "Curveball", where there was much evidence to the contrary?  Or singing the praises of the PATRIOT act instead of doing their job and questioning the motives?  What about not reporting about the illegal firebombing of Fallujah with white phosphorus?  

Oh, we can't forget how some of the stories that the NY Times actually DID print were stories that they knew about before the 2004 election and sat on them for nearly a year before finally reporting them.  Hmmmm, sitting on stories that would most likely have ensured a new President and a Democratic Congress in 2004.  

No, no, no - all of that is worthy of a Pulitzer.  But lordie, lordie, if they actually do their damn job and call bullshit on things that shouldn't be done, or that are flat out illegal then we need to stop everything in Congress and issue a formal condemnation of those who are actually doing their jobs for once.

Gimme a fucking break already.  Just shut the hell up.  Although by doing this, I guess that Congress isn't focusing on more tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy and tax credits to corporate donors.....

No comments: