Saturday, December 24, 2005
But More Typical of the Times and the MSM
Congressional leaders told of W's lawbreaking and most acquiesced, to some degree or another.
Water carrying at it's most typical. At least they had the decency at the Times not to run such a scummy piece on the front page.
Of course, as it's water carrying, not journalism as we understand it, a couple distortions render the piece pretty meaningless other than the fact that this piece of @$$ licking was published.
First, most of the leaders are Republicans. So what does anyone expect from the Kool-Aid drinking goose-steppers? Principled dissent? Or for that matter, from the minority party? Like their opinions mattered? What did the reporter want the Dems to do?
Second, the article is not discussing a law that authorized W's impeachable lawbreaking and dishonoring of the Constitution and our system of law. It regards notification to Congress of an Administration fiat.
So a misreported article that muddies an issue.
Or maybe the reporter is a member of the secret legion of undercover lobbyists??
Water carrying at it's most typical. At least they had the decency at the Times not to run such a scummy piece on the front page.
Of course, as it's water carrying, not journalism as we understand it, a couple distortions render the piece pretty meaningless other than the fact that this piece of @$$ licking was published.
First, most of the leaders are Republicans. So what does anyone expect from the Kool-Aid drinking goose-steppers? Principled dissent? Or for that matter, from the minority party? Like their opinions mattered? What did the reporter want the Dems to do?
Second, the article is not discussing a law that authorized W's impeachable lawbreaking and dishonoring of the Constitution and our system of law. It regards notification to Congress of an Administration fiat.
So a misreported article that muddies an issue.
Or maybe the reporter is a member of the secret legion of undercover lobbyists??
Website Counters
