While reading the Friday Patriot post I came across this entry having to do with those traitors over at a place called the New York Times.That’s right, the people that like leaking classified material that gets Americans killed. Now that their Crowned Prince is going to have to actually do something other than rant about change they seem to have remembered civic responsibility. Too little, and way to late is the phrase that comes to my mind.
Read All About It! New York Times Gets Religion! — After six years of leading the charge in slandering the Bush administration as torturers, after equating Guantanamo Bay to a modern-day Buchenwald, after bemoaning that the detainees in Gitmo didn’t have access to all the rights and privileges of a defendant in civil court, the Times suddenly realized that there just might be some very dangerous people in Gitmo. Now the Times’ Chosen One is president-elect, and come January, he will face all these problems and more. Suddenly, it’s “sobering intelligence claims against many of the detainees” and “tough choices in deciding how many of Guantanamo’s hard cases should be sent home.” Indeed. How far the erstwhile “Newspaper of Record” has fallen — it took them six long years to admit this basic truth. And they wonder why their readership is drying up.
Guantanamo Bay is just the tip of the iceberg of serious national security issues that Barack Obama will find staring at him starting in January. The day he takes office, all his pandering remarks over the last two years that were aimed at placating the moonbats will collide with the fact that he and he alone is ultimately responsible for the safety of the United States. Will he close down Gitmo and throw the detainees into ordinary courts for processing? The case of Zacarias Moussaoui might give him pause — it took four and a half years from indictment to verdict in the Moussaoui case, and Moussaoui pled guilty. Will he continue the practice of intercepting foreign signals that are routed through the United States — which the Times has steadfastly insisted on calling “warrantless wiretapping?” Time will tell. We suspect that the Times, just as it is now trying to brush all their previous slander under the rug, will lead the mainstream media in throwing many of Senator Obama’s past statements down the memory hole, sparing him the scorn they heaped so gleefully on President George W. Bush as he was preventing further attacks on U.S. soil over the last seven years.
Tags: GITMO, Guantanamo, News, NY Times, Obama, Politics, Terrorism, torture, Treason
Conservative Libertarian Outpost 
November 10, 2008 at 14:32
Great post, Patrick. Now the liberals might pay attention to the world’s criminals, since it’s their watch. In 1998 Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, accompanied by the most forceful rhetoric possible about removing Saddam. But then when a Republican is in office, Bush, they reverse course. And so now it’s back to the forceful rhetoric apparently, when a Democrat is gonna be in office soon. They have to cover their tracks apparently, but, as we were saying the other day, it’ll be mostly rhetoric without an unequivocal vision, and with maybe a little (inadequate) action thrown in.
LikeLike
November 10, 2008 at 15:20
Sort of like spending a few million on cruse missiles to blow up aspirin factories..? While claiming that “I didn’t have sex with that woman..?” Or not spending a few million on cruse missiles because some damned “friendly” diplomat is with a major target?
I can understand contingencies and how sometimes you just shouldn’t do things that you really would like to. But damn it, don’t turn around and blame somebody that comes along at a later date for not doing what the hell you could have done several times.
LikeLike