June 17, 2004

Through the God Damned Looking Glass

filed under: Stuff to be pissed off about

This is from the New York Post. The pigf***ing NEW YORK POST, one of the most absurdly partisan rags ever to disgrace a major city. They are squarely in Bush's corner on everything, all the time, and THEY publish this paragraph:

Asked whether he was disappointed that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had improperly held an Iraqi prisoner in secret for more than seven months in violation of the Geneva Conventions, Bush replied: "The secretary and I discussed that for the first time this morning. ... I'm never disappointed in my secretary of defense. He's doing a fabulous job and America's lucky to have him in the position he's in." [Emphasis added]

So let me get this straight. The Pentagon has admitted that Rumsfeld - HIMSELF - ordered a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, after the administration ITSELF has publicly and repeatedly stated that the Geneva Conventions applied to all of our operations in Iraq. No one is saying this didn't happen. These are the facts, as even the New York Post admits.

But we're LUCKY to have him.

The President and all who serve in the government swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. Treaties like the Geneva Convention, when properly ratified, are the law of the land.

Draw your own god damned conclusions.

Brad DeLong has more.

Posted by rjt at June 17, 2004 12:56 PM
Comments

The article was in the NYTimes. I've actually never read the New York Post, but is it that bad?

Posted by: Will at June 17, 2004 03:57 PM

Here's an example of the Post's duplicity. Today, their full-cover cover story was Bill Clinton saying he screwed around with Monica "because he could." You had to open the paper to read anything about the 9/11 commission.

Once inside, the 2-page 9/11 commission report spread had a big header at the top. Under the headline was a subhead, "Highlights of the 9/11 Commission Report:"

Under that were exactly three bullet points. One was something like "Al Qaeda wanted bigger attack," (don't remember the exact wording of these), with the page number; one was something like "Date of attack was fluid" with the page number; and the third was - get this - "We were right to go into Iraq," which directed readers to the Editorial section.

So, if your only source of info is the Post, you would believe that the 9/11 Commission had three things to say yesterday, one of which was "We were right to go into Iraq."

Which, as everyone whose only source of info is NOT the Post knows, is pretty much the PRECISE OPPOSITE of what the report said.

Posted by: rjt at June 17, 2004 04:16 PM