Rather than this headline from an article on how Bush got what he wanted out of Congress last week on warrantless wiretaps, how about this headline instead: “Bush Not the Lame Duck President We Thought He Was”?
The translation from the official headline, and from the piece itself, is that Bush is still using “fear” as a tactic to successfully win over enough Congressional Democrats to support his policies as they relate to the war on terror. I rather look at it as Bush reminding Democrats of who the real enemy is in this war, and it isn’t him, and of him also reminding them that it’s the American people they’re supposed to protect, not the enemy (whether deliberate or not), which is another surefire way to get enough ‘conservative to moderate’ Democrats stoked to do the right thing during an election season.
AJ Strata gets to the heart of the matter:
For the NY Times this is especially painful. Their Pulitzer winning stories that exposed our NSA surveillance of known terrorists overseas, their movement of terrorist funds, and the movement of terrorist prisoners all exposed America’s defenses and put lives at risk. The fact is Americans WANT our government listening in on al-Qaeda’s planning, and if they contact someone here in the US they want that person looked into. And that is ALL the NSA surveillance program does, it allows NSA leads that trace back to the US to be passed to the FBI for investigation and possible FISA warrant if concerns arise. That is something new since 9-11, we actually trace down leads here in the US. We did not do that prior to 9-11 and 3,000 people died because of it.
Americans understand we have to trace the money to find those cells who can be a danger. Without serious financing attacks cannot be pulled off. And we know the nature of the people we are at war with: they kill people in markets, slice their heads off on TV for PR gains and kill hundred daily to make a political statement. When we catch them we move them and interrogate them. No one has proof of torture, and few are willing to defend the animals who behave as al-Qaeda does.
And understandably, the fact that the American people don’t agree with the glass-house inhabitants at the Times is problematic for the NYT.
Speaking of the NYT, they are getting ready to free up their previously pay-to-view “TimesSelect” content, according to the New York Post. The primary reason? Due to lack of demand:
The decision, which also walled off access to archives and other content, was controversial almost from the start, with some of the paper’s own columnists complaining that it limited their Web readership.
In July, The Post reported that insiders were lobbying to shut down the service. After two years, however, the move to do away with TimesSelect may have more to do with growth than grumbling inside the paper.
The number of Web-only subscribers who pay $7.95 a month or $49.95 a year fell to just over 221,000 in June, down from more than 224,000 in April.
This is good news – now whenever I see the headline for a NYT column I want to read and critique it here, I don’t have to go fishing for a repost of it on another blog, or in a newspaper that didn’t have it hidden behind a pay wall
Hat tip: Don Surber and ST reader Leslie