NY Times Calls for Criminal Prosecution of Dick Cheney.

[Ike Bana]

From last week's Times...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56J0wOTll5c

And...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/op...sses.html?_r=5

[finnbow]

I happen to agree, but being that it's in the NYTimes probably warms Cheney's heart (if that's even possible). The Times holds very little sway any more, and when it does, it's as a whipping boy for the right.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I happen to agree, but being that it's in the NYTimes probably warms Cheney's heart (if that's even possible). The Times holds very little sway any more, and when it does, it's as a whipping boy for the right.

Opinions...opinions...are like assholes. Everybody's got one.

But maybe we've found something you find as repulsive than Bibi, eh? It's that idiotic NYT editorial board. Who knew?

Maybe we should wait for the fucking Wall St. Journal to call for prosecutions. Wouldja find some petty, opinionated beef about that?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Opinions...opinions...are like assholes. Everybody's got one.

But maybe we've found something you find as repulsive than Bibi, eh? It's that idiotic NYT editorial board. Who knew?

Maybe we should wait for the fucking Wall St. Journal to call for prosecutions. Wouldja find some petty, opinionated beef about that?

Settle down, Ike. The Times piece itself was an opinion piece.

I read both the Times and WashPost every day, but I no longer believe that the "Gray Lady" is the country's newspaper of record with "all the news fit to print," though I greatly prefer it to the WSJ. IMO, the WashPost is far superior to either.

FWIW, I find the NYTimes editorials reflexively and predictably liberal (just as the WSJ's are reflexively and predictably conservative), though I find their opinion pieces a bit more balanced than their editorials (I like Krugman and Brooks and Dowd cracks me up). Their editorials' reflexively liberal bent results in me discounting them in favor of something a bit more analytical and balanced (e.g., WashPost, Economist). YMMV.

Their diminished standing in the world of journalism will result in this particular editorial having about as much impact as a fart in a windstorm.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I happen to agree, but being that it's in the NYTimes probably warms Cheney's heart (if that's even possible). The Times holds very little sway any more, and when it does, it's as a whipping boy for the right.

There's an app for that.

John

[Tom Joad]

I'd like to see him have to give the heart back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG8WqEyXIyc

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Settle down, Ike. The Times piece itself was an opinion piece.

I read both the Times and WashPost every day, but I no longer believe that the "Gray Lady" is the country's newspaper of record with "all the news fit to print," though I greatly prefer it to the WSJ. IMO, the WashPost is far superior to either.

FWIW, I find the NYTimes editorials reflexively and predictably liberal (just as the WSJ's are reflexively and predictably conservative), though I find their opinion pieces a bit more balanced than their editorials (I like Krugman and Brooks and Dowd cracks me up). Their editorials' reflexively liberal bent results in me discounting them in favor of something a bit more analytical and balanced (e.g., WashPost, Economist). YMMV.

Their diminished standing in the world of journalism will result in this particular editorial having about as much impact as a fart in a windstorm.

Many thanks to the new PC print media critic for his thoughtful analysis of the worldwide impact of the NYT.

PS - how's about you shove your directives up your ass and restrict yourself to providing behavioral input to those who got stuck with having to listen to it, like your children. Nobody answers to you here, finn.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Many thanks to the new PC print media critic for his thoughtful analysis of the worldwide impact of the NYT.

PS - how's about you shove your directives up your ass and restrict yourself to providing behavioral input to those who got stuck with having to listen to it, like your children. Nobody answers to you here, finn.

You're the one who went off on a childish rant. Tired of getting your ass handed to you?

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Tired of getting your ass handed to you?

Finn puts on his Zeke mask and starts wanking himself off in front of everybody.

Meantime the NYT proves to have more balls than any other major media source in this fucking country. Even though finn thinks the Times is a useless waste of perfectly good trees.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Finn puts on his Zeke mask and starts wanking himself off in front of everybody.

More like all over you, out of the sheer boredom of reading your posts.

THE NYT doesn't have cajones, it's desperate for readership. When that occurs, you pander to the perceived base. Darth Cheney isn't going to be prosecuted nor should he be (not that I am a fan of Enhanced Interrogation). Even if you believe (erroneously) that Cheney acted criminally, I'd invite you to think strategically, not tactically: this is a Gerald Ford situation at best.

But, of course, there was no U.S. illegality here as the DOJ itself provided cover for EI providing CIA operatives with legal authorization for techniques including forced nudity, waterboarding, sleep deprivation and stress positions. Sadly, I believe the CIA likely misrepresented the scope and (lack of?) effectiveness of the program to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which provided the legal authorizations, and much worse occurred.

That's an issue but, again, it's not Cheney's.

Is he Darth Cheney? Yes. Do I like him? No. Do I like any of this? Not particularly.

But the NYT is weak (and apparently dumb) for even suggesting the idea. That's why this was posted as an opinion piece and not a facts driven expose.