May
21
2013

The New York Times sub rosa declares for the Obama administration in DoJ/AP dispute.

Or am I supposed to pretend that the fig lead of an ‘Op-Ed’ applies in this situation?

As former Justice Department officials who served in the three administrations preceding President Obama’s, we are worried that the criticism of the decision to subpoena telephone toll records of A.P. journalists in an important leak investigation sends the wrong message to the government officials who are responsible for our national security.

Personally, I give the NYT +1 for sticking to its status as a Democratic house organ, in the veritable teeth of opposition by pretty much everybody else in its ostensible profession; alas, I have to give them -10 for tacitly backing off of its official position from a week ago – and -100 for having to resort to Jamie Gorelick.  I mean, not to poison the well or anything, here – but I’d check twice if Jamie Gorelick told me that the sky was blue.  And then assume that she was right for entirely the wrong reasons.

So, yeah, I guess that I’m poisoning the well.  But I’m right, dammit.

Moe Lane

PS: If the NYT wishes to smile and deny, they’re welcome to repeat their prior opposition to the DoJ’s targeting of the AP.  They won’t – the Op-Ed is a lot more palatable to their commenters than the original editorial was, it seems – but they’re welcome to.

1 Comment

  • Finrod says:

    You’re not poisoning the well, you’re refusing to drink from a well that’s been poisoned and telling others that it is poisoned.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com