Current mood:	rage
Entry tags:	politics, rage

I hate you, New York Times "news" reporters
So, Chief Executive Mr. Bush vetoed a bill effectively (re)banning torture. (Remember, it's already illegal, but that doesn't stop it.)

Here's the New York Times headline and first paragraph:

Bush Uses Veto on C.I.A. Tactics to Affirm Legacy
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: March 9, 2008

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Saturday further cemented his legacy of fighting for strong executive powers, using his veto to shut down a Congressional effort to limit the Central Intelligence Agency’s latitude to subject terrorism suspects to harsh interrogation techniques.

This is wrong on every level. Honestly, every level.

I'll leave aside picayune commentary noting things like how a veto of a torture bill can be so warped as to rely on a positive verb ("affirms"). First, let's note how this piece of filth still refuses to use the word "torture," instead picking the euphemistic "harsh interrogation techniques." WRONG. The word is torture, you wretches! LEARN IT, LIVE IT, because apparently you LOVE IT - you've certainly been covering up for it. What's being affirmed here is torture.

Secondly, and key to the second Great Lie, is that this bill is about "fighting for strong executive powers." WRONG. The fighting for "strong executive powers" - note "strong," another positive - throughout this administration has been the successful fight to be above the law entirely, by rewriting law, ignoring law, declaring himself and the Executive branch immune to law, spending money forbidden to be spent, and ordering Congressionally-ordered spending stopped. (Idly, note that this was an article of impeachment against President Nixon.) The "strong executive powers" Mr. Bush has been "fighting for" are not about any particular law, but to be above it. The status of any particular law in the normal, Constitutional channels is completely irrelevant to this goal.

Thirdly, and lastly, this veto is for show, because he doesn't feel the law applies to him or the Executive branch anyway. But there is a reason to veto it: elections. When he vetoes something (rather than signing it then issuing a signing statement rendering it null and void), he does it for show. This is about painting the "opposition" party as "weak on terror" this fall, a lie - being pro-torture is fucking stupid, not "strong" - the mainstream media will enthusiastically endorse, as they have over and over again the last six years. That's what this is veto is about.

Pathetic, and yet typical. C.f. this extensive Greenwald column on how American journalistic "standards" mean printing only what the powerful want you to print. Seriously, read that, too. It's wretched.