Shameless
From MSNBC.com - shills, all of them.
Poll: Should Bush spend time defending his domestic surveillance program?
__ Yes. He can help clear up what is still confusing to many Americans.
__ No. Why bother, Americans are clearly split along party lines on this issue.
Are you fucking kidding me? Out of what cavity are these people pulling this shit? Let's break this down, shall we?
1. "domestic surveillance program". This is the president's own language - although I'm sure they thought they could come off as impartial, since now Bush wants to call it a "terrorist surveillance program". It could also be called a "domestic spying program" or better yet, a "domestic eavesdropping program", since that's really what it is - or how about "domestic eavesdropping program that is probably illegal and on very shaky constitutional ground"
2. Those choices both frame the debate in terms of unreality. The "yes" choice is crazy: He can help clear it up? How, exactly, can he do that when he's the one who is obfucating the issue in the first place? Ever read Don't Think of an Elephant? The choice clearly presents Bush as the father-figure the right embraces. "Don't worry America! All this political mumbo-jumbo is confusing - it's over your head! But Pappy Bush will clear it up for you, don't trouble your head with thinking!" Why should anyone believe him, since he is the ACCUSED in this case?
3. The "no" choice is also ridiculous. It presents the issue as a "party" issue - translation: nothing to worry your pretty head over (ie, see the first choice). Not only does this attempt to make people think it's unimportant and petty, but it's just a lie. Numerous prominent members of Bush's own party have come out to denounce the program, and to insist the matter be investigated. For example:
*"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate" and "The remedy could be a variety of things, including impeachment or criminal prosecution.” - Arlen Specter (R-PE), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee
*James Comey, a deputy to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, questioned legality of the NSA program and refused to extend it in 2004.
*"We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States Government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority..." - Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
*"intercepts are going to have to be given, I think, a pretty good hearing..." - Richard Lugar (R-IN)
*"...called the allegations of surveillance abuses 'extremely troubling.' ...'warrants further inquiry by Congress' and that she has asked the NSA for a full briefing." - Susan Collins (R-ME) as reported in the Portland Press Herald
*"I don't think the 'use of force' resolution authorized this use of NSA resources for domestic surveillance..." - John Sununu (R-NH)
The list goes on. This is not just bad journalism. This is partisan reporting at its worst, because it's very subliminal, and very effective.
Poll: Should Bush spend time defending his domestic surveillance program?
__ Yes. He can help clear up what is still confusing to many Americans.
__ No. Why bother, Americans are clearly split along party lines on this issue.
Are you fucking kidding me? Out of what cavity are these people pulling this shit? Let's break this down, shall we?
1. "domestic surveillance program". This is the president's own language - although I'm sure they thought they could come off as impartial, since now Bush wants to call it a "terrorist surveillance program". It could also be called a "domestic spying program" or better yet, a "domestic eavesdropping program", since that's really what it is - or how about "domestic eavesdropping program that is probably illegal and on very shaky constitutional ground"
2. Those choices both frame the debate in terms of unreality. The "yes" choice is crazy: He can help clear it up? How, exactly, can he do that when he's the one who is obfucating the issue in the first place? Ever read Don't Think of an Elephant? The choice clearly presents Bush as the father-figure the right embraces. "Don't worry America! All this political mumbo-jumbo is confusing - it's over your head! But Pappy Bush will clear it up for you, don't trouble your head with thinking!" Why should anyone believe him, since he is the ACCUSED in this case?
3. The "no" choice is also ridiculous. It presents the issue as a "party" issue - translation: nothing to worry your pretty head over (ie, see the first choice). Not only does this attempt to make people think it's unimportant and petty, but it's just a lie. Numerous prominent members of Bush's own party have come out to denounce the program, and to insist the matter be investigated. For example:
*"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate" and "The remedy could be a variety of things, including impeachment or criminal prosecution.” - Arlen Specter (R-PE), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee
*James Comey, a deputy to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, questioned legality of the NSA program and refused to extend it in 2004.
*"We write to express our profound concern about recent revelations that the United States Government may have engaged in domestic electronic surveillance without appropriate legal authority..." - Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
*"intercepts are going to have to be given, I think, a pretty good hearing..." - Richard Lugar (R-IN)
*"...called the allegations of surveillance abuses 'extremely troubling.' ...'warrants further inquiry by Congress' and that she has asked the NSA for a full briefing." - Susan Collins (R-ME) as reported in the Portland Press Herald
*"I don't think the 'use of force' resolution authorized this use of NSA resources for domestic surveillance..." - John Sununu (R-NH)
The list goes on. This is not just bad journalism. This is partisan reporting at its worst, because it's very subliminal, and very effective.