Blatant Hypocrisy At Times Union

Allow me to take a moment to slap the Times Union around for their blatant hypocrisy. A word of warning for my friendly readers - you may grow lightheaded from laughing or very angry. And for my readers at the Times Union, this should make you very VERY embarrassed at your senior staff - and yourself if you find yourself going along with them all the time.

I'd like to start everyone off with a recounting of what the Times Union had to say about anyone refusing to unequivocally declare that waterboarding is torture at a confirmation hearing. Check out the language the Times Union uses:

10-19-07 - editorial - Mr. Mukasey likewise needs to say if the savage interrogation tactic known as waterboarding is constitutional, regardless of whether it's defined as torture. He's dodging that one, too...THE ISSUE: The attorney general-designate dodges senators' questions about torture. THE STAKES: Confirmation requires answers. "Savage"? Interesting name for something that does no permanent harm and is practiced by our own military against our own warriors. "Confirmation requies answers"! You betcha!

10-19-07 - NYT piece - President Bush's nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, declined Thursday to say if he considered such harsh interrogation techniques as waterboarding , which creates the sensation of drowning, to constitute torture or to be illegal when used against terror suspects.

10-23-07 - Tom Teepen column - And never mind if Mukasey, as yet unconfirmed, is not yet privileged to all the administration arcana on just what is or isn't exactly torture. His demurrer on the question of the near drownings called waterboarding ignores their all but universal condemnation as just what Geneva was getting at. In its next round with the nominee, the Senate Judiciary Committee dare not shrink into its fears that to hold Mukasey to clear account is to risk being labeled weak on terrorism. Mmmm...yes, the Senate needs to be much stronger in their questioning of this guy about this waterboarding stuff. Harrumph, yes.

10-26-07 - Jonathan Turley column titled "Why is Mukasey still a viable nominee?" - The most surprising thing about the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be the attorney general, now pending before the Senate, is the wave of support from Democrats. They seem determined to ignore what they clearly view as a minor flaw in this nominee: his refusal to denounce the deplorable practice of waterboarding and his apparent willingness to lie to duck the issue. Harrumph! Yes, you cannot confirm him if he ducks the issue! Quack!

11-1-07 - NYT piece - In adamantly refusing to declare waterboarding illegal, Michael B. Mukasey, the nominee for attorney general, is steering clear of a potential legal quagmire for the Bush administration: criminal prosecution or lawsuits against Central Intelligence Agency officers who used the harsh interrogation practice and those who authorized it, legal experts said on Wednesday...The biggest problem for Mukasey remains his refusal to clearly take a legal position on the interrogation technique. Huge problem, big big big. Gotta deal with this!

11-6-07 - AP piece - At Mukasey's confirmation hearing, the judge rankled Democrats by saying he was not familiar with the technique, and could not say whether it was torture and therefore illegal. Ooooh, they were "rankled". I wonder if that's considered torture.

11-7-07 - Cox piece - President Bush's pick to run the troubled Justice Department advanced Tuesday despite concerns that he has refused to declare waterboarding an illegal torture method.

1-31-08 - editorial - It's easy to understand why Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee were so angered Wednesday by Attorney General Michael Mukasey's refusal to define waterboarding as torture...THE ISSUE: The attorney general ducks and weaves on waterboarding. THE STAKES: He shouldn't be let off the hook once again. Mmm! Yes! Don't let him off the hook on this!

Of course the best parts are the editorials as they are the unfiltered (and often untrue) voice of the papers high holy men themselves. Recall that the TU ran two editorials explicitly calling for Mukasey to be held accountable. But also, you can see how many news pieces and columns they ran emphasizing the nominees refusal to dub waterboarding 'torture' and outright attacking the character of the nominee for his failure to do so - quite viciously, actually.

Now comes the messiah, the redeemer, the healer of worlds...and his nominee Dennis Blair. ABC reports the following:

Retired Adm. Dennis Blair, President Barack Obama's nominee for director of national intelligence, said today that it's time to "turn this new page" on Guantanamo Bay interrogations and how the intelligence community has operated -- though he stopped short of calling waterboarding torture...

Levin responded, "Your reluctance to give your own judgment on that question, it seems to me, is troubling to me."

Hmmmm...his lack of faith in the weak-kneed left's retreat and surrender response to terrorism is troubling to the Democrats. Shame.

So, me being me, I did a little research. Can you guess how many times the name Dennis Blair has shown up in the Times Union in the past 30 days (his hearing is much more recent than that)?

One time.

Yes, one time.

Happily, that single instance is an editorial!

I bet you're wondering what the Times Union had to say about Dennis Blair.

Ah, I'm such a tease. First I'm going to remind you what was said about Mukasey due to his failure to genuflect to the left on waterboarding:

"needs to say if the savage interrogation tactic known as waterboarding is constitutional, regardless of whether it's defined as torture. He's dodging that one, too"

"Confirmation requires answers"

"He shouldn't be let off the hook once again."

So what did the high and mighty editorialists have to say about Blair after he, too, "ducked" and "dodged" the matter?

1-23-09 - editorial - What's so refreshing, though, is that Mr. Obama has picked someone who seems to share his wider vision to be his director of national intelligence...So goes a policy of protecting both our safety and our ideals.

Waterboarding? Funny - never came up. Imagine that. Ahhhhh...refreshing!

I guess with Great Leader in charge, suddenly a nominee can be "let off the hook" and his confirmation does not require answers and he does not need to confirm his position on "savage" waterboarding - even when questioned about it directly.

Proud of yourselves?

You know...I bet they are.

-

In an unrelated item, check this out from the ABC piece: "Concerning past oversight issues of the Bush administration on domestic surveillance and detainee interrogations, Blair promised to have more "transparency and accountability" if confirmed."

Let me get this straight...the nominee for director of national intelligence is saying that he will be more "transparent" on surveillance of our enemies. I can see it now...we'll get some spies into Iran, but they'll all be wearing "Hi, my name is USA SPY" stickers. Ever see The Kentucky Fried Movie? The longest bit I think was called like "A Fistful of Yen" or something...at one point the good guy has infiltrated the bad guy's secret fortress and he is meeting with the captive scientist who points out the "secret surveillance" going on of their conversation - including a guy with a boom mike in plain sight and an entire recording room, also in plain sight.