Comments on: The Treason Card

By: loft blog v2.0 » Blog Archive » Rant ‘O the Week

loft blog v2.0 » Blog Archive » Rant ‘O the Week — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:05:50 +0000

[...] Once again, Morford’s on fire; and in what I find to be a fascinating development, Krugman’s got his own blog for his NTTimes op-ed pieces, here. Not that there’s any value in blogs, mind you… [...]

By: kip2004

kip2004 — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:52:37 +0000

…let’s hope they’re wrong…Herein lies the frustration for me. I see what’s happening to this country, and there’s not a damn thing I can do about it but hope things will work out. The majority of americans completely agree with you, unfortunately the minority is louder.

By: Holy Roman » Blog Archive »

Holy Roman » Blog Archive » — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:22:47 +0000

[...] Whilst browsing the Internet, I stumbled upon this beautifully written article by Paul Krugman. It is a must read for any person who even remotely cares about the future of the US. Quote The nature of the right-wing attack on The New York Times — an attack not on the newspaper’s judgment, but on its motives — seems to have startled many people in the news media. After an editorial in The Wall Street Journal declared that The Times has what amount to treasonous intentions… Source: The Treason Card, by Paul Krugman [...]

By: The Long Goodbye » Blog Archive » Unless in bitterness to mock At having cultivated rock

Sat, 08 Jul 2006 07:58:34 +0000

[...] It looks like these right-wing bed wetters already pinned down how to be reactionaries so if they should happen by here they can just skip this essay, The Treason Card The nature of the right-wing attack on The New York Times — an attack not on the newspaper’s judgment, but on its motives — seems to have startled many people in the news media. After an editorial in The Wall Street Journal declared that The Times has what amount to treasonous intentions — that it “has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it” — The Journal’s own political editor pronounced himself “shocked,” saying that “I don’t know anybody on the news staff of The Wall Street Journal that believes that.” [...]

By: Hennessy’s View » Krugman Obfuscates

Hennessy’s View » Krugman Obfuscates — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 01:30:22 +0000

[...] In today’s New York Crimes, Al Qaeda supporter, Paul Krugman, attempted, limp-writstedly, to defend his newspaper’s support of terrorism by attacking those of us who called the NYT to the carpet. But an almost equally important aspect of the project has been the attempt to create a political environment in which nobody dares to criticize the administration or reveal inconvenient facts about its actions. And that attempt has relied, from the beginning, on ascribing treasonous motives to those who refuse to toe the line. As far back as 2002, Rush Limbaugh, in words very close to those used by The Wall Street Journal last week, accused Tom Daschle, then the Senate majority leader, of a partisan “attempt to sabotage the war on terrorism.” [...]

By: (the) Insanity Shop » Blog Archive » Krugman: The Treason Card

(the) Insanity Shop » Blog Archive » Krugman: The Treason Card — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 00:24:24 +0000

[...] In today’s New York Times’ Op-Ed page, Paul Krugman nails the intent and dangers of the Bush administration so eloquently that I can’t think of much to constructively add. Everybody and his brother in the blogging community (I refuse to use the -sphere word) is quoting the thing in its entirety, but I don’t see why you can’t go and read it on Klugman’s own site, right here. A few select quotes are in order, though: Over the last few months a series of revelations have confirmed what should have been obvious a long time ago: the Bush administration and the movement it leads have been engaged in an authoritarian project, an effort to remove all the checks and balances that have heretofore constrained the executive branch. …and… …I think that most Americans still believe in the principle that the president isn’t a king, that he isn’t entitled to operate without checks and balances. And President Bush is especially unworthy of our trust, because on every front — from his refusal to protect chemical plants to his officials’ exposure of Valerie Plame, from his toleration of war profiteering to his decision to place the C.I.A. in the hands of an incompetent crony — he has consistently played politics with national security. …and… Does anyone remember the editorial that The Wall Street Journal published on Sept. 19, 2001? “So much for Florida,” the editorial began, celebrating the way the terrorist attack had pushed aside concerns over the legitimacy of the Supreme Court decision that installed Mr. Bush in the White House. …and, finally… Things have changed since then: Mr. Bush’s ability to wrap his power grab in the flag has diminished now that most Americans no longer consider him either competent or honest. But the administration and its supporters still believe that they can win political battles by impugning the patriotism of those who won’t go along. For the sake of our country, let’s hope that they’re wrong. [link] [...]