House Repubs. Shoot Down 9/11 Recommendations

yep. shot down in flames.

 

The main reason that some have opposed this particular piece of legislation was not mentioned in the article until about 2/3 of the way into it. The key part is dealing with the flow of illegal immigrants and related security issues. Many believe this is a major issue in the short-term and part of the recommendations of the 911 Comm were to recognize and fix it but this bill wouldn't do that. I don't blame Congressmen for not approving this just so they could say they did something before the Christmas break. As much as we need this reform, it would be better to wait until the next session and debate it properly than slam something together just to say you did it. We have too much of that already.

 

This is a red herring. The only reason the Reeps blocked this bill is that the Pentagon told them to.

 

Interestingly enough, Rumsfeld apparently went behind W's back to do that.

 

Anything's possible, but I would be shocked if this is an accurate description of what happened. Consider what happens to people within the administration who fail to toe the line. The Administration wants an intelligence reform bill, but they don't want one that gives the new intelligence chief too much power. This way Rummy, Sensenbrenner and Hunter are the designated spear catchers, so the Whitehouse doesn't catch the heat.

 

This is just like the assualt weapons ban. The administration doesn't want something that is popular among the people, so to deflect criticism they send their congressional goons to kill it.

 

Link?

 

Bush Urged to Get Pentagon to Back Spy Bill

 

Why rush headlong into a "reform" program that has many flaws associated with it, just to satisfy some "emotional" need to fix this problem?

This needs deliberate and thoughtful reform, not demogogic rhetoric like "goons" killed it.

 

Hence the three years that the bipartisan Itelligence reform committee put into these recommendations.

This stall is all about the DoD wanting to retain control over the purse strings.

 

I agree. 3,000 page bill with 12-24 hours to review, does not make sense. It is this process that gave us that piece of crap called The Patriot Act. The representatives need time to reflect and debate the bill, regardless of the content.

 

So the source is the NY Times, a newspaper whose extreme left-wing bias and use of disreputable journalism is so wide spread it has become synonamous with the trash tabloids of England? You may as well quote Al Jazeera.

But notice, the article has buried at the very bottom of the article, exactly what I said in my earlier post; illegal immigration concerns are a key component of what many want included in any changes. Without that, a major issue still exists.

As an example of how the NYT manipulates the truth look at the way they represent the postition of Duncan Hunter from California. Here the flow of illegals from Mexico has become a HUGE drain on the system as well as an easy pipeline for ANY illegal to easily enter this country. Hunter is represented as being only concerned about Pentagon communication with military commanders because his son is in the military. The truth is that he also very concerned about controlling the easy access that illegals have to this country as witnessed by the fact that many of the 911 terrorists did exactly that. If you are going to present any reasonable reform package, you MUST insist on reform of the controls on the way illegals can enter this country and represent themselves as being here legally.



NYT doesn't care about the truth. All they want is to promote their left-wing agenda.

 

I immediately lose respect for anyone who takes this absolutely moronic position on the Times. Yes, their editorial page leans a little to the left. You know what? The Chicago Trib's editorial page leans a little to the right. There are a million bad things about the Trib, but actual right-wing slant of their news pieces is not one of them. The same goes for the Times.

When the Jayson Blair story broke, the Times published a front-page mea culpa. Let us know when Bill O'Reilly admits he made up a French business publication as a source for his made-up (and not even close to correct) statistics on how badly FOX's lame boycott of French products was hurting France.

 

They lean a LITTLE to the left? That is like saying Adolf Hitler was a little agressive in solving racials problems in his country.

 

If you think that the NYTimes is as far to the left as Hitler was to the right... well, nevermind. You are not worth taking seriously, even by the standards of the Bigsoccer politics forum.

 

Believing that the NYT is even close to the mainstream is yet another reason why Kerry LOST the election. You liberals STILL are not paying attention.

 

Drudge and NewsMax, of course.

Oh, and FreeRepublic.com

And neocon bloggers

 

Either you haven't actually read a copy of the NYT in a while, or you are using an alternate definition of mainstream. The New York Times is the mainstream media, because of their influence and because they, like the other media giants, are primarily concerned with making a buck.

 

Actually I have an online subscription to NYT along with 8 other newspapers, including the LA Times, which I read daily. Of the 8, NYT is certainly the most liberal by far judging by their editorial positions and the consistent slant of articles.

The fact that they are BIG doesn't make them mainstream, only big. Nor does the fact their distribution enable them to sell lots of advertising thereby being profitable make them mainstream.

Mainstream to me is that they represent the moderate middle of American politics. In that they certainly do not represent that point of view. They are far left of that.

 

The fact that they are so large means that, if they represent any views at all, those are the views of a huge segment of the population. The NY Times is not the Washington Times--they are not being propped up by a wealthy patron. They simply sell a lot.

There is one thing that Fox et al. say about the Times and the Wa Post that is true: they are elite (if imperfect) papers. This, however, is a good thing.

 

If this were true, John Kerry would be the President-elect. They aren't and he's not.

 

John Kerry had the support of the NY Times editorial page. W had the support of Diebold. November 2nd showed us which one was more important.

 

Denial is NOT a virtue. But keep it up and the Republicans will have control of things for another 8 years. Or more.