[excon]

Hello:

When you lose the Times (Cronkite), you lose the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/op...html?th&emc=th

The nations newspaper has long been one of the most reliable and vocal pro-Obama outlets in the country. When they endorsed him for President, they praised his "strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand," attributes they said he possesses in "abundance," and predicted he would provide "sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership."

That's what makes this morning's scathing condemnation of Obama so notable. As suggested by the editorial's headline - "The Cover-Up Continues" - the Times accuses Obama of complicity in shielding Bush war crimes from disclosure and accountability, and worse, details the numerous, radical Bush/Cheney powers embraced by Obama in order to accomplish this.

It took a while, but the Times finally agrees with me. Obama/Bush - no difference. This news should make you righty's happy - but it won't. YOU ain't going to be happy no matter what he does.

excon

[tomder55]

The NY Slimes quit being a credible gate-keeper a long time ago.

As for the President ;I don't trust his motives are a concern of national security although it should be. Perhaps he wants the cover of being forced to release the photos.. Or maybe if he denies their release while making a big deal about them , it masks the fact that the pictures are probably no where's near as inflaming as the rabid left believes.

[ETWolverine]

As I have said in the past, the Grey Lady is a broken down, beat up old whore who sold her soul for money and fleeting fame. Now she has neither her money nor her fame anymore. She stopped being a newspaper and became an idealogical opinion magazine decades ago. She just refused to admit it.

That once-great masthead is now the symbol of the Newspaper of Wreakage.

But don't worry, I'm sure Obama will flip-flop again on the issue and find an excuse to try to nail Bush for war crimes again in the not-to-distant future. He'll probably do it as a political ploy in 2010 when he begins to notice that his Democrat Majority in Congress is in jeopardy.

"Principaled leadership", my a$$.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello tom:

This isn't JUST about the photos. It's about the overall capitulation and endorsement of the Bush/Cheney torture regime, FISA spying, rendition, indeterminate detention, military commissions, denial of habeas corpus rights, and in general ALL those things that made the dufus sooooo distasteful.

excon

PS> Word is, that even though Obama TALKS about a public option, when he WALKS he is actively opposing it in private...

[tomder55]

Not sure he agrees with the national security measures that kept us safe after 9-11 . However each new President gains access to information that they were not privvy to as a candidate . Childish assumptions meet cold reality when that happens.

[excon]

However each new President gains access to information that they were not privvy to as a candidate .

Hello again, tom:

Your belief that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, is evident in your post. I, however, look THERE first to see how we should behave, rather than reacting to the behavior of our enemy.

Therefore, there IS no information out there that could or should force us to change who we are as a nation. I thought Obama recognized that. It's clear he doesn't.

Impeach Obama!

excon

[speechlesstx]

Didn't I say something about sensing an implosion soon? I don't know why it should make me happy that the dufus you guys elected has no principles, but I'm sure you'll tell me.