Patterico's Pontifications


Patterico is, Once Again, Karnak

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Terrorism — Patterico @ 12:53 pm

I recently observed that the L.A. Times article on the compromise on detainees between Bush and the Gang of Four seemed quite lonely in its view that Bush had caved. That article was titled “Bush Bows to Senators on Detainees” and opened with the claim that “President Bush acceded to dissident Senate Republicans on Thursday,” saying that Bush had made a “major concession” to McCain et al. I observed that, as readers of blogs knew, practically everyone on Earth thought that McCain and company had caved to Bush, and not the other way around.

In my post, I said:

I wonder if the L.A. Times will have occasion in coming days to revisit its view of the compromise as Bush “bow[ing] to,” “acced[ing] to,” and making a “major concession” to the McCain crew.

Because that view seems to be rather . . . unique.

Today Julian E. Barnes and Richard Simon, the authors of the “Bush Bows to Senators” article, have another article titled Defense Lawyers Assail Legislation on Detainees, which says:

Military defense lawyers assailed compromise legislation for interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects, contending Friday that proposed rules would prevent them from learning whether evidence used against their clients was obtained through coercion or torture.

At the same time, rights groups that initially endorsed the compromise between the Bush administration and key Senate Republicans expressed reservations, saying it appeared on closer reading to be vague and could give President Bush and future presidents too much latitude.

I’m feeling kind of prescient right about now. Hey, I can foretell your future as well . . . for a small fee.

P.S. It isn’t really all the Times reporters’ fault. It just so happens that in the first article, they made the mistake of turning to the group “Human Rights First” for a quote. That group, which evidently spouted off before reading the terms of the agreement, is about the only group on the planet that thought Bush lost on the compromise. The Times just needs to get better sources . . . like blogs, for instance.

9 Responses to “Patterico is, Once Again, Karnak”

  1. But then are they likely to get quality information from Kos or DU?

    Doug Book (8585ea)

  2. Patterico, this is just for your interest.

    There’s an interesting debate at a well known Conservative blog (formerly “Angry in the Great White North”) in Canada at on the nature of freedom of speech policies at different blogs.

    You more than anyone I know epitimizes what I consider to be a very admirable freedom of speech attitude.

    I thought you or your commentators may find it interesting.

    Or maybe not… it’s not big news, just something I respect you for.

    I’ve often disagreed with you and so have others… yet we’re still welcome to comment, you’ll still use our tips if you think they’re good ones, and while I’m sure you don’t like being criticized more than anyone else, you put yourself out there by expressing an opinion.

    I think you and Steve Janke would get along in that respect.

    Of course, I often agree with you too and am occasionally persuaded.

    Don’t expect the debate to be earth shattering… just about something that you’ve given deep thought to. If anything, I thought you could contribute a comment and add a valuable opinion to the discussion over there.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  3. The Times did not make a mistake by contacting Human Rights First. They wanted a quote from Left sources that fit their preconceived agenda and they got it. BTW if the Times likes it you know it’s bad.

    Howard Veit (28df94)

  4. The Times has a view that fits well with the AP view of the world. If Bush is for it, it’s got to be bad. And vice versa.

    I felt kind of sorry for Clinton this morning in his Fox News interview. He seems to be trapped in his own history, a sad fate. And nobody is even talking about his Marc Rich pardon.

    McCain has finally lost the last vestige of my regard, and I suspect I might not be the only one. For the life of me, I can’t understand what he thought he was accomplishing. His policy choices seem to be based on his own life story. He was caught up in the Keating scandal as a freshman senator, so he’s for oppressive campaign speech restrictions. He was a POW, so the Geneva Conventions, which did nothing for him when he was really tortured, must trump all US security concerns. It’s all about McCain.

    Mike K (25eab7)

  5. I would very much like for us to link websites.

    I am at

    Tom Proebsting


    Truthprobe (665276)

  6. Weekend Wingnut Roundup…

    Another week, another load of wingnuts: Ace of Spades – bin Ladin might have died of typhoid fever … so that’s why Bush hasn’t been looking for him! Our Leader is a genius!All Things Beautiful – Cyrus Nowrasteh, the guy…

    AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring Blogenfreude (72c8fd)

  7. More from the Smell A Times and its load of BS this paper is no different then the New York Times in being nothing more then 90% lies and 10% truth

    krazy kagu (6c9901)

  8. Mr. Bush wanted certain interrogation techniques to be available for use by CIA operatives, such as sleep deprivation, standing in cold rooms, loud music, slapping, and water boarding, none of which are usually fatal.

    If these techniques save American lives, why not use them? At least we’re not yanking out the enemy’s fingernails with plyers.


    Truthprobe (665276)

  9. The evil Karl Rove drew the Senators in by making them seem on the offense with a “holier than thou” tact and Democratic Senators acquiesced. When Karl pulling the latch on the “trap door,” he pulled in for the kill both the “Gang of Four” along with the deaf, dumb and blind Democrats on the Senate panel.

    Neo (cba5df)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1462 secs.