That Librul Media
Apr 1st, 2006 at 5:18 am by Susie
Fred catches this interesting twist in an AP story:
It’s hard to imagine a lead sentence more perversely undemocratic than this, from Gina Holland of the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON — His wartime powers undercut once before by the Supreme Court, President Bush could take a second hit in a case in which Osama bin Laden’s former driver is seeking to head off a trial before military officers.
Oh, that meddlesome Supreme Court, always going about undercutting the wartime powers of our wartime president. Those whiny justices, always worrying about whether or not the executive branch’s claims of unchecked, absolute power are constitutional. It’s always “blah, blah, blah, rule of law, blah, blah, blah” with them.
If they keep this up, eventually they’ll undercut everyone’s power to break the law with impunity. And then where will we be?
Seriously, is this really how Gina Holland understands the role of the Constitution? As some kind of threat to the president’s otherwise limitless power? This is the framework she presents. Read that again:
His wartime powers undercut once before by the Supreme Court …
Are there no editors at the Associated Press who remember fourth-grade social studies?
Mein Gott, she makes it sound like someone stepped on Superman’s cape!
Again.
Bush will have to retreat to his Fortress of Ineptitude to wash the footprints off his outerware.
If this keeps up, someone will put boot marks on his behind, too!
No, the editors at the AP just don’t care.
But wasn’t the whole piece meant to be sarcastic?
Gug
I’ll give you that it would have been better to read “(claimed)warpowers”, but as it stands its a neutral statement. Nothing about it says that he deserves them. That’s why they are in court