| About | |
| Contact Us | |
| Articles | |
| Topic Index | |
| Reports | |
| Quotes | |
| On the Web | |
| Links | |
| TW Tracker | |
| Support | |
Times Watch for
March 25, 2004
Clinton "Distracted" from Terror
"By Threat of Impeachment"
The Times blasts the "lack of urgency" of the Bush administration's pre-9/11 terror efforts in Thursday's lead editorial on Richard Clarke's testimony, "Assessing the Blame for 9/11." When the Times gets around to Bill Clinton (who, after all, served eight years, while the Bush administration had been in office less than eight months on 9-11-01), it offers a lame excuse for Clinton's inaction--he was distracted by impeachment proceedings! "Bill Clinton, distracted by the threat of impeachment, failed to educate the American people adequately about the nature of the danger, and what it might take to fight it," the Times writes.
Clinton was also distracted by Monica Lewinsky, who was not part of a partisan Republican plot.
The editorial continues: "Senior officials from the Clinton and Bush administration testified, one after another, that in the pre-9/11 world, they could not have gone further in trying to run down Mr. bin Laden because, they believed, the country and our allies would not have supported it. But there was at least no question about the Clinton administration's commitment to combat terrorism, and on occasion, like the December 1999 alert that appears to have averted an attack on the Los Angeles airport, it produced results. The attitude of the Bush administration seems harder to pin down."
But as National Review editor Rich Lowry notes, Clarke's own book casts doubt on Clinton's commitment to fighting terrorism: "In his testimony yesterday, Clarke said that the Clinton administration had 'no higher priority' than fighting terror. No. In his own book, he says trying to force a Middle East peace agreement was more important to Clinton than retaliating for the attack against USS Cole."
For the rest of the Times editorial on Clarke's testimony, click here.
• George W. Bush | Bill Clinton | Richard Clarke | Editorial | Terrorism
God
-- I Mean Gosh -- I Admire You
Reporter Linda Greenhouse admires adamant atheist Michael Newdow's testimony in her Thursday front-page story from the Supreme Court, "Atheist Presents Case For Taking God From Pledge." Newdow represented himself before the court yesterday in his fight to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, testifying on behalf of his nine-year-old daughter.
A subhed lauds Newdow's testimony: "Justices Appear to Search for a Way to Reject His Passionate Remarks." Greenhouse opens with a similar tone: "Michael A. Newdow stood before the justices of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, pointed to one of the courtroom's two American flags and declared: 'I am an atheist. I don't believe in God.' With passion and precision, he then proceeded to argue his own case for why the daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in his daughter's public school classroom violates the Constitution as long as the pledge contains the words 'under God.' Dr. Newdow, a nonpracticing lawyer who makes his living as an emergency room doctor, may not win his case. In fact, justices across the ideological spectrum appeared to be searching for reasons he should lose, either on jurisdictional grounds or on the merits. But no one who managed to get a seat in the courtroom is likely ever to forget his spell-binding performance."
Sheesh. One can note Newdow's impressive performance without the fawning. NRO's Jonah Goldberg claims Greenhouse "would have us believe [Newdow]'s something of a demigod."
Greenhouse lovingly transcribes a scene of the spell-binding Newdow versus a flummoxed Chief Justice Rehnquist: "When Dr. Newdow described 'under God' as a divisive addition to the pledge, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist asked him what the vote in Congress had been 50 years ago when the phrase was inserted. The vote was unanimous, Dr. Newdow said.
'Well, that doesn't sound divisive,' the chief justice observed.
Dr. Newdow shot back, 'That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office.'
The courtroom audience broke into applause, an exceedingly rare event that left the chief justice temporarily nonplussed. He appeared to collect himself for a moment, and then sternly warned the audience that the courtroom would be cleared 'if there's any more clapping.'"
Greenhouse might be receptive to Newdow's argument. When the "Under God" case was under review by the Court last October, Greenhouse noted: "I was in first grade at the time. I was very confused by it because having laboriously learned the Pledge without 'under God,' all of a sudden, 'under God' came in; it was a federal law. And I didn't realize at the time that I had become a foot soldier in the war against Godless communism. That's what it really was about."
For the rest of Greenhouse's glorification of Newdow's testimony, click here.
• Linda Greenhouse | Michael Newdow | Pledge of Allegiance | Religion | Supreme Court
E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org