| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Seriously, this is extreme.
As I noted earlier today, “A committee meeting on the Patriot Act got filibustered by Dems who refused to discuss the subject of the meeting, instead making broad attacks on GWB and Gitmo. The Chairman of the meeting properly shut it down and walked out rather than accepting this filibuster tactic.”
Here’s the WaPo article on this. First of all, here’s the title:
Panel Chairman Leaves Hearing
Sensenbrenner Ends Patriot Act Meeting as Democrats Plug On
That makes it sound like the Democrats did their duty even though the Republicans walked out of a perfectly reasonable meeting.
The article begins:
After repeated criticism of the Bush administration, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee yesterday gaveled a hearing to a close and walked out while Democrats continued to testify—but with their microphones shut off.
“After repeated criticism”—not after the Dems tried to hijack the meeting, and use it for something other than the purpose for which the many committee members had agreed to meet.
...The Republicans had presented several witnesses at earlier hearings who supported the administration’s call for reauthorizing the legislation. But yesterday, when four witnesses handpicked by the Democrats launched into a broad denunciations of President Bush’s war on terrorism and the condition of detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) showed his pique.
That makes it sound like the Republicans had presented witnesses who supported the act, but failed to permit the Dems to present witnesses opposing the act. However, the Dems did not present witnesses who were willing to discuss the act at all; they “launched into a broad denunciations of President Bush’s war on terrorism and the condition of detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay.”
“We ought to stick to the subject,” the chairman scolded at the end. “The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions.”
Note how the WaPo includes the Republican view, but characterizes it as follows: Sensenbrenner “showed his pique” and “scolded.” They don’t apply such pejoratives to the Dem point of view.
The article applies pejoratives to the Republican view only.
What a joke. What utter bias. What an indictment of this newspaper as trying to force its own views on its readers, under the pretext of unbiased reporting.
“Will the gentleman yield?” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) asked.
“No, I will not yield,” replied Sensenbrenner, 61, the heir to a paper fortune who is known for a brusque insistence on decorum.
“The heir to a paper fortune,” says the WaPo, apparently hoping that in the context of the pejoratives it has applied to him, this will make him look bad. The WaPo probably doesn’t appreciate it that, being wealthy, Sensenbrenner could be off on a tropical island, instead of working hard and trying to do some good.
As opposed to the Washington Post, which as usual is seeking to attack the U.S. government, regardless of the facts, and regardless of what’s good for the American people.
