i'm only going to anal-ize the first page or so of the article [ed. note: there is actually only one page two it... i saw the 1 of 4 at the bottom and got confused], but i would recommend reading the whole thing (free registration required).
recently, colin powell spoke out on the whole "domestic spying" issue. and the nyt's take on it is leaving me slightly confused.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 - Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said on Sunday that it would not have been "that hard" for President Bush to obtain warrants for eavesdropping on domestic telephone and Internet activity, but that he saw "nothing wrong" with the decision not to do so.
~~~~~~~~
"I see absolutely nothing wrong with the president authorizing these kinds of actions," he said.Asked if such eavesdropping should continue, Mr. Powell said, "Yes, of course it should continue."
so it seems to me that, even if not whole-heartedly, mr. powell is still supporting bush on this issue. but then, further down the page, we see this:
Though Mr. Powell stopped short of criticizing Mr. Bush, his suggestion that there was "another way to handle it" was another example of his parting company on a critical issue with the president he served for four years.
wait, come again? this means that they're "parting company"? because to me, it looks more like two pitchers arguing whether its better to use a slider or a high fastball to strike a batter out. sure, they may go about it different ways, but their basic goal is the same: get the guy out.
and then, predictably, the "reporter" goes on to take some jabs at the situation in iraq, implying that the recent elections--which appear to have been very successful--were actually reinforcing the ethnic divisions in iraq and leading them one step closer to a civil war. because heaven forbid anything good should come out of iraq.
|