Exoneration of Bush Administration Officials Buried in Coverage

So apparently Bush Administration lawyers are not guilty of authorizing illegal interrogation techniques. The harsh disciplinary action favored by liberals in the media are no longer on the table and The New York Times is clearly dissappointed. Rep. John Conyors (D-Mich.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), both great guardians of the national interest, are quoted here expressing some concern over ethics, but probably not with a straight face.  How about someone from the Bush team who had defended the legal team right from the beginning? No?…

So where is the front page story that declares how Bush Administration officials had acted appropriately in authorizing aggressive interrogation tactics against al Qaeda prisoners? In keeping with its long history of hostility toward patriotic public servants, The New York Times repeatedly and consistently condemned Bush lawyers for authorizing “waterboarding” and other techniques that yielded life-saving information.

A new report from no less than the Obama Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility largely, if not completely, exonerates Bush attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee. The two were under the gun for potential disciplinary action favored by liberal media organs that place a greater premium on rights for terrorists than they do on national security.

This is the kind of news that takes wind right out of the sails from left-wingers in the press who remain fixated with discrediting counter-terrorism operations that have thus far preventing another 9/11. In a worst case scenario, Yoo and Bybee could have lost their license to practice law.  The report does call them out for exercising poor judgment in some instances, but dismisses the larger allegations.

And The Times is clearly disappointed.

“Some of the brutal interrogation methods that Mr. Yoo and Mr. Bybee approved for use on Qaeda prisoners, including wall-slamming and the near-drowning of waterboarding, had never before been authorized in American history, and the United States had condemned such treatment as torture and abuse when used by other countries,” the article laments.

Several paragraphs down, The Times finally quotes David Margolis, a career Justice Department lawyer, who makes note of the intense climate the followed immediately after 9/11. But this common sense observation cannot be permitted to stand unchallenged.

“The report said `situations of great stress, danger and fear do not relieve department attorneys of their duty to provide thorough, objective, and candid legal advice, even if that advice is not what the clients want to hear,’ ” the article says.

From here, the reporters transition into commentary from left wing political figures who have been vociferously opposed to Bush counter-terrorism.

“Representative John Conyers Jr., the Michigan Democrat who leads the House Judiciary Committee, said the ethics office report released Friday made clear that the authors of the interrogation memorandums “dishonored their office and the entire Department of Justice.”

Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said, “Mr. Bybee and Mr. Yoo may keep their law licenses, but they will not escape the verdict of history.”

Attorney General Eric Holder is continuing his own separate inquiry aimed against the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

How will this inquiry look from a historical perspective?

How will The New York Times?

Popularity: 6% [?]