<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with NewYorkTimes and GeorgeWBush</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/NewYorkTimes+GeorgeWBush</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'NewYorkTimes' and 'GeorgeWBush' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:52:32 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:52:32 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>The Emperor&apos;s New Hump</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/39318/The%2DEmperors%2DNew%2DHump</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2012"&gt;The Emperor&apos;s New Hump&lt;/a&gt; In the weeks leading up to the November 2 election, the New York Times was abuzz with excitement. Besides the election itself, the paper&#8217;s reporters were hard at work on two hot investigative projects, each of which could have a major impact on the outcome of the tight presidential race.

One week before Election Day, the Times (10/25/04) ran a hard-hitting and controversial expos&amp;#0233; of the Al-Qaqaa ammunition dump&#8212;identified by U.N. inspectors before the war as containing 400 tons of special high-density explosives useful for aircraft bombings and as triggers for nuclear devices, but left unguarded and available to insurgents by U.S. forces after the invasion.

On Thursday, just three days after that first expos&amp;#0233;, the paper was set to run a second, perhaps more explosive piece, exposing how George W. Bush had worn an electronic cueing device in his ear and probably cheated during the presidential debates.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.39318</guid>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:52:32 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>2004election</category>
		<category>alqaqaa</category>
		<category>bush</category>
		<category>elections</category>
		<category>georgewbush</category>
		<category>journalism</category>
		<category>media</category>
		<category>newyorktimes</category>
		<dc:creator>Postroad</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>An Executive Order Along Torture&apos;s Path</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/38012/An%2DExecutive%2DOrder%2DAlong%2DTortures%2DPath</link>
		<description> &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI.121504.4940_4941.pdf&quot; title=&quot;&apos;&apos;I have been told that all interrogation techniques previously authorized by the Executive Order are still on the table but that certain techniques can only be used if very high-level authority is granted.&apos;&apos;&quot;&gt;&lt;small&gt;Request for guidance regarding the OGC&apos;s EC regarding detainee abuse, referring to &#8220;interrogation techniques made lawful&#8221; by the &#8220;President&apos;s Executive Order.&#8221;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/a&gt; comes  from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/&quot;&gt;Records Released in Response to Torture FOIA Request&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aclu.org/news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=17216&amp;c=206&quot; title=&quot;The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and &apos;&apos;sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.&apos;&apos; The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from &apos;&apos;On Scene Commander--Baghdad&apos;&apos; to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized. &quot;&gt;Smoking Gun ?&lt;/a&gt; asks the ACLU--or just another stepping stone from &lt;a href=&quot;http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6733558/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/&quot; title=&quot;In a Jan. 25, 2002, memo to Bush, Gonzales said the new war on terror &apos;&apos;renders obsolete Geneva&apos;s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners.&apos;&apos; Some State Department lawyers charge that Gonzales misrepresented so many legal considerations and facts (including hard conclusions by State&apos;s Southeast Asia bureau about the nature of the Taliban) that one lawyer considers the memo to be &apos;&apos;an ethical breach.&apos;&apos; In response, a senior White House official says Gonzales&apos;s memo was only a &apos;&apos;draft&apos;&apos; and just one part of an extensive decision-making process in which all views were aired.&quot;&gt;Torture&apos;s Path&lt;/a&gt; ? As &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/16/politics/16jag.html?ei=5090&amp;en=5016ee06544b6bc4&amp;ex=1260939600&amp;partner=rssuserland&amp;pagewanted=print&amp;position=&quot; title=&quot;Several former high-ranking military lawyers say they are discussing ways to oppose President Bush&apos;s nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be attorney general, asserting that Gonzales&apos;s supervision of legal memorandums that appeared to sanction harsh treatment of detainees, even torture, showed unsound legal judgment.&quot;&gt;Ex-Military Lawyers Object to Bush Cabinet Nominee&lt;/a&gt;, and in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/12/17/memo/print.html&quot; title=&quot;Renewed exposure of prisoner abuse, torture and even murder by American military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan is widening already deep divisions between the Pentagon and the intelligence community -- and creating an untenable situation for Donald Rumsfeld, the beleaguered secretary of defense. A recently disclosed FBI memo indicates that &apos;&apos;marching orders&apos;&apos; to abandon traditional interrogation methods came from the defense secretary himself. In recent days, a coalition of human rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights has brought new cases of abuse to public attention. Using the Freedom of Information Act, they have pried thousands of pages of previously secret documents from the Defense Department and other agencies.&quot;&gt;Torture begins at the top&lt;/a&gt;, Joe Conason suggests that a recently disclosed FBI memo indicates that &quot;marching orders&quot; to abandon traditional interrogation methods came from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld himself and all the while &lt;a href=&quot;http://politics.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5083701-110481,00.html&quot; title=&quot;Fresh allegations about a regime of torture and humiliation inflicted on detainees by their American captors at Guant&amp;#0225;namo Bay have been made by a Briton still held there, according to Foreign Office documents seen by the Guardian. The claims by Martin Mubanga, from London, are the latest to surface from the prison where the US holds 550 Muslim men it claims are terrorists in conditions that have sparked worldwide condemnation. &quot;&gt;Guant&amp;#0225;namo torture and humiliation still going on, says shackled Briton&lt;/a&gt;. (more inside)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.38012</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:53:08 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>AbuGhraib</category>
		<category>ACLU</category>
		<category>AlbertoGonzales</category>
		<category>DonaldRumsfeld</category>
		<category>ExecutiveOrder</category>
		<category>FOIA</category>
		<category>FreedomOfInformationAct</category>
		<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
		<category>GWOT</category>
		<category>Interrogation</category>
		<category>Iraq</category>
		<category>IraqWar</category>
		<category>NewYorkTimes</category>
		<category>NYTimes</category>
		<category>Torture</category>
		<category>USPresident</category>
		<category>War</category>
		<dc:creator>y2karl</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>The phrase &apos;&apos;Banana Republican&apos;&apos; comes to mind</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/30617/The%2Dphrase%2DBanana%2DRepublican%2Dcomes%2Dto%2Dmind</link>
		<description> &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/politics/07CND-FUND.html?position=&amp;en=d19dbdf1fad7763f&amp;ex=1068267600&amp;?ei=5062&amp;partner=GOOGLE&amp;pagewanted=print&amp;position=&quot; title=&quot;Although the dollar&apos;s adjustment could occur gradually over an extended period, the possible global risk of a disorderly exchange rate adjustment, especially to financial markets, cannot be ignored. the International Monetary Fund warned in a new report on Washington&apos;s fiscal stance. An abrupt weakening of investor sentiment vis-a-vis the dollar could possibly lead to adverse consequences both domestically and abroad.&quot;&gt;  I.M.F. Report Says U.S. Deficits Threaten World Economy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;em&gt;With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy, according to a report released Wednesday by the International Monetary Fund. Prepared by a team of I.M.F. economists, the report sounded a loud alarm about the shaky fiscal foundation of the United States, questioning the wisdom of the Bush administration&apos;s tax cuts and warning that large budget deficits pose &quot;significant risks&quot; not just for the United States but for the rest of the world. The report warns that the United States&apos; net financial obligations to the rest of the world could be equal to 40 percent of its total economy within a few years--&quot;an unprecedented level of external debt for a large industrial country,&quot; according to the fund, that could play havoc with the value of the dollar and international exchange rates.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br&gt;From The Brookings Institute: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/orszag/20040105.htm&quot; title=&quot;The adverse consequences of sustained large budget deficits may well be far larger and occur more suddenly than traditional analysis suggests, however. Substantial deficits projected far into the future can cause a fundamental shift in market expectations and a related loss of confidence both at home and abroad. The unfavorable dynamic effects that could ensue are largely if not entirely excluded from the conventional analysis of budget deficits. This omission is understandable and appropriate in the context of deficits that are small and temporary; it is increasingly untenable, however, in an environment with deficits that are large and permanent. Substantial ongoing deficits may severely and adversely affect expectations and confidence, which in turn can generate a self-reinforcing negative cycle among the underlying fiscal deficit, financial markets, and the real economy:&quot;&gt;Sustained Budget Deficits: Longer-Run U.S. Economic Performance and the Risk of Financial and Fiscal Disarray&lt;/a&gt; (Full Report &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/orszag/20040105.pdf&quot;&gt;PDF&lt;/a&gt;)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.30617</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:20:26 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>deficit</category>
		<category>dollar</category>
		<category>economics</category>
		<category>economy</category>
		<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
		<category>IMF</category>
		<category>InternationalMontaryFund</category>
		<category>NewYorkTimes</category>
		<category>NYTimes</category>
		<category>USDeficit</category>
		<dc:creator>y2karl</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Khaki and Camo</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/26163/Khaki%2Dand%2DCamo</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/03/opinion/03KRUG.html"&gt;Paul Krugman&lt;/a&gt; writes that the Bush administration will fight a &quot;khaki election&quot; next year, taking advantage of the general good feeling after the Iraq war. The original khaki election was the British election of 1900, contested during the Boer War. Our armed forces don&apos;t really wear khaki so much anymore and I think we need a new term. I suggest calling 2004 the &quot;Camo Election.&quot; Any better suggestions?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.26163</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2003 10:15:38 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Election2004</category>
		<category>GeorgeBush</category>
		<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
		<category>GWB</category>
		<category>Iraq</category>
		<category>IraqWar</category>
		<category>khaki</category>
		<category>KhakiElection</category>
		<category>NewYorkTimes</category>
		<category>NYTimes</category>
		<category>PaulKrugman</category>
		<category>USPresident</category>
		<category>War</category>
		<dc:creator>Mekon</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Do Americans want more God in government?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/24044/Do%2DAmericans%2Dwant%2Dmore%2DGod%2Din%2Dgovernment</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/04/opinion/04KRIS.html"&gt;Governing by The Book?&lt;/a&gt; While reading &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/04/opinion/04KRIS.html&quot;&gt;this &lt;/a&gt; column from Nicholas Kristof (NY Times, reg. required), I was struck by the following quote: &quot;President Bush has said that he doesn&apos;t believe in evolution (he thinks the jury is still out). President Ronald Reagan felt the same way, and such views are typically American.&quot; Lots more info here, including stats that  46% of Americans consider themselves &quot;Evangelical&quot; or &quot;Born Again&quot; Christians, and that more than twice as many Americans believe in a red guy with a pitchfork than natural selection. I have no doubt that me-fites will have much to gripe about here, but my question is this: Do a majority of Americans want a Christian government? How far away are they from getting it?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.24044</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:18:31 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>bornagainchristians</category>
		<category>creationism</category>
		<category>evangelicals</category>
		<category>georgewbush</category>
		<category>newyorktimes</category>
		<category>nicholaskristof</category>
		<category>ronaldreagan</category>
		<dc:creator>Gilbert</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/19634/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/opinion/01BRZE.html"&gt;&quot;Any further strikes against Americans will thus be a painful reminder that the war has not been won.&lt;/a&gt; Sadly, a main reason will be America&apos;s reluctance to focus on the political roots of the terrorist atrocity of Sept. 11.&quot;

opinions on this piece from the original sponsor of the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mujahideen.fsnet.co.uk/speech/bin-laden-10nov2001.htm&quot;&gt;Mujahideen&lt;/a&gt;?
username: metafilter46 password: metafilter

 </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.19634</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Sep 2002 19:38:59 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>911</category>
		<category>Afghanistan</category>
		<category>Brzezinski</category>
		<category>extremism</category>
		<category>geopolitics</category>
		<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
		<category>GWOT</category>
		<category>NewYorkTimes</category>
		<category>NYTimes</category>
		<category>OpEd</category>
		<category>terrorism</category>
		<category>USPolitics</category>
		<category>ZbigniewBrzezinski</category>
		<dc:creator>specialk420</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/17566/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/03/science/03CLIM.html"&gt;The president and his aides often described climate change as a &quot;serious issue,&quot; but rarely as a serious problem.&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;b&gt;new york times&lt;/b&gt;


this statement reminds me of: &quot;depends on what the meaning of is, is?&quot;

at least, admitting you have a problem is usually the first step.

username: metafi19

password: metafi

 </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.17566</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2002 07:37:28 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>climate</category>
		<category>climatechange</category>
		<category>dubya</category>
		<category>georgewbush</category>
		<category>globalwarming</category>
		<category>newyorktimes</category>
		<category>scottmcclellan</category>
		<dc:creator>specialk420</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/14856/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/17/politics/17SECR.html?todaysheadlines"&gt;U.S. Tightening Rules on Keeping Scientific Secrets [NYTimes free subscription required]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;i&gt;&quot;One White House proposal is to eliminate the sections of articles that give experimental details researchers from other laboratories would need to replicate the claimed results, helping to prove their validity &quot;&lt;/i&gt;  It&apos;s a new monkey to keep See, Hear, and Speak no evil company: Publish no scientifically replicable evil.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.14856</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2002 07:39:31 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
		<category>GWB</category>
		<category>GWOT</category>
		<category>HomelandSecurity</category>
		<category>NewYorkTimes</category>
		<category>science</category>
		<category>secrecy</category>
		<category>security</category>
		<category>StateSecrets</category>
		<category>TomRidge</category>
		<category>USA</category>
		<category>WMD</category>
		<dc:creator>srboisvert</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/14679/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/11/politics/11LIBR.html?todaysheadlines"&gt;The Battle Over Bush&apos;s Gov. Papers.&lt;/a&gt; What are they hiding?  Executive order blocking Presidential papers, refusing to turn over Energy Taskforce member list, and now this!  There must be something to hide.  But what?!?!?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.14679</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:42:49 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
		<category>Governor</category>
		<category>GubernatorialPapers</category>
		<category>NewYorkTimes</category>
		<category>NYTimes</category>
		<category>papers</category>
		<category>Texas</category>
		<category>USPresident</category>
		<dc:creator>bas67</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/10403/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2001/treason.html"&gt;Actually, They DO Dare Call It Treason.&lt;/a&gt; Criticize Bush and be shouted down as a traitor: &quot;The despicable traitors have made it their mission to undercut the authority of President Bush during America&#8217;s darkest hour, proving themselves even more cowardly than the terrorist murderers who are the only beneficiaries of such contemptible conduct.&quot;  It&apos;s a good thing that MeFi would never sink to such levels.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.10403</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2001 12:12:20 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>911</category>
		<category>conservative</category>
		<category>criticism</category>
		<category>GeorgeWBush</category>
		<category>hyperpatriotism</category>
		<category>NewsMax</category>
		<category>NewYorkTimes</category>
		<category>patriotism</category>
		<category>September11</category>
		<category>treason</category>
		<category>USPresident</category>
		<dc:creator>NortonDC</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


