UPDATE Thursday Amazing! Andrew Rosenthal, NYT editorial page editor, sort of admits that critics, such as myself, were correct in raising doubts about rules or promises or guidelines or whatever you want to call were in his speech. Check out final graf: "But I guess Glenn Greenwald was right. The president’s speech did not signal a specific, immediate change in the administration’s policy on signature strikes — just a promise that they will decline over time. That’s a shame." He posted late yesrerday, just saw today.
UPDATE: My latest at The Nation expands on all this, with more to come.
Earlier: Latest strike kills four in Pakistan, possibly a top Taliban leader, just days after announcing new "rules." Did this strike break them already? Critics had already warned there was little change behind the rhetoric. Spencer Ackerman explores here. "The Obama administration has yet to officially acknowledge the strike, let alone detail what if any 'continuing, imminent threat' Rehman posed. (If it does, that really will be a departure from past practice.) However, Obama’s team defines those terms so broadly that a whole lot fits under their banner."
No comments:
Post a Comment