The fact that the NYTimes had to pose the question is the best proof that there is nothing they could use to hurt Bush in any of the tapes.
I guess it it time to back to the TANG issue!! LOL!!
Your two comments below, sum up the NY Slimes as it flounders around:
"The fact that the NYTimes had to pose the question is the best proof that there is nothing they could use to hurt Bush in any of the tapes."
"I guess it it time to back to the TANG issue!! LOL!!"
Or maybe trot out the old yellowcake, Plame/Wilson blame game.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1348716/posts?page=1#1
EX=PROSECUTOR: PLAME LEAK NOT ILLEGAL
NEWSMAX ^ | 2/22/05
Posted on 02/22/2005 10:14:45 AM PST by areafiftyone
The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked a CIA worker's name to columnist Robert Novak now says that no laws were broken in the case.
Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."
So why with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?
Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.
"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.
"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."