"The President had made the request in person, nine days before, in an Oval Office meeting with publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. "
If the President actually lowered himself to meet with that traitorous little bastard, it would disappoint me more than anything else I've heard about this entire story.
That's a fascinating insight into the inner workings of the press.
Much the same way that the inner workings of serial killers is fascinating.
The Times ran the story when it did to knock the successful Iraqi elections off the front page. Heck, most of the MSM has completely ignored the Iraqi elections for the most part. This gave them cover to ignore it.
save
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
END
President Bush needs to find whoever is leaking this stuff and put a cork in it.
So. The story itself is not about the story itself. It's about money and power for the MSM and Democrats.
Looks like I cut & pasted too much...the portion that starts
"...We did not want to become another version of Talk magazine,” Mort Zuckerman said on the phone from Aspen, Colo."
is an unrelated piece tacked onto this one.
This goes directly to the "why" of this story. Abramson is an agenda-driven "reporter" who was central to spreading Anita Hill's slime. "Laverne" Abramson and her conspirator, Jane Mayer were all over the interview show propping-up their book Strange Justice.
It is always the case with the far left that supposed "reporters" and "editors" end up shilling a POV instead of acting as impartial recorders of fact.
The Times hates America because we have conservative values and they hate republicans because we stand for conservative values. The times will do anything to destroy this country as we know it.
Is the New York Times still the "paper of national record?" If so, why?
A lot of libraries only carry it because it has that designation. This would seem to be a relatively easy vote that the president could win. Losing that designation would surely hurt circulation by a few percentage points.
Surely their is a less treasonous major paper that could use the business.
Me thinks that the Bush Administration should give Mr Risen an exclusive on the conditions in the "Secret CIA Prisons" in Eastern Europe. Let him experience them firsthand as well as the leaker.
If Bush were the monster the Times claims he is these guys would be in jail or worse.