Posted on 12/17/2005 9:17:35 AM PST by AliVeritas
The New York Times' revelation yesterday that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct domestic eavesdropping raised eyebrows in political and media circles, for both its stunning disclosures and the circumstances of its publication.
In an unusual note, the Times said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."
The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."
The paper offered no explanation to its readers about what had changed in the past year to warrant publication. It also did not disclose that the information is included in a forthcoming book, "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," written by James Risen, the lead reporter on yesterday's story. The book will be published in mid-January, according to its publisher, Simon & Schuster.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The NY Times is run by degenerate homosexuals.
The president said today in his radio address that contrary to the left's assertion that they hadn't known about this spying, he has briefed Congress about this matter dozens of times!
Redundant? Redundant?
The article suggests the Times waited til the Patriot Act renewal vote in order to have a "news peg." Right. I'm sure there was nothing in the last year that would have otherwise made the story relevant to readers...
I'd like to see the Ethics Committee look into why Chucky Schumer was pimping Risen's "book" on the floor of the Senate. That is exactly what he was doing when he was whining about this while waving a copy of the NYT in the air.
I know I know
In other words the Slimes spent a year trying to find out their legal status should the spill they beans
Good point! If the congress was unaware of this how did the slimes know about it a year earlier?
The heck it did.
That's SSDD at the NYT.
I want names. Anyone got 'em? Limbaugh's already mentioned Rockefeller.
I am looking forward to watching the Bush administration defend this for three reasons:
1) The drama associated with the Friday release... obvious media manipulation (again).
2) The motives (book release, patriot act, CIA leak lost steam, CIA old timer power play, perhaps all of the above and more
3) The Bush team is pushing back harder and holds all of the cards in this... the cat is out of the bag and a revelation about what kind of people we spyed on and what they were planning is just what the country needs and the last things the dems need (a plank of protecting the civil rights of terrorists in their platform).
pop some corn, here we go (again)
Limbaugh mentioned Rockefeller? Is he sure, do you think or is he guessing?
Wanna REALLY get your blood pressure up??
Google: James Risen NYT
Read the TOP story in response to the president's radio address....
Limbaugh sounded certain to me. And he mentioned that rumpswab more than once.
Thanks for that info. Perfect name for Rockefeller. ROFL
This is no big deal. I remember the Times publishing similar ominous articles about the Clinton administration just before Gary Aldrich's book came out.
Oh, wait. That never happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.