Friday, December 16, 2005

Drudge Outs Motive Behind Latest New York Times Bush Attack

The New York Times has been ballyhooing it's latest "scoop," clearly derived from disgruntled Federal employees (this time at the NSA), meant to undermine the Bush Administration's continuing War on Terror. The socalled "bombshell" retails the story about how the President himself authorized the NSA to secretly tap into civilian communications. Not only is it interesting that this story was dropped the day Bush was getting maximum exposure from the astounding success of the Iraqi elections, however. The intrepid Matt Drudge drops an additional bombshell of his own—on the NYTimes itself:
On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied
to a book release.
(HazZzmat's italics.)
So let's see. Elements in the CIA are working against the President already, colluding with the Washington Post. Now elements of the NSA, America's super-secret military spy agency, are colluding with the New York Times. And, as we all know, the collectivists in the Dept. of State have been colluding with everyone all along against the Bushies.

Any of these brave civil libertarians ever hear of the word "treason" before? Government employees are supposed to serve whatever party and whatever administration is currently in power, having been duly elected by the voters of America. Is there anything in their job descriptions that exempts them from this requirement if the current White House occupant is a Republican?

Now the Democrats and their collectivist allies in the ACLU are sure to be calling for yet another "investigation". Of whom?

No comments: