The NY Times was sitting on the biggest story of the year. The NY Times was sitting on the information that the President of the United States was illegally spying on citizens of this country. The NY Times knew that the administration was carrying on illegal surveillance of the American people before those very Americans were going to the polls to elect a president. Hmmmm.... It would have been kind of handy to have had that information on November 2, 2004, wouldn't it? As for why they held it? Care to explain, Bill Keller?Bold text courtesy of Wonker to illustrate an important point. Note the classic tactics of Antonio Gramsci here—twist an opinion into a "known fact" (Bush's activities were "illegal") and then use the word again in the same short paragraph to drive the "known truth" home.
Visit half a dozen liberal and conservative sites on the NSA wiretap brouhaha and you'll find the same thing. Legal scholars and pundits of all stripes are all over the board. The Bushies meticulously discharged their duties under the current set of laws. They cleared these activities with NSA's own counsel. Members of the Congress with a need to know were kept in the loop. This wasn't a great secret. But like anything in wartime, which this is, the administration is forced to walk a fine line when defending the American people including Kos' treasonous patriots.
As is often the case, we're in a legal gray area here and until and unless the legal morass in this situation is further clarified, it is simply flat out wrong to trumpet "illegal" because no one really knows.
But that's what the left does. They latch onto an opinion, always consistent with Marxist doctrine which posits a greater socialist authority over the existence of a free nation-state, and then trumpet it until it's drilled in as the "truth." That's how our Marxist friends who control today's Democrat party have slowly undermined our culture and our legal system, as outlined by Gramsci, who correctly recognized that you didn't need to fire a single bullet in order to win a socialist revolution. You simply had to wreck the traditional consensus by stealth until no further resistance remained.
If you follow the logic here as well, such as it is, you'll catch another flaw here as the dialectic surges over reason as it always must. If you'll check the timeframe, the Times was also more than likely holding back the story not only because of White House pressure (understandable) and perhaps, a desire to provide a plug for the author's book when the publication date neared; but also, in the context of the Rathergate brouhaha, the Times was no doubt gun-shy of exposing themselves to that kind of ruinously negative publicity. But in the Kos Kidz' distorted universe, that could NEVER be a possibility, could it?
Once again, readers need to be aware of the left's cute rhetorical tricks in the coming weeks. Not only do they fail to report the truth. They distort the law and the Constitution all the better to topple the U.S. for once and for all. We'll continue, though, to expose them for you. Language is a subtle way to fight a war, but we're fighting back. Calling an action illegal again and again is swell rhetoric. But it offers no proof at all. And if you'll search the whole piece, you won't find anything to back up any of the column's allegations. You never do.
The real story here, or the one waiting to be told is: Who at the NSA leaked this info—which he or she or they had sworn under oath to protect—and when will they be prosecuted for treason? Don't hold your breath. Neither Kos nor the Democrats nor the NYTimes are much interested in this one. They'd rather keep applying the term "illegal" to Bush, a term that is actual factual when it describes the NSA scoundrels who leaked our country's secrets to the enemy.