How Low Can the Times Go?

The New York Times has hit rock bottom with this one.

James Risen's shameless promotional campaign for his soon to be released anti-Bush Administration book is putting the American people at risk.

These libs act as if they are in a vacuum, as though they can lie and attack and mislead and distort without harming U.S. national security.

It disgusts me.

Drudge reported last Friday:

[N]ational 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... 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 -- which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

THE TIMES SAT ON THIS STORY FOR ONE YEAR!

From Editor and Publisher:

Times journalists told NPR the approaching release of Risen's book forced senior editors to focus grudgingly on the NSA story. They otherwise would have been scooped in a book by one of their own correspondents. (Risen had been on book leave for the first five months of 2005, according to the Times.)

Grudgingly? They have got to be kidding.

Michael Getler is the ombudsman for PBS and was previously a deputy managing editor, foreign editor and ombudsman at The Washington Post. He says the Times deserves credit for its scoop. But he wonders why it took so long.

"The guideline is that the story gets published when it's ready," Getler said. "And what befuddled people is hearing about the fact that the Times had it and held on to it for so long. It doesn't diminish the impact of the story at all, but it diminishes the messenger."

Newsweek magazine reports that President Bush recently summoned Times Executive Editor Keller and Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. to the White House to try to talk them out of printing the article. They omitted some details, but ran it.

...Keller would not be interviewed for this story. In a second statement, he said the publication of the NSA article "was not timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, Jim's forthcoming book or any other event." Keller added: "After listening respectfully to the Administration's objections, we were convinced there was no good reason not to publish it."

Keller has not provided a reasonable explanation as to why the Times ran the story now. Not even close.

The Times people contradict themselves within this very article.

At first, they say that they were forced to run the story to keep from being scooped by their own reporter. Yeah, forget national security, worry about being scooped.

As slimy as that is, it's even slimier that Keller would insist that publication of the articles were not timed to "Jim's forthcoming book."

Even though the President of the United States personally requested that the Times not run the story, Keller and Sulzberger did it anyway.

Supposedly, "the Times held back after government officials said the article would compromise their ability to track terrorists. In a statement, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said government officials convinced the newspaper that the president had the legal authority to order the wiretaps. Keller said subsequent reporting showed there were deep divisions within the administration about the extent of Bush's authority."

Isn't it amazing how the "subsequent reporting" coincided with the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, and Risen's book? I find it stunning. I mean, what are the odds?

After waiting a year, Sulzberger and Keller's decision to expose "Bush and his abuse of power" at this moment was all just a coincidence.

Sure it was.


President Bush said he expects the Justice Department to investigate who leaked to the Times. That's unwelcome news for a newspaper that just lost its fight to keep former reporter Judith Miller from having to testify about confidential sources in the Valerie Plame-CIA leak case.

First, I must say that I consider anything from the Times to be "unwelcome news."

Second, I, too, want to know who leaked to the Times. I think it's weird that the mainstream media were whipped into a frenzy over the "outing" of a CIA employee who was not covert; yet they don't seem to be flipping out over a leak that could have dramatic implications for our national security.

The terrorists must be loving this.

Furthermore, if the Times is so horrified that Bush abused his authority, where is the outrage over the actions of Dem presidents that engaged in the same activity?

More from Drudge:

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."

In addition, Andrew McCarthy wrote a great piece exposing the idiocy of the drooling Leftists.

Warrantless Searches of Americans? That’s Shocking!
Except when it happens every day.

When not cavalierly talking "impeachment," here's the Left's talking point of the day:

What makes this president think he can invade the privacy of Americans without a warrant?

I don't know. Could it be the powers, long recognized by federal law, to:

* Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

* Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

* Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

* Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

* Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

* Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

* Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

* Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

* Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

* Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

* Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

* Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

* Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

* Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

McCarthy's list goes on and on. He concludes:

These could conceivably be some of the things that the president is thinking about, though certainly not all. I neglected, after all, to mention the long-established "inherent authority" of the president to "conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information," recognized by federal appeals courts and assumed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in 2002.

Where does this president get such crazy ideas? Obviously, he should be impeached.

Thankfully, the New Media are pointing out what the MSM conveniently ignore.

Drudge and McCarthy provide concrete instances revealing just how desperate the Left has become in their effort to destroy Bush. They are dismissing the actions of past presidents and the daily activities of law enforcement officials, all in the name of undermining the Administration.

Meanwhile, the lib media mouthpieces for the Dems continue to promote the terrorists' agenda. Once again, their reporting is indistinguishable from what Al Jazeera is putting out. Al Jazeera picked this up from Reuters:

The eavesdropping programme is the latest in a series of administration policies in Bush's declared war on terrorism that have prompted questions over whether the line has been crossed between protecting the public and protecting civil rights.

The senators calling for an investigation demanded detailed information on the programme, including on its legality.

"It is critical that Congress determine, as quickly as possible, exactly what collection activities were authorised, what were actually undertaken, how many names and numbers were involved over what period, and what was the asserted legal authority for such activities. In sum, we must determine the facts," they said in a joint letter.

The news outlet that terrorists utilize to air propaganda is on the same page as the lib media. Something is terribly wrong with that picture.

Politics is politics. It's dirty. Fine.

However, messing with national security and the government's ability to keep Americans safe should not be politicized. The Leftists are relentless in their efforts to undermine the Bush Administration.

The price of the Left's political games could be another 9/11.

That's inexcusable.

I wish the Times would splash an analysis of Clinton's Echelon spy progam.

Not going to happen.