The New York Times: SNAFU

In its quest to demonize Vice President Dick Cheney and taint General Michael V. Hayden, President Bush's nominee to be the director of the CIA, The New York Times has gone completely off the deep end.

In its foaming at the mouth, front page story, The Times accuses Dick Cheney of fighting to have free rein to spy on any America at will. Hayden is depicted as devising a program that would keep the sinister Cheney happy while pacifying the troubled NSA lawyers.

Did the zealousness of reporters Scott Shaen and Eric Lichtblau expose the distortions of past Times reporting on the much hyped "domestic spy program"?

WASHINGTON, May 13 -- In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials.

But N.S.A. lawyers, trained in the agency's strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any eavesdropping without warrants, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration late in 2001.

The N.S.A.'s position ultimately prevailed.

Am I reading this correctly?

The Times is making the case that shortly after 9/11, the evil Dick Cheney wanted the NSA to "intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists."

The NSA lawyers argued that only communications into and out of the country could be monitored without warrants, meaning international calls and e-mails.

According to The Times, May 14, 2006 edition, "The N.S.A.'s position ultimately prevailed."

OK.

In other words, The Times states that THERE IS NO DOMESTIC SPYING.

The NSA's position prevailed, meaning only calls with an international component could be monitored.

In the six months since The Times leaked the NSA's terrorist surveillance program, how often has the operation been referred to as "domestic spying"?

So often that it would be easier to determine how frequently The Times didn't characterize the program as warrantless domestic spying. (I think that might be never.)

In the December 16, 2005 edition, when The Times first ran the leaked story that served to undermine U.S. efforts to protect citizens from terrorism, and from that point forward, the mantra has been "domestic spying."

The phone calls and communications of innocent Americans WITHIN THE COUNTRY (hence "domestic") were supposedly being illegally intercepted.

Months after the Sept. 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.

What a massive contradiction!

It's so blatant that I'm doubting myself here.

Has The Times admitted today that there is no DOMESTIC SPYING being done by the NSA?

I think so.