Saturday, February 04, 2006
You think the most amazing thing about Bush's illegal wiretapping program was that he did it, or that he says he still thinks it's legal, because Presidents can do that sort of thing (hey, Nixon actually proved that, didn't he?).
NOPE - the most amazing thing is that the New York Times, no less, covered up the illegal practice for an entire year, themselves (and would have continued to do so):
"The Bush administration asked The Times not to print some of Risen's reporting, especially about the wiretapping program, and the paper honored that request for a year. But when Risen was about to publish this book, which included the revelations that The Times had withheld, the newspaper decided to end its self-restraint."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/books/review/05isaac.html?pagewanted=2
Doesn't that just do it to you on toast?
The Times now believes the program was illegal. It's reporter always did:
"...as Risen shows, the program went on for more than a year with indifference to the requirement that there be some court authorization or Congressional approval of domestic wiretapping."
So what the hell happened? The Times isn't saying, for now. (It doesn't find the book as a whole rock solid, but it doesn't question the sections on the wiretapping.) The Washington Post once had a hell of a time trying to get other papers to report a story, as I remember...
NOPE - the most amazing thing is that the New York Times, no less, covered up the illegal practice for an entire year, themselves (and would have continued to do so):
"The Bush administration asked The Times not to print some of Risen's reporting, especially about the wiretapping program, and the paper honored that request for a year. But when Risen was about to publish this book, which included the revelations that The Times had withheld, the newspaper decided to end its self-restraint."
'State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration,' by James Risen
Spies and Spymasters
Review by WALTER ISAACSON
Published: February 5, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/books/review/05isaac.html?pagewanted=2
Doesn't that just do it to you on toast?
The Times now believes the program was illegal. It's reporter always did:
"...as Risen shows, the program went on for more than a year with indifference to the requirement that there be some court authorization or Congressional approval of domestic wiretapping."
So what the hell happened? The Times isn't saying, for now. (It doesn't find the book as a whole rock solid, but it doesn't question the sections on the wiretapping.) The Washington Post once had a hell of a time trying to get other papers to report a story, as I remember...
