Comments on: Timing of the NSA Surveillance Story

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 23:25:48 +0000

Ah. Yes, true enough. I'm not sure exactly when the book was coming out but one would think they could have waited a few days.

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:15:54 +0000

Because if the times had their heads on straight, they would have realized the reaction that would have followed from the publication dated as it was the days following the Iraq election. Given that they had sat on it for a year, why not wait a few more days if there was nothing pressing them to put it out. It's not like this was a breaking story of a murder investigation or something that had to be out immediately. "Incompetence" in this instance means the inability to see the forest (reaction to the timing of the story and its effect on the Times "credibility") for the trees (publishing the story).

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:59:14 +0000

bryan: I don't follow?

By: bryan

bryan — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:52:28 +0000

Still, Kevin's right that the Times was clearly not motivated by malice in holding the story. On the other hand, we can rest assured that they weren't trying to help Bush's reelection chances, either. I did the backward math for my initial post on the matter: It appears the Times was merely basing the timing on incompetence, then, am I right?

By: Barry

Barry — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:21:50 +0000

James: "It's hard to say. After all, the president's poll numbers are up since the story came out. " Have any photogenic elections been held in Iraq lately? James, are you seriously trying to say that publishing this story before the election wouldn't have hurt Bush's chances?

By: Herb

Herb — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:13:14 +0000

Where are the "Constitution Watchers" and protectors now that is is established fact that the writer if the NYT article had a financial intrest is publishing the story is spite of the fact that it was a "Highly Classified" secret. Risen, the writer, apparantly didn't give a damn about our countries securty in favor of his own financial gain. That has to be the lowest of lifeforms in the US, and to think that the democrats jumped on his, (Risens) bandwagon only proves their "patrotic" rohtoric is generated only by Hate.

By: mal

mal — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:02:43 +0000

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200512201735.asp

By: leelu

leelu — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:25:37 +0000

...back to the "timing" thing. I doubt that anyone in MSM would admit to it, but it wasn't about being scooped. It was about generating buzz for their reporter's book, which in turn would get the whole "illegal wiretapping" idea into circulation. I've seen them do it too many times... KABC in LA showing a holocaust related movie, then topping the news off interviewing Jews about what they thought of the movie. This is no different. Remember, the purpose of the media is to sell your eyeballs to the advertisers. Period.

By: none

none — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:30:13 +0000

"the fact that senior democrats were briefed, apparently without objection", are you kidding? Here's the briefing: "take a look at what we've been doing for some years now but keep in mind that this is super-top-secret so you can't discuss this with anyone. So what do you think?" We'll it's clear that Rockefeller was one pretty sharp guy with a lot of political foresight to write that letter and keep a copy. That alone blows the hugest hole in any argument of "we kept congress informed." On the other hand, maybe they really didn't care how the democrats felt. I haven't heard what the republicans who were "notified" thought about this.

By: none

none — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:24:20 +0000

Hmmm...had the story before the election. All the MSM, especially the NYT, hate Bush and would do anything to hurt him.

This pretty much confirms what I believed all along. All the republican's crying about liberal media is nothing more than smoke and noise.

You gotta admit, if the NYT wanted Bush, they had the perfect opportunity. In fact, no wonder Bush had the NYT editor to the White House for a meeting. If the Times had printed the story, you'd be raving about how bad "President Kerry" is and calling for congressional hearings into the color of his socks.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:23:36 +0000

At this point, who knows? Bush probably has public opinion on his side. The fact that senior democrats were briefed, apparently without objection, although Pelosi may have objected, takes away their credibility. It would be hard to make the case that the president should take weeks to go through the FISA process before following up on terrorists links in the US. The president will have to explain, however, why he did not avail himself of the opportunity to act first and then go for retroactive FISA approval. If, as you say, there may be a technolical angle here that cannot be revealed, the president will have to take the hit. I believe he will. Remember, though we neither know nor care about the unconstitutional actions that Lincoln and FDR (imagine, democrats still honor as their patron saint a president who placed an entire ethnic group into concentration camps) engaged in; we know that they defended the nation at a time of great peril, and they won.

By: Herb

Herb — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 19:39:06 +0000

I have just learned that in October 1982, The 6th District Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the wirtappine of foreign communications between overseas persona and US citizens without a court order is LEGAL.

I also learned that both Clinton and Regan did the same thing as Bush in the NSA wiretaps and cited the US Constitution as their legal approval.

Now, all you Bush Haters, lets hear your whining, and your disagreement with the Federal Courts. I am sure some of you will have more knowledge and expertise than the 6th Court.