That Damned “Liberal” Media

L. pointed this out to me: One of the things that makes the news of the illegal Bush Administration domestic spying even more disturbing is the fact that the NY Times sat on the story for at least a year. The Times has explained that:

A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security.

Yeah, right. And did the Administration also argue, sometime before, oh, let's say, November 2, 2004—election day—that revealing that it had absolutely no respect for the Fourth Amendment might, um, not be good for its chances in that little political contest? Nah, that never would have happened. I mean, the Times wouldn't have sat on a story that could have totally changed election results, right? It would never do something like that.

Posted December 18, 2005 10:04 AM | general politics