Recent revelations of the Bush administration illegally monitoring US citizens without a warrant mask another sinister element of this sordid tale. The New York Times agreed to hold the story for an entire year and only published the revelations after discussions with senior government officials. The key section:
"The White House asked the New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be understand scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."
We now learn, furthermore, that Bush himself called the Times publisher and executive editor to the White House and begged them not to run the story. They clearly refused but questions remain.
Bush probably knew that he would be exposed as a law-breaker, massively over-stepping his constitutional rights and leading to further erosion of his non-existent credibility. But what of the Times? They need to come clean and explain why they held this explosive story for one year, what sections, if any, were excised and whether they have actually gained any experience from the Judith Miller saga.
"The White House asked the New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be understand scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."
We now learn, furthermore, that Bush himself called the Times publisher and executive editor to the White House and begged them not to run the story. They clearly refused but questions remain.
Bush probably knew that he would be exposed as a law-breaker, massively over-stepping his constitutional rights and leading to further erosion of his non-existent credibility. But what of the Times? They need to come clean and explain why they held this explosive story for one year, what sections, if any, were excised and whether they have actually gained any experience from the Judith Miller saga.
3 Comments:
The calls for impeachment are falling flat on the floor.
The Supreme court does not control the impeachment of a President.
The Supreme court does not have to say anything, they merely sit as Judge. Others indite and sit as jury.
Post a Comment
<< Home