The New York Times' excuses for its behavior are laughable

[tgnyc]

They tell us:

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.

So, what, the terrorists didn't already know that they were being spied on without a warrant? Then why do they always talk in code, retards? There is nothing in the the story's revelations that would have hurt the administration's ability to monitor the activities of terror suspects, and the reputedly highly-intelligent Times editorial staff had to know that.

Then the Times says:

Officials also assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions.

Still believing these documented liars? What is the Times' problem?

more thoughts at http://intelligencesquad.blogspot.com/2005/12/all-news-thats-cleared-by-george-bush.html

[drbtg1]

1. Do we know WHEN last year?

Was it, ummmm, before November of last year?

[tgnyc]

3. Good question. They only say "a year ago."

[Protagoras]

2. We keep talking about a LIST of Bush scandals...but

I think it's time to start keeping a list of the ever growing NYT's scandals...seems like they've become THE official mouthpiece and protector of Bushco. I bet Noam Chomsky has a giant shit-eating grin on his face over this one...and he's entitled to it.