WOW! NYTimes slaps Bush down but good !

[kentuck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/opinion/29sun1.html

<snip>
A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies.

The first was that the domestic spying program is carefully aimed only at people who are actively working with Al Qaeda, when actually it has violated the rights of countless innocent Americans. And the second was that the Bush team could have prevented the 9/11 attacks if only they had thought of eavesdropping without a warrant.
•

Sept. 11 could have been prevented. This is breathtakingly cynical. The nation's guardians did not miss the 9/11 plot because it takes a few hours to get a warrant to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail messages. They missed the plot because they were not looking. The same officials who now say 9/11 could have been prevented said at the time that no one could possibly have foreseen the attacks. We keep hoping that Mr. Bush will finally lay down the bloody banner of 9/11, but Karl Rove, who emerged from hiding recently to talk about domestic spying, made it clear that will not happen — because the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America. "President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," he told Republican officials. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

<snip>
Just trust us. Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans' rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust. The domestic spying program is part of a well-established pattern: when Mr. Bush doesn't like the rules, he just changes them, as he has done for the detention and treatment of prisoners and has threatened to do in other areas, like the confirmation of his judicial nominees. He has consistently shown a lack of regard for privacy, civil liberties and judicial due process in claiming his sweeping powers. The founders of our country created the system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance.

....much more

[AX10]

1. KICK, KICK, KICK!

[bleever]

2. Imperial arrogance.

"The founders of our country created the system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance."


Thass what I'm takiln' bout.


Rec'd.

[Patsy Stone]

18. That was great! However, I particularly enjoyed this:

"But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust. The domestic spying program is part of a well-established pattern: when Mr. Bush doesn't like the rules, he just changes them..."

Oh, and as I've thought, it depends on what the meaning of the word "reasonable" is: "But that was not good enough for Mr. Bush, who lowered the standard for spying on Americans from "probable cause" to "reasonable belief..."

:hi:


K&R

[bleever]

24. "It was REASONABLE because I had a REASON (snort) heh...heh...

Let us never speak of this moment again.




:hi:

[Patsy Stone]

26. Hey? I'm just checking...

Are you doing that little scrunchy shoulder thing when you say that? :)

[Jeffersons Ghost]

59. I'm just KICKING

There are good points in the original OP, which is concise and well-written. :kick:

[Botany]

Great Writing!

Almost as good as "Gull Bay." BTW I get to meet the author of Gull Bay next week. :bounce:

I wonder how bushy boy is going to wriggle out of this one?

[Botany]

90. Great Writing!

Almost as good as "Gull Bay." BTW I get to meet the author of Gull Bay next week. :bounce:

I wonder how bushy boy is going to wriggle out of this one?

[EVDebs]

72. "Probable cause..." means Total Information Awareness and a wink/nod

besides, it's all offshored now to the Bahamas with Global Information Group, Ltd. Cast a wide net and you're sure to vacuum up something for everybody !

[bleever]

74. How are we going to get this more widely known?

You're on top of this outsourced TIA to the Bahamas, EV; any thoughts on why this is so little known, and how we can use the current domestic spying news to make it part of the public conversation?

[EVDebs]

93. Robert O'Harrow of WashPost has covered this but MSM

never keeps it on page A1 for very long...

Bahamas Firm Screens Personal Data To Assess Risk
Operation Avoids U.S. Privacy Rules

By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 16, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36853-2004Oct15.html

Word of mouth seems to be the only way to keep it out there

[0007]

77. ....and this gem!

We keep hoping that Mr. Bush will finally lay down the bloody banner of 9/11, but Karl Rove, who emerged from hiding recently to talk about domestic spying, made it clear that will not happen — because the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America. "President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," he told Republican officials. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

Mr. Rove knows perfectly well that no Democrat has ever said any such thing

[Patsy Stone]

86. Doesn't it seem

like the poodle's finally barking? Better late than never.

[Gloria]

3. WHOA! and fence sitters on this Alito filibuster should read this

VERY CAREFULLY....

[oscarguy]

4. The New York Times Have Been Wimpy Re: Bush

I live in New York State and spent most of my life in Boston. The Newspapers are so wimpy now compared to what they were I feel so very sad. Anyone remember " THE REAL PAPER " out of Boston? Whatever,WE HAD BETTER START FIGHTING BACK. Oscar

[CrazyOrangeCat]

5. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[oscarguy]

9. Thank You for Your Welcome

Hello Crazy Cat. I expect I will be seeing you around in the DU forums. Take Care Always, Oscar

[CoffeeCat]

6. Man oh man...they are stoking the fires of the Alito filibuster...

It's about time that the media stood up and called Junior on the carpet for his powermongering, crimes, and lack of concern for the principals on which this country was founded.

It's about time that people heard the truth about how scary this administration is--using blunt, unapologetic language that calls a spade a spade!

These words cement how ruthless and out-of-control Bush is--and hopefully these words will help our politicians and our citizens to see that Alito must not be one of the puzzle pieces that enables Bush to continue with his unConstitutional, unAmerican, powermongering, third-rate thuggery.

I think this article will help people to think twice about Alito.

I hope the article will also remind our politicians that it is important to stand up and
fight ruthlessly against this administration and everything they stand for---including Alito!

[lovuian]

7. I bet they were spied on...

Good for the NY Times...

[Justice Is Comin]

8. Triple Kick and recommend

Cant read it all yet but damn the air is starting to clear. Will the sun really shine again ? :bluebox: :bluebox: :bluebox: Thank you NYT !!!

:dem: :dem: :dem:

[Eric J in MN]

10. Is this part accurate?

"The Constitution does suggest expanded presidential powers in a time of war."

Where does the Constitution say that?

[publius_jr]

13. in the everything clause

right after the part granting the president spying powers over the people. duh.

[oscarguy]

15. The Constitution Means Whatever the Powers Are Says It Means

This is the way it is and always has been. We the People have to make it mean what we wish it to mean. The crap that has been done in the name of our Nation never ceases to amaze me. Oscar USMC Vet. Viet Nam P.S. and I do believe that war served a legitimate purpose as to showing a necessary stand against a very aggressive USSR.

[tabasco]

73. Because the USSR took over right after we left, right?

The Vietnam war was based on lies, just like the one we have now.

Tonkin Gulf ring a bell?

Thanks for your service but wake the fuck up. I was military too, but I don't need revisionist history to make me feel good about it.

Bush is using the discredited domino theory (that you apparently embrace) to catapult the propaganda (Bush's words) that Islam is trying to take over the world.

These wars were good for corporate profits and nothing else. That's why they were started and that's what they did.

[FormerRepublican]

19. This section of the constitution:

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

has been interpreted by the Supreme Court over the years as giving the President extended powers during times of war.

It's not explicitly written in the constitution, but there is a lot of court precedence for it. There's also cases that rule against Presidential power in a time of war. It's kind of a gray area.

[kentuck]

22. Could that not be interpreted as?

That the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy , and Militias (National Guards) when called into battle (service)? Suggesting that in times of war and conflict, it is necessary to have one person in charge but that at other times, the Commander in Chief role is a dormant responsibility?

[FormerRepublican]

23. It might if it weren't Republicans interpreting it!

[oscarguy]

28. Because the Rep.s control all 3 branches They Decide

We Democrats are the only hope our Nation has at this time to uphold our democratic institutions. It is up to us and there is no one else who can do it. My best years have come and gone, but I can say I gave my very best years serving our Nation. It is up to us, there is none who can do it for us, to reclaim our Nation as a Democracy. WE HAVE TO GIVE IT OUR ALL and it CAN AND SHALL BE DONE! Oscar

[Occulus]

67. The intent there seems to be pretty clear to ME

I don't know why the courts have winked and nudged over this.

The President also leads the military, and the militias (if/when they, the militias, are called into service). The confusion, perhaps, lies in the lack of clarification that the "when called into actual service" part refers to the militias and only the militias; the phrase as written could be construed to mean that when all are called into service, the President is their Commander in Chief.

In other words, the Founders screwed up on the wording. It's clearly intended that the "when called" portion of the clause refers to only the militias, because they are not ordinarily in the service of the United States, but rather the several states. However, because it does not say exactly that, modern legalese has decided that it isn't clear.

This is a problem we see when we look at laws passed in the last hundred years or so- an intentional (and very dangerous) bloating of wording, such that it becomes impossible for those subject to those same laws (being ourselves) to completely understand without extensive legal training.

When one law is more than 400 pages, there is something very very seriously wrong with the overall system. Laws should not be so specific that they attempt to predict every possible scenario in which the law could be applied! Yet our legislatures, buying into the whole "activist judge" meme, attempt to turn judges into mere courtroom referees by doing just that- overpredict, or perhaps a better word is "overlegislate", in the same spirit as "overengineer"- with the laws they write.

That is the beauty of our Constitution: it is so broad and general that almost each and every case bringing up a constitutional question must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Imagine a Constitutional Amendment that's thirty or forty pages long being passed- it wouldn't happen.

Sorry to drift like this, but it crossed my mind that language and its use in law today seems to be quite different than it used to be.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

32. The problem is, war was never declared.

He announced the start of the bombing. The Congress did not issue a Declaration Of War. Neither for Afghanistan or Iraq.

[oscarguy]

36. PRECEDENTS SET, Unlikely to change in our lifetimes.

Though it states in the Constitution that Congress alone has the authority to declare war, this authority has been sidestepped by all since the inception of our Nation. That point appears to be of no serious concern. Oscar

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

42. Appears to be of no serious concern, but

should be the ONLY serious concern. It's the root of everything that has happened.

[oscarguy]

43. Can you give an instance when Congress Disagreed?

Maybe there is one, I do not know of it.I am not trying to be a smart ass, I realy do not know of one. ,,,,Oscar

[quiet.american]

47. Well, FWIW, your statement is not quite accurate.

There's a very good breakdown here on formal declarations of war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

[justabob]

57. Another problem is that our current 'war'

is a war without end. There is no winning the war on terror. I heard or read someone talking about this (sorry I can't remember who or where). It is true that presidents have been given lattitude on this in the past, but the catch is that it was never for extended periods of time. What BushCo has done that is different is to set up a war with no definitions, no objective, and has said that it will go on as long as it takes. There is no precedent for that. That is where the problem lies with this 'defense' of his actions.

[Joe Chi Minh]

62. I think when the British fought the Communists in Malaya and

Borneo, we called it an "emergency", not a war.

[justabob]

65. ?

Did you mean to reply to my post? I am missing the connection.

[Joe Chi Minh]

69. Potentially endless skirmishing against terrorists,

rather than an orthodox "symmetrical" war in the field, so to speak. It seems a connection to me, but perhaps I've got it wrong.

[justabob]

70. Yes

When I first read what you wrote I was sort of scratching my head. Yes, you are right. Forgive my initial confusion. :)

[Joe Chi Minh]

75. Not at all. My posts are often turgid, alas.

[stevedeshazer]

11. WHAM

*thud*

K & R

[ginnyinWI]

12. just think about how the tone has changed from a year ago

Things are certainly tipping away from Clueless George.

[Garbo 2004]

14. And remember, Bush had the NSA spying illegally BEFORE 9-11.

So much for their lying excuses. FISA didn't keep them from doing anything that they should have been doing and besides they were bypassing it from the beginning. LIARS.

[rasputin1952]

16. There is an interesting and vital point that was left out....

the new, (at the time), bush administration was briefed on bin Laden, but they threw it out becase it came from the Clinton Administration. Just as the hearings told us, "bin Laden determined to strike the United States".

The hubris of this administration has proufoundly changed this nation, and will continue to do so, as long as the GOP holds both houses of Congress...that is why '06 is so important.

[EFerrari]

33. Yes, they were heedless. And that seems too difficult for

people to take in.

[MsMagnificent]

95. of course, it had "the Clinton Cooties"

...tells you what intellectual (that word used very lightly!) level this administration operates on!

[Hailtothechimp]

17. Well said. Bush does not deserve our trust.

Remember, he told us he was a "uniter, not a divider." Have you ever seen America this divided? I haven't.

[Olney Blue]

66. We haven't heard that phrase from the chimp in a while.....

It wasn't true then, it isn't true now.

[Roxy66]

20. Wow...I just read it. Major slap-down!!

I hope they have finally had it with these crooks

[Judi Lynn]

21. Didn't believe they had it in them at the NYTimes, anymore.THANK YOU. n/t

[badgerpup]

25. it would be interesting...

...to find out who all has come under this kind of illegal surveillance and see who Bush and Co. thinks is a threat to his reign the country's security. Remember Nixon's 'little list'?
It included La Leche League.

[grasswire]

27. anyone got the workaround link for this?

I hope so.

[EFerrari]

30. I don't think you need one, grasswire. Have you checked? n/t

[EFerrari]

29. Okay, the NYTs can come back in -- on the porch.

If they want all the way back in, well, there's a little matter of a Federal election they have to deal with.

This is a welcome start. :)

[kster]

34. Yes , will the NYT's break the

election theft story once and for all. I wonder if NYT has it in them? Based on this story they might, lets check back in a few days.

Will they fall for the "Oh * may spy on me I'm scared" story or will they go for it. Well NYT?

[EFerrari]

35. I believe they will break the story. No old lady that old

can be spanked so hard and not decide to do the right thing.

I speak from experience. :evilgrin:

[kster]

38. Heres to

hoping with you, and when they do break it, I'm going to send you a drink.

[EFerrari]

39. We'll toast here at DU.

:toast:

[kster]

41. The DU doesn't

serve Old Style in bottles do they? :toast:

[DemReadingDU]

50. NYT needs to talk with Mark Crispin Miller

Why Won't The Media Touch My Book?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x410074

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

31. Yes!!!!

The domestic spying program is part of a well-established pattern: when Mr. Bush doesn't like the rules, he just changes them, as he has done for the detention and treatment of prisoners and has threatened to do in other areas, like the confirmation of his judicial nominees. He has consistently shown a lack of regard for privacy, civil liberties and judicial due process in claiming his sweeping powers. The founders of our country created the system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance.

Thank goodness someone is saying it straight out.

I am so sick sick sick of the "historical perspective." When there is none. Not as described above.

Thank you NY Times!!!!

Keep saying it!

Is why we wanna not let Alito be confirmed, or at least not without a fight!

[oldlady]

37. and a spanking for Congress

in the last paragraph:

"The Senate Judiciary Committee is about to start hearings on the domestic spying. Congress has failed, tragically, on several occasions in the last five years to rein in Mr. Bush and restore the checks and balances that are the genius of American constitutional democracy. It is critical that it not betray the public once again on this score."

May just move from noting, commenting & whining to ACTION. I hope to live to see the day!

[EFerrari]

40. Don't we all.

:)

[SoCalDem]

44. Sorry, but they are too late, with too little

They HAD the story BEFORE the election..The story that could have turned him out of office with a resounding THUD as his bony ass hit the bottom step of the whitehouse porch. But they sat on it...

They always knew they would run it, and yet they chose to cover for him long enough to remain in office, so the story would have more "gusto" against a sitting president.. They played with our lives, and I have nothing but disgust for them:puke:

[Joe Chi Minh]

63. So it's not better late than never, eh? You'd prefer the whole of the

media to continue to close ranks round Bushco, and the Dems remain virtually totally powerless?

[rodeodance]

45. good smack on Mr. Gonzalas also.

....Other presidents did it. Mr. Gonzales, who had the incredible bad taste to begin his defense of the spying operation by talking of those who plunged to their deaths from the flaming twin towers, claimed historic precedent for a president to authorize warrantless surveillance. He mentioned George Washington, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These precedents have no bearing on the current situation, and Mr. Gonzales's timeline conveniently ended with F.D.R., rather than including Richard Nixon, whose surveillance of antiwar groups and other political opponents inspired FISA in the first place. Like Mr. Nixon, Mr. Bush is waging an unpopular war, and his administration has abused its powers against antiwar groups and even those that are just anti-Republican.

[Swamp Rat]

46. kick!

[quiet.american]

48. I thought I was reading a Buzzflash editorial for a moment!

WOOT! to this MSM ediotrial written, approved and published with the gloves off.

[radfringe]

49. happy to cooperate with investigations.....

[Glimmer of Hope]

51. Smack down! I haven't bought the Sunday Times in years but I will today.

[matcom]

52. NY WHO?

sorry rag. too fucking little, too fucking late. :eyes:

[BuyingThyme]

53. Another solid news story relegated to opinion editorial.

[DemonFighterLives]

54. I liked this part

War without end. Amen!

War changes everything. Mr. Bush says Congress gave him the authority to do anything he wanted when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. There is simply nothing in the record to support this ridiculous argument.

The administration also says that the vote was the start of a war against terrorism and that the spying operation is what Mr. Cheney calls a "wartime measure." That just doesn't hold up. The Constitution does suggest expanded presidential powers in a time of war. But the men who wrote it had in mind wars with a beginning and an end. The war Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney keep trying to sell to Americans goes on forever and excuses everything.

:dem:

[MsMagnificent]

96. That phrase is exactly what I thought!

We Catholics know our church prayers by heart :)
:hi:

[Clark2008]

55. The secret program violates the law as currently written.

It's that simple.

Can't get any plainer than that.

:nuke:

[Joe Chi Minh]

64. The most simple truth loses out against the big lie nearly every

time, however dementedly implausible the latter. Such is human nature, at least in terms of the perception of the non-political. Weird, isn't it?

[TNMOM]

56. Gawd, is there a president, in any era ever, more loathesome

than the evil bubble boy we have now? Jeez..

[Maestro]

58. Ouch!

You have to wonder what it looks like in one of the editorial meetings at the NYT. There must be some gnashing of teeth and plenty of huffing and puffing before they put out such an editorial. I applaud them. I hope the rest of the world reads it.

[marions ghost]

60. kick

[buddysmellgood]

61. Finally, the Times gets whiff of the coffee. I hope we're not too late.

[Spazito]

68. Kick for a MUST READ article!

It lays it ALL out!

[Senator]

71. That HUGE Sucking Sound...

...you hear is the enormous truth vacuum being filled at the Times, now that Judy Miller has left the building.

---
www.january6th.org

[savemefromdumbya]

76. but will always use 9/11 because he and cheny had a hand in it

as long as the sheep trust him deeply there is no way except (you know)....

[Raster]

78. If any semblance of the truth is ever allowed to come out about 9/11,

we will see that the reality of the situation is somewhere along the lines of LIHIOP/MIHOP. bushco* and the pnac had their grubby little paws in their "defining moment." Their words, not mine. Murder--mass murder--are NOTHING to these traitorous assholes. dumbya is their dimwit puppet with messianic delusions of greatness. That's how they control him.

[wrate]

79. Exactly, which is why it is sickening to read this people "hoping" that *

or Rove will stop using 9/11 as a justification for all their crimes. How clueless are they to hope for that?

[kath]

80. Wow - kick for a "must read" article.

even if it is "too little, too late".

[Marie26]

85. "lay down the bloody banner of 9/11"

I liked this phrase - it perfectly captures the way that the Bush Ad. has exploited 9/11 to justify their own polices. One more kick. Maybe too little, too late, but better than never.

[madrchsod]

81. to little to late

the times were willing fucked by bush and his handlers for years and now they are crying rape? i have nothing but contempt for the times...

[madrchsod]

82. to little to late

the times were willing fucked by bush and his handlers for years and now they are crying rape? i have nothing but contempt for the times...

[madrchsod]

83. to little to late

the times were willing fucked by bush and his handlers for years and now they are crying rape? i have nothing but contempt for the times...

[madrchsod]

84. wow three times? something is screwed up

in my computer

[EagleCountyDem]

87. my op-ed sent to NYT last week

Pro-Popular or Pro-executive
Senators embrace the filibuster!

Senators:

Republicans acted as if shocked at the deep & detailed resistance of every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. These Democrats performed their elected role with honor, to counteract the non-representative effects of Presidential power.

Samuel Alito is a career advocate of a stronger Presidency, the “unitary executive”. Republicans are cleverly hiding the obvious: this nomination is a partisan effort to push the judicial branch to the right while making supreme the powers of the President of the world's supreme power.

This administration has muted opposition with the yet-to-be-debated claim that the USA is in great danger. If true, our nation needs sophisticated secretive national security while citizens depend on elected protectors for safety. We are getting tired of hearing this whopper. The USA has too powerful a military & countless police forces, but proves relatively helpless as a provider of domestic assistance.

Since our government is also no longer self-limiting thanks to a failing system of checks and balances, the USA is the most dangerous nation on the planet. Yes, even Americans need better legal protection from their own President.

We have watched the executive branch claim the right to secretly wiretap, kidnap, render to foreign regimes, imprison without legal representation and torture Americans. People in charge are unrepentant about deplorable methods. Will Supreme Court Justice Alito help us stop them? Not likely. This nation may be at the critical last chance to stop the Supreme Court from turning forever pro-executive and anti-popular.

There is no more appropriate time than now for a filibuster. The filibuster ensures that a controversial nomination is acceptable to an additional 10% of the Senate. What could be more reassuring than 60 Senators voting for a Supreme Court nominee? 70? Should a nation without trust in its President be willing to confirm his nomination for lifetime Supreme Court justice with less than 60 votes? Not in these troubled, divisive times.

Someone please place the blame on George Bush for nominating a candidate so controversial he might not get a handful of Democratic votes.

Senators embrace the filibuster! It is not the most extreme of measures. This White House seeks to unbalance the separation of powers. Filibuster is a legal and responsible way to act now to restore balance and politely ask for a more acceptable nominee.

What if fear of Republican cynicism puts Alito on the Supreme Court and as a result our judiciary protects only its corporate citizens but forgets ordinary individuals? When rank-and-file Republicans realize what the government has been doing TO them, not FOR them, there will be an embarrassing accounting. Every vote on the Alito confirmation will be remembered for a long time.

We need a Supreme Court who will reliably protect us from a Presidency which we know can get out of hand. Bush has invited another of his non-centrist friends onto the same Supreme Court which literally gave him his supremely powerful position. Stop this trend toward an all-powerful White House, while there is still time.

Harvie Branscomb
El Jebel CO

[kentuck]

88. Welcome Harvey !

From the Springs..

:)

[JerseygirlCT]

89. Why oh why oh why

Have the Democrats in Congress not been standing up and shouting about this at every possible opportunity? I don't understand.

The law was broken.

That's all that's needed, right there. Add to it, though, the rest of the long list of this administration's crimes and misdemeanors and

WHY?

Everytime we don't get loud and challenges, we're assumed to be complicit, or at least cooperative. At worst, completely ineffective and irrelevant.

[kiteinthewind]

91. SWEET!!!

:kick:

[WinkyDink]

92. Too little, ....

Judith Miller cannot ever be made up for. EVER.

[MsMagnificent]

94. This is duplicated here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=187743

[boobooday]

97. Wow -- SOMEBODY had an epiphany

Or a visitation, or something.

This is the most awesome editorial in a long, long time, although the one they did recently on Alito was pretty good.

[NoodleyAppendage]

98. I see the NYT is trying to make up for holding the spy story for 2 yrs.

If they had the balls that this article seems to suggest, then they would have revealed Bush's lying dictatorial ass before the 2004 election. Like the article, but in my mind this is a case of "too little, too late."

JB