BREAKING: SHRUB MET WITH NYT EDITORS IN LAST-DITCH EFFORT TO STOP SPYGATE

[Halliburton]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

<snip>
No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden’s use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists—in fact, all American Muslims, period—have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that “the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy.” But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a “shameful act,” it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.
<snip>

:wow:

[babylonsister]

1. Interesting. If he's so innocent, why was he so anxious? nt

[EFerrari]

6. Exactly! Please rec and kick!

:kick: :kick::kick::kick:

[FreedomAngel82]

18. Exactly

And why did he go around the law? If it was in the name of terrorism the NSA would have given him that access. So why did he break that law?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. If he had any sense

he would have broken the news himself a long time ago, rather than allowed it to build up. Rove doesn't have the cajones he used to.

[Halliburton]

7. Jane Hamsher: Rumor is that Karl has hired a new lawyer

<snip>

Despite the fact that Bush has been circling the wagons and allowing Rove to bask in the glory of his public presence once again of late, I've been noticing a shift in CW this week. After Scooter was indicted, wonkish DC agreed with David Corn that Fitzgerald was done and Rove had dodged the bullet. Most now seem to think that Rove will be indicted and that Luskin will have to recuse himself from the case; in fact, there are rumors Rove already has another attorney working for him (to which some attribute the competing stories about what role Viveca Novak plays in Rove's defense, although I confess I don't really understand that).

One need look no further than last night's tacky nicknack set decoration to know that Karen Hughes is BAAACK and ready to bigfoot her way onto the stage again, and by the way Karl don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
<snip>

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/

[boston bean]

3. .........

:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

[AnnieBW]

4. Whoever Leaked it Is Gonna Get "Plamed"

I'm sure that whichever NSAer(s) that leaked this to the NYT is going to be joining Valerie Plame on the "hasty retirement" line.

[Pachamama]

72. Somehow I have the feeling that the person(s) that leaked this don't care

if they are "plamed"....I think we are all at the point that its more important to be Patriots and Americans and stand up for what is right. :patriot:

I also believe the Bush Administration, like the boy who cried wolf too many times, has lied so much to the US public, that no one believes them anymore or is listening.

[49jim]

5. This is as much abuse of

power as is the actual act of spying!

[Zynx]

9. Now he is trying to manipulate the media even more?

Ever heard of freedom of the press, George?

[DBoon]

48. No, he hasn't

next question

[Mr Rabble]

8. Where does this end? This is just unreal!

Impeachment.

Now.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. I think we are in for a heck of a ride, my friends.

Methinks the levees may have burst.

[stevedeshazer]

11. Wow. This part from Alter needs emphasis:

I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story.

[Doctor_J]

25. Yup, they're just two more of his flunkies

who ask "How high?" when Smirk says, "Jump!". Damn, I am amazed at how corrupt this group is.

[EVDebs]

12. Maybe they had something to cover up. Please read this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2320362&mesg_id=2320362

[RedEarth]

13. "articles of impeachment introduced"

"If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974."

[tinfoilinfor2005]

14. How can I keep you stoopid murkins safe

if you keep reading newspapers?

[LunaC]

15. Just as I thought

....it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

Posted on another thread.....

The PNAC ideologues got caught up in their own bullshit and made serious errors in judgement and planning. They fucked up in a big way and they know it but stubbornly cling to "stay the course" in the hopes that their capsized Ship of Dreams will magically, miraculously right itself. Problem is, those around them that aren't part of the original Pax Americana Glee Club are seeing the bullshit for what it is and they're calling them to the carpet in a public way by dropping a dime and leaking incriminating details to sink them once and for all. We're not the only ones hep to the Big Charade and thankfully those behind-the-scenes who have the goods are bringing it to the light of day.

[texpatriot2004]

16. I knew that Keller and Sulzberger were in on this sham. The NYT

is complicit.

[Justsayin]

17. Yellow Journalism n/t

[AgadorSparticus]

19. Is anyone outside of freeperland buying that national security shit?

what next? get gov't permission to travel to another state in the name of national security? ARGH!!!! my head is going to explode!!!!

[ncteechur]

20. Damn right!! Jonathon Alter is freakin' damn right!!

[ncteechur]

21. Damn right!! Jonathon Alter is freakin' damn right!!

[jazzjunkysue]

22. So, what else should we be worried about? Hmmmmm?????

[Bluebear]

23. If you absolutely "have the authority", why so desperate, "W"? nt

[NashVegas]

24. Could This Make Sulzerberger & Keller Accessories?

For withholding knowledge of a criminal act?

[caligirl]

26. They both should leave the Times now.

[bigtree]

27. unreal

freedom of the fucking press my ass

[Peace Patriot]

28. Boy, I sure would like to have been a fly on the wall in THAT meeting!

Do you think they "hunted" for WMDs under the Oval Office rug together?

[jsamuel]

29. "No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important

story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker."

wow, it is so true

[Lefty48197]

30. I'd like the NYT to explain why they held the story for so long.

National Security? or Extortion?

[karynnj]

33. or to keep Kerry from winning

(although they endorsed him.)

[emulatorloo]

31. kick n/t

[SillyGoose]

32. Holy Shiite, batman! Why the hell did the NYT hold this story and

for how long exactly have they been sitting on it? That's what I want to know. You know, I'm thinking back to how Miller and the Times held up the Plame investigation for a year with the confidential sources court challenge. Quite convenient since Fitz's findings would have been announced just prior to the election if not for that action. Do we know when exactly the NYT got wind of this spy scandal info because I'm getting ready to get the tinfoil out.

:tinfoilhat:

[kentuck]

39. Perhaps the source requested it ?

Maybe it was part of the deal they made with the paper?

[Halliburton]

40. Rove threatened them

now that he is on the verge of indictment, the Times may not have taken his threats as seriously as they did a year ago.

[goodhue]

34. This seems like a pretty big deal

The president meeting with NYT editors regarding a national security story.

[goodhue]

38. .

[Occulus]

57. This begs the question-

HAS HE EVER DONE THIS BEFORE???

Sorry for shouting, but....

[journalist3072]

35. Kicked and nomiated!

I don't even know what to say! The New York Times is Bush's b*tch.

What more evidence do we need?

Judy Miller carried the WMD water for the Bush Crime Team, and the NY Times held on to this story for about one year.

That damn liberal media, I tell you!

[lonestarnot]

36. Throw him out on the lawn!

[Sydnie]

37. un-fucking believe-able!

What else is in their little bag of secrets? How many of THEM are on the payroll?

[Ouabache]

41. Yeah really, how many other stories are they holding up?

How many other stories are other members of the media SITTING on. How many other stories is Bush twisting arms about so that they won't get printed and revealed. This CAN'T be the ONLY one. Not with this bunch.

[mod mom]

44. How much you wanna bet they have the story on the Ohio Election theft?

[Pachamama]

73. Wouldn't bet much...I think your right....

The NYT has got to have more on OH....time will tell, won't it? :eyes:

[DesertRat]

42. It just keeps getting worse

:nuke:

[SammyWinstonJack]

70. Hard to believe, huh?

:shrug: Well not really.

[quiet.american]

43. Don't forget to rate the story! (At the bottom of its page).

Currently, it's only at (3) and this is a five-alarmer if I've ever seen one.

[mod mom]

45. Can we DU this article? 3 is way too low!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. Sounds like obstruction of justice added to the charge of illegal spying.

[librechik]

47. don't forget to rate this story up! n/t

[autorank]

49. What the Hell else are those bums at the NYT sitting on.

The thought of them even meeting with President Coocoo Bananas to talk about holdilng a story is outrageous. I'm reminded to send my daily complaint to the NYT Ombudsman...just did it...

Here it is
----------------------------------
Dear Pulic Editor:

You hid a story about domestic spying, spying on we the people, for a year.

I was just wondering, what other vital stories about politics and our nation are you sitting on?

Perhaps the NYT could have a special Sunday Edition,

"Top Stories We Never Published, 2005"

That would sell a lot of papers and satisfy those of us who are running a pool on the big ones you are hiding.

Seriously, Keller and Sulzberger have done a huge disservice. They need to resign right now or be pushed out. This story of your absence of stories will not go away. It is the biggest betrayal of a public trust by a major newspaper since the NYT allowed Judith Miller to promote the Iraq war and the lies about WMD.

I want the New York Times I knew and loved back, very soon.

Please help.

autorank

[leftstreet]

50. What if the meeting was actually to tell NYT to RUN the story?

Bush basically admits to this crime in his press conference today. Not only does he show no remorse, he basically says he intends to keep breaking the law.

I'd be more worried that BushCo WANTED this story out there.

[Beelzebud]

51. A nitpick.... STOP SAYING "GATE" AT THE END OF EVERYTHING.

It totally takes the seriousness of the issue out.

This is beyond watergate. Stop using the damn 'gate' term. it all started with MONICA-GATE.

[opihimoimoi]

52. Its gonna turn into a BUSHGATE...the ones that hit you on the ass

everytime you go through...has nails on it...real pointy ones they are...

[lildreamer316]

60. Look at the post above you.I'm dying. Just a bit of levity-n/t

[opihimoimoi]

66. OMG, LOL

[lovuian]

53. one of the names on the NSA spying list was Princess Diana

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=41&contentid=527

American secret agents regularly monitored Diana's conversations and collated 1,000 secret documents using its "spy in the sky", the National Security Agency.

They were obtained by its Echelon satellite surveillance system and contain highly sensitive material including her marriage plans, her views on Prince Philip, who was known to be highly critical of her, and new details of her love affair with James Hewitt. Now, lawyers acting for Mohamed Al Fayed are trying to obtain the tapes through America's Freedom of Information Act.

They hope to present the evidence at Diana's inquest, which is expected to take place next year.
more...
This was going to come out anyway...

[Nothing Without Hope]

54. he KNEW he was breaking the law - THIS THREAD HAS THE PROOF:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5643625
thread title (12/20 GD): April 2004: Bush tells audiences Wiretaps Require a Court Order

This was in April 2004, in a Q & A session. Here's an excerpt of what Bush said:

THE PRESIDENT: Let me -- that's a great question. A couple of things that are very important for you to understand about the Patriot Act. First of all, any action that takes place by law enforcement requires a court order. In other words, the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.

Now, we've used things like roving wiretaps on drug dealers before. Roving wiretaps mean you change your cell phone. And yet, we weren't able to use roving wiretaps on terrorists. And so what the Patriot Act said is let's give our law enforcement the tools necessary, without abridging the Constitution of the United States, the tools necessary to defend America.

This does tend to support the idea that HE WANTED TO SHUT DOWN THE NYT ARTICLE BECAUSE HE KNEW HE HAD BROKEN THE LAW AND HIS OATH OF OFFICE. (BTW - please come vote up that thread - it needs to be more widely seen and media-blasted.)

Furthermore,as this fine American Progress compilation on Spygate shows, Gonzales appears to have lied - under oath -about exactly this sort of extralegal Presidential caper in his Jan 2005 confirmation hearings:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5643708
thread title (12/20 GD): AmProg"The Truth About Bush's Warrantless Spying" (& Gonzo planned to LIE)

[ClayZ]

55. defan has been hit by deshit!

:wow: :popcorn:

:kick:

[oasis]

56. Bush knew he had broken the law. (eom)

[Flubadubya]

58. Bush probably believed he could stop them...

He thinks he is that powerful and that entitled! Wrong again Shrubbie! Bwahaha!!! :rofl:

[entanglement]

59. This is HUGH!!! I'm series!

;-)

[Disturbed]

61. The NYT kept this under wraps for a year.

That should give us all something to think about!

[entanglement]

62. I wonder what prompted Sulzberger Jr and co

to choose this time to go public. Another case of the rats abandoning a sinking ship?

[ikri]

63. Wonder if * did the Times a favor?

They had been sitting on this story, by their own admission, for a year. Were they looking for confirmation that the story was true?

What better way to get confirmation that a story is true than to claim you're going to publish the story & let the * administration plead with you not to publish.

[QuettaKid]

64. Other stories the NYTimes is sitting on....

could they be sitting on a MIHOP/LIHOP story? and if they were, would it EVER be released for fear of a couple of thousand angry NYC firefighters storming the white house lawn to exact revenge for fallen brothers.

[dogindia]

78. is there anyway to get MIHOP/LIHOP into the main streem media

It would sure create an interesting dialog with the "take all power" and lying thing the Admin has been doing for so long.

[BamaBecky]

65. kick

[Little Star]

67. Rate it up please

Here is the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek

[MaggieSwanson]

75. Done. All together now... n/t

[goodhue]

68. kick

[Norquist Nemesis]

69. Had it run early enough last year

it might have run side by side with the National Guard story. So, I'm not so sure it was a matter of showing him to be breaking the law as it much as possible election influence. (That is, depending on how early "last year" they had it ready to go.)

[Supersedeas]

71. Doesn't this have a chilling effect on the media? Did a similar meeting

happen PRIOR to the ELECTION??

[Corgigal]

74. The Times will not comment on the meeting

Why the hell not? Why aren't the writing all of it up for us the American citizens to read. You know the ones who have the kids going over to Iraq because the Times didn't come clean about the run up to the Iraq war in time to save them.

They need new management at the Times. I think they should start with someone ethical who is not only motivated by greed and money.

[Ian_rd]

76. They held it until after Bush was reelected - Damn Liberal Media! (nt)

[Amonester]

77. Keepitkickedup! K & R - eom

[Wordie]

79. A kick AT George W. Bush (the "W" stands for Wiretap) and recommended.nt

[StefanX]

80. So much for the NYT's credibility (what was left of it after Judy Miller)

What a bunch of assholes. Sulzberger and Keller need to resign immediately.

Who knows what other hot stories they're sitting on? They sat on this once since BEFORE the election -- LIHOP/MIHOP?

FNYT and FGWB.

[BamaBecky]

81. kick again