TDLM Part 3,326

Lawrence Velvel, Dean of Massachusetts School of Law, has a neat little essay on the NYT’s recalcitrance in acting on reporting the Bush Admin’s latest act of megalomania - The NYT's Unconscionable Decision to Sit on the NSA Story for a Year:

The other point of enormous relevance is the issue of whether The Times did in fact learn of the warrantless surveillance before the 2004 election, and was persuaded (strong- armed?) before the election not to print the story. This too cries out for an answer. George Bush was not elected by the American people in 2000. He was elected by denying the vote to blacks in Florida, by the ballot skullduggery that caused votes to be cast for Buchanan rather than Gore by members of that famous political organization called "Elderly Florida Jews for Pat Buchanan," and by the Supreme Court, whose latest nominee is the subject of hearings that begin in a few days. Is it possible that, after being elected by denying votes to blacks, by misleading members of "Elderly Florida Jews for Buchanan," and by the Supreme Court, Bush got himself reelected by persuading The Times not to publish the news of his lawbreaking prior to the 2004 reelection and by The Times acceding to this? The Times plainly should let us know the answer to this horrid possibility.

There are plenty of folk out there who see nothing wrong with a Country’s leader being able to spy on its citizens and population, without first seeking a warrant. Good on ‘em, but they’re fools.

If we lived in a rational World, they would immediately see the danger and demand that Bush cease his KGB-like actions and be impeached.
Unfortunately, the one-eyed cheerleaders see no wrong when committed by ‘their’ team.

Like I said: Fools.