Newsweek correspondant Howard Fineman and New York Times’ writer Anne Kornblut appeared on Hardball with Chris Matthews to discuss the Times report that the NSA was given permission by the Bush administration to spy on potential terrorists. This report just so happened to be printed on the front page of the Times a day after the successful election in Iraq. Surprisingly, Chris Matthews wanted to get the reason why the newspaper decided to print this information on the front page when the historic event in Iraq should have been the only story receiving big headlines. Matthews asked Kornblut “why did you break it today”, only to get a simple response that “there was room in the paper”. Matthews later followed up with “you have no criticism on this” [referring to the Times’ decision to put this on the front page], Kornblut said “I was working on other things today so I don’t know”. How convenient.
Michelle Malkin has another reason why the New York Times decided to print the story today.
DOWNLOAD – .WMV
DOWNLOAD – .MP4
Full transcript follows.
MATTHEWS: So what do you think about your paper running that story, the very day of the President’s greatest victory? You guys are raining on his parade in the best day of his life.KORNBLUT: If only we were that organized. No, I think this is a really good story, knew nothing about it.
MATTHEWS: Why did you break it today?
KORNBLUT: There was room in the paper. I honestly have no idea why, I don’t think there was any big calculation behind if I had to guess.
MATTHEWS: Has the Times taken any stink from the WH for having take half the front page instead of praising the fact that 11 million Iraqis voted yesterday in the Arab world. You have no criticism on this?
KORNBLUT: I work there Chris, what are you talking about? No, half the front page was devoted to the Iraqi elections and honestly, I was working on other things today so I don’t know.
Expose the Left linked with Media Matters Releases False Report That Hardball Is Tilted To The Right
Thespis Journal linked with The New York Times Uses Year-Old Story to Promote Book and to Rain On The Iraqi Election Parade
Stop The ACLU linked with ACLU Shocked at Bush Use of National Security Agency for Domestic Spying
The Young Conservatives linked with Liberals: "Big Brother Is Coming, Big Brother Is Coming"
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
8:41 pm [ Quote ]
While it is too early to know the details of this matter, I have heard that key Senators from both parties were aware of the NSA directive. But, who cares? We need to monitor these potential terrorists and I don’t give a damn if Bush followed all the rules or not, the proof is in the pudding – not further terrorists attacks on the United States and that is what America should care about.
Although, leaving matter to McCain and some other damnable traitors in the Senate, they are doing all they can to make sure we are attacked again.
9:24 pm [ Quote ]
Liberals: “Big Brother Is Coming, Big Brother Is Coming”
I was reading a post at The Daily Kos, as I do sometimes, and I noticed that they had gotten some facts wrong. They believe that Bush was spying on Domestic homes, while according to La Shawn Barber, This statement is false. The spying is in fact happe…
10:32 pm [ Quote ]
umnumzana – You don’t care if the President has absolute power? Sounds like you wouldn’t mind living under a dictatorship if it suited your ideology.
I really don’t see how politicians can be seen as “traitors” because they are concerned with the rights of Americans.
10:49 pm [ Quote ]
ACLU Shocked at Bush Use of National Security Agency for Domestic Spying
Update: Bush Responds To Accusations: Video! Hat tip: Gateway Pundit
Today, the NY Times Decided To Leak Classified Information about Bush lifting limits on phone taps after 9/11.
The ACLU are absolutely shocked!
The following can be attributed t…
11:03 pm [ Quote ]
The New York Times Uses Year-Old Story to Promote Book and to Rain On The Iraqi Election Parade
11:26 pm [ Quote ]
This issue is a loser for conservatives. America was founded on the idea that the king cannot kick down your door and drag you away on a whim. Admit defeat and drop it.
11:37 pm [ Quote ]
Umnumzana- I wonder if we broke some rules (according to the McCain types) to bust that Jihadist cell out near your way in Lodi? I’m hoping we did, and that we will continue to do whatever it takes, to protect our kids and nation. Some idiots just don’t get it. You can be full of good intentions and totally FUBAR things up. I see that rgeller1 is in that camp ‘o fools.
9:45 am [ Quote ]
How dare the Bush administration try to protect us!
10:08 am [ Quote ]
axelgrease: You and rgeller1 are drinking the same idiot liberal kool aid!
Jihadgene: I don’t know if they broke any rules in busting the Lodi group and I don’t care! I am just glad they got them!
We have to wait for more details, but I heard that this so-called spying by the NSA “may” have involved monitoring telephone calls of suspected terrorists from outside the United States calling into or receiving calls from people inside our country. That is perfectly legal! One guest on Hannity and Colmes Victoria (T_____) asked a great question, “If Osama Bin Laden was being monitored and he called someone in our country to make plans with them to kill Americans, should we hang up because the person he called was a U.S. citizen and we didn’t have a warrant?” Oh, the answer from the liberals was “Yes!”
Lastly, I am not thrilled with the idea that Americans or aliens may have to sacrifice some privacy in the interest of the safety of other Americans. Further, I believe we should get proper warrants for spying on them, when time and circumstances permit. But, if for any reason people are seen or heard doing things which endanger the lives of other Americans and waiting for proper legal documents would place others at risk, there should be allowances for staying on the phone or keeping an eye on these people until the proper documents can be obtained. The people doing the so-called “spying? can always be asked to justify their actions later and if they do not meet minimum legal standards then the government must initiate the appropriate remedies.
11:22 am [ Quote ]
Good lord!
KORNBLUT: There was room in the paper.
How does a newspaper get ‘room’ for a story? Has no one noticed that newspapers change the number of pages every day? I can’t believe she didn’t have a better excuse at hand.
11:48 am [ Quote ]
Firstly I think you’re clouding the issue. Provisions are there to retroactively seek warrants for such activities and if these warrants had indeed been sought, there would be no problem. I fully agree with such activities as long as there is justification and judicial oversight. There wasn’t and it is unquestionable that there was never any intention to seek this oversight.
Ask yourself the question, if it is true, why was there a need to NOT comply, and therefore render such monitoring illegal? The obvious answer is because it was something that was indeed illegal and needed to remain off the radar.
Secondly I find it hard to rationalize your acceptance of contravening the Constitution. In one breath you criticize those who criticize the heroes who die for our freedoms in Iraq but in your next breath through your support of such contravention of the Constitution you are in turn disrespecting the heroes who died so you and I could have that Constitution. If that isn’t hypocrisy, can you explain what is?
11:53 am [ Quote ]
James Lawrence: I have a great idea! Why don’t we wait for the facts before we judge whether or not any laws were broken or there was any assault on the Constitution.
Oh, I am sorry, I forgot, to liberals if any Republican is accused of anything, that accusation represents conclusive proof of guilt and we then must jump over any investigations or trial of the facts, and execute the Republican involved solely because he was accused by a liberal of wrongdoing.
12:14 pm [ Quote ]
Umnumzana, this is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The President admitted to authorizing the activities this morning in his radio address, thus contravening the 4th Amendment. According to even the most inept legal mind he has broken the law.
Why did he feel that he needed to authorize them and not seek judicial oversight, at least retroactively?
By failing to seek such warrants, the President has clearly broken the law, and no man is above the law regardless of what is at stake (especialy when there are safeguards in place to account for this – safeguards that appear to have been ignored). Once we cross that bridge we are on the path to anarchy.
12:24 pm [ Quote ]
James Lawrence: I didn’t hear the President’s radio address this morning, but since you are a rabid, anti-Bush liberal, I will wait until I hear what he said and the context, as you folks on the left deal in half-truths.
By the way don’t presume to lecture me on the Constitution, because, quite frankly, you are not qualified. Your side has so perverted the Constitution your reading of it bears no resemblence whatsover to the truth.
1:15 pm [ Quote ]
James Lawrence: Getting more information, it appears that: (a) The Congress was consulted on this monitoring of telephone calls. (b) The Justice Department advised the White House these activities were legal under the United States Constitution. (c) These activities are monitored by the Justice Department every 45 days to make sure they are legal.
Now, I am sure the debate will continue and go back and forth. But, it appears the President consulted with the Congress and with the advise of the Justice Department and others, he thus believed this was not only necessary, but according to law. If it is later determined he got poor advise on the law, then those thus providing the legal advise must answer why they did so, and on what basis. A President cannot be expected to be an expert on Constitutional Law, and must rely upon the legal advice of others. If you or I follow legal adice of our attorneys on any matter, surely we cannot be charged with criminal intent if that advice is later to be found in error.
1:37 pm [ Quote ]
Umnumzana I quite forgot, two wrongs do make a right and our President is above the law.
1:54 pm [ Quote ]
James Lawrence: That is more leftist bull crap and you know it. No one said two wrongs made anything right, quite the opposite I have accused you anti-American socialists of that very thing and you know it!
Try and pay attention moron! If the President consulted Congress and the Justice Department and made his decision based on the best available advice, he cannot have possibly had any criminal intent and is thus innocent of perverting the Constitution or breaking any law, even if the result was, which I categorically deny, a perversion of the Constitution.
Further, having done his best to make sure his administration was conforming to the law, your idiotic charges of his being or trying to be a dictator are ridiculous! The federal government and the world is not a tidy place, despite the best advice possible things can and often do go wrong – that is life! But to make the insane leap that such problems with an untidy world constitutes a deliberate, conscious desire to become a dictator or to deliberately violate the Constitution only demonstrates your extreme anti-American, leftist bias and your inability to reason.
2:24 pm [ Quote ]
Umnumzana – “You and rgeller1 are drinking the same idiot liberal kool aid!”
Are you saying that we are idiots because we believe that the President doesn’t have absolute power?
That’s why people are upset about this issue – the President believes that he has the power and authority to do what he wants without any oversight or approval.
I’m sure if it was Clinton or Kerry doing this conservatives would be going crazy about how their privacy was being invaded, and the President was becomming a Dictator.
3:25 pm [ Quote ]
rgeller1: In no way did I say, or even intimate that the President has absolute power. I guess you never heard of separation of powers which is clearly spelled out in the United States Constitution, but you probably do believe in Separation of Church and State, which does not exist in our Constitution. Just to be clear: (a) I do not believe any President has absolute or even near absolute power. (b) I do not believe that by word or deed that President Bush has indicated he has any such belief. (c) The Congress is the only one of the three branches of government with the power to declare war and the power of the purse to fund a war. (d) Once we are at war, the Commander and Chief (President) cannot win a war if over 500 people in Congress believe they should micromanage military actions.
Lord of Karma: If I thought you could read or reason, I would direct you to well researched books on the subject of Christianity, which provide such conclusive evidence of the Truth of Holy Scripture; like “Evidence that Demands a Verdict,? or “In Defense of the Faith,? by David Hunt. Or, I could offer you the direct quotes of many leading legal scholars, once atheist and agnostic, who state that the evidence of scripture is stronger for its cause than any legal case in history. But, as I said before, I don’t cast pearls before swine.
Fadingcapn: Pardon me if I question your claims of being a Christian, your reaction indicate you are closer to the Lord of Karma than any Christian I know. You have no idea whatsoever about what I feel or believe about anyone. You are taking very brief posts responding to people like the Lord of Karma (a confessed atheist), brief comments that do not allow full exploration of any issue and by virtue of their nature can cause us to not always state things as clearly as we should; and then you are making sweeping generalizations. If you knew me, you would know that I consider myself one of the worst sinners – ever, and I do not consider myself as to my fallen nature better than anyone.
Next, Faith which is not based on reason supported by irrefutable evidence is folly. The Bible presents the record of what it calls “the faith,? and that body of truth which provides the only real answers to all of life’s ultimate questions. Being led by the Spirit, any reasonably intelligent human being will discover that the evidence in support of “the faith? is absolutely overwhelming. But, considering your remarks, I will not give yours any more of my time.
10:08 am [ Quote ]
Rgeller, what part of this constitutes no oversight or approval:
Consulting with Sr. Congressmen.
Consulting with the Justice Dept.
Reviewing the legality with the Justice Dept every month or so.
I give you high marks for your attempt to spin Umma’s disdain into him saying “...that we are idiots because we believe that the President doesn’t have absolute power”. That level of mischaracterization can get you into congress… if you live in a blue state.
2:27 pm [ Quote ]
OK Kevin so answer this, if he CONSULTED with the Justice Department and REVIEWED with the Justice Department every month or so, why is it so hard to abide by the process and get WARRANT’S from the Justice Department to back this all up?
Is it because the President is just sloppy and/or forgetful? His comments over the weekend instead indicate it was intentional and “necessary”.
What part of following the process and seeking this form of judicial oversight constitutes a threat to “informing the enemy” and contravening our national security?
Someone needs to explain this to all of us, Republicans included.
2:34 pm [ Quote ]
James Lawrence: For far too many people in America, including those posting here, their hatred of President Bush is more important than facts, logic or even national security.
These were international calls involving Al Queda NOT requiring warrants; but, these phone calls happened to go to people in America and even American citzens. So, what should we do, hang up because a terrorist is calling an American citizen and may be plotting terror? So, in that situation the President obtained legal advice and the consent of some Senators of both parties to use that information for intelligence purposes.
To the left, solely because they hate Bush, even it it kills Americans, they will demand our NSA intelligence people just hang up. How about you?
4:39 pm [ Quote ]
Umnumzana: “To the left, solely because they hate Bush, even it it kills Americans, they will demand our NSA intelligence people just hang up. How about you?”
No not at all and I think that type of a comment by anyone is purile, as you yourself allude to. Yes I am a Liberal, but is it so hard for you to believe that I actually agree with the war in Iraq? There are more people out there like Zell Miller than you are obviously willing to acknowledge. To you I’m a Liberal, so I must be a rabid left wing communist. That’s just ridiculous.
As I have said I agree with the PROCESS. By asking that type of question indicates to me that you are either not aware of the process or are choosing to ignore it.
That is the crux of this issue, not that the President wiretapped US citizens, but that he did so without following the process, which ALREADY allows for RETROACTIVE issuing of warrants when US citizens are being wiretapped, so the idea of “hanging up” when it happens is simply being juvenile.
Why didn’t the President follow due process and seek the warrants if he had nothing to “hide” from the judicial process he was according to you, constantly consulting and reviewing with? If they had said it was fine what he was doing they would have no problem issuing the warrants retroactively as the process dictates.
I’m not anti-Bush, this is behaviour I would expect, nay DEMAND from ANY President, Republican or Democrat.
7:38 pm [ Quote ]
I’m not sure James. My guess is we will find out though. There is no evidence that he was being sneaky, as he alerted the Congressmen on both sides of the aisle, and did the review every 45 days.
Just as I don’t blame America first, I won’t blame Bush first. If information comes out saying he was breaking the law, I’ll come out against him doing it. But the information does not say that.
I guess if you just hate Bush and Republicans and think all they do is lie, then you could be worried by this. I don’t so I’m not.
8:55 pm [ Quote ]
James Lawrence: The word is “pu·er·ile”
There are many very fine Liberal Democrats, we may disagree on some social policies, but may agree on others. I don’t object to people with honest differences. If you don’t qualify for the type of liberal I am describing, then obviously the comments were not meant for you. Yes, Zell, Lieberman and others are great people and I admire and respect them.
As to the NSA monitoring of telephone calls, all the information is not out yet, but from what I have heard so far Bush followed proper procedures and the law and Constitution as his legal advisers defined the law for him. If there were errors, it appears it would be at the door of advisers, not Bush. Though, I admit the buck does stop at his desk.
I am also aware that the Democrats will accuse Bush of breaking the law solely because they hate him! Pure and simple, extreme partisan hatred!
5:20 pm [ Quote ]
[...] Andrea Mitchell – 6 Jim VandeHei – 4 Howard Fineman – 3 Anne Kornblut – 3 Craig Crawford – 4 Norah O’Donnell – 5 Michael Isikoff – 2 David Gregory – 2 Paul Burka – 1 Dana Milbank – 2 Brian Williams – 1 David Gergen – 2 James Risen – 1 Osama Siblani – 1 Jonathan Turley – 1 Richard Wolffe – 1 (Total appearances: 39) [...]