How Bush Tried to Kill Snoopgate Story is B.S.

Johnathan Alter of Newsweek published this story on 12/19/2005 about the President personally summonsing the NY Times Editor and Publisher to the White House to ask them not to print the so called "Snoopgate Story".

Well, even if that's true, and I emphasize "IF", so what. The NY Times already printed that the administration had asked them not to print the story. So why is this news?

It's news folks because the MSNM isn't getting the milage out of this that they hoped for. It's news because many Americans are not alarmed by the "Snoopgate" story and understand that the President ordered the surveillance of persons overseas linked with Al-Qaeda having conversations with someone in the US. Not any and all US Citizens.

Just read the following paragraph, especially the opening sentence:


Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate�he made it seem as if those who didn�t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda�but it will not work. We�re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

The MSNM was beside itself with glee when this story broke. They were jumping up and down in fits of joy. "Finally, we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex,corruption, and political intrigue..." It's like this is what we (MSNM) have been waiting for!.

and you just have to love this part:

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.

Yes, Jonathan, that's right, one can only imagine, you admit here that the Times would not comment on the meeting, so how do you know what when on there ? The answer folks, is that he doesn't know and is just speculating.

If the Times would not comment on the meeting then how does he know what transpired between the Times and the President? So if he doesn't know how can he write an article saying that he does ?

ZERO crediblity !