Howard Kurtz writes today:
"Some liberals criticized The Post for withholding the location of the prisons at the administration's request."
" But somehow the Washington Post found out. I think we need a special prosecutor to subpoena the reporter and prosecute the leakers."
Howard follows that up with:
"After Bush's meeting with the Times executives, first reported by Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, the president assailed the paper's piece on domestic spying, calling the leak of classified information "shameful." Some liberals, meanwhile, attacked the paper for holding the story for more than a year after earlier meetings with administration officials"
Barrons notes: "There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ. Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense."
Conservatives in the WSJ said: "President Bush's claim that he has a legal right to eavesdrop on some U.S. citizens without court approval has widened an ideological gap within his party. The surveillance furor, at least among some conservatives, also has heightened worries that the party is straying from many of its core principles the longer it remains in control of both the White House and Congress."
Is Howard on the receiving end of emails from the Patrick Ruffini's (political operatives masquerading as bloggers) of the world-because these stories obviously cross party lines? I'm sure we'll see more of this debated on Howard's CNN show called, "Reliable Sources" in a few weeks. (that I like) Which wingnut will be on defending Karl Rove's position again?
FireDogLake says: "And in one fell swoop the whole matter of illegal wiretaps is now reduced to a partisan squabble instead of a justifiable concern about government overreach, invasion of privacy and complete disregard for the Constitution....read on"