Barking Up Every Tree

"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 . . . 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."

Arianna may be in Tahiti, but she's not too far away to keep bashing the Times:

"What were Sulzberger and company thinking? There Pinch was, prancing around for the last year under the illusion that his defense of Judy Miller was going to be his reputation-making Pentagon Papers moment, while doing the exact opposite of what his father did with the Pentagon Papers by sitting on this bombshell story for a year. Now, instead of crusading journalists, Sulzberger and his editors look like a bunch of schmucks -- or, worse, a bunch of toadies doing the White House's bidding."

The Washington Times defends itself on the issue of Osama's phone:

"The September 11 commission falsely singled out The Washington Times for damaging an intelligence operation by disclosing in 1998 that Osama bin Laden used a satellite phone, even though his means of communication had been widely reported beforehand, including by CNN, CBS and Time.

"The issue arose at President Bush's press conference Monday. Mr. Bush criticized an unnamed newspaper for reporting what type of telephone bin Laden was using in 1998, when he was being tracked by the CIA . . .

"Mr. Bush did not name the newspaper, but The Washington Post yesterday quoted the White House as saying the president was referring to an Aug. 21, 1998, story in The Washington Times. The New York Times reported that 'the president was apparently referring' to the article. The story was a profile of bin Laden that said, in the 22nd paragraph, 'He keeps in touch with the world via computers and satellite phones and has given occasional interviews to international news organizations.'

"But the story in The Washington Times was not based on a leak, and it did not say the U.S. was monitoring the phone. Reports of bin Laden's using a satellite phone had been in the press for years. In 1996, Time magazine, in a story on bin Laden in Afghanistan, wrote that he 'uses satellite phones to contact fellow Islamic militants in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.'"

Well, you figure if it was a big scoop, it wouldn't have been in the 22nd paragraph.

Roger Simon has this explanation of some recent plaudits for Bush:

"While staying the course remains the fundamental principle of administration policy in Iraq, President Bush's team decided that his admitting to human frailty and the possibility of mistake would captivate his critics . . .