*=recently updated

Matthew Hoy currently works as a metro page designer at the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The opinions presented here do not represent those of the Union-Tribune and are solely those of the author.

If you have any opinions or comments, please e-mail the author at: hoystory -at- cox -dot- net.

Dec. 7, 2001
Christian Coalition Challenged
Hoystory interviews al Qaeda
Fisking Fritz
Politicizing Prescription Drugs

<< current

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Jonathan Alter, legal eagle: Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter reveals that President Bush had both New York Times executive editor Bill Keller and publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. in the oval office and pleaded with them not to reveal the NSA's surveillance of international communications during a time of war.

(There is no word on whether or not the oval office had to be fumigated immediately afterwards.)

Alter denies that the reason Bush made this request was because he was concerned about national security, instead Alter claims:

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.

Damn! How many law classes did Alter take before he figured out that one?

Alter's article is just so much idiocy. He links Bush to Nixon's plumbers and suggests that a Democrat House in 2006 might impeach him. What Alter, who does not appear to have any legal education whatsoever, ignores is the very distinct possibility that what the president did was completely legal.

*UPDATE* Check out this off-the-cuff analysis by Powerline's John Hinderaker -- someone who actually possesses a law degree.

*UPDATE2* Also check out this article from the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

12:40 AM

Excellent points MH. I was thinking the same thing last night when reading Alter's piece. Reminds me of what I once heard about why liberals can only write columns and editorials and why they fail at other venues such as talk radio. Alter says the same thing on the radio as he did in his column but gets challenged on it by a caller. No where to run, nowhere to hide. But with the column it is written and then people just read it and can't respond. Keep up the great work. Love your blog.
Great post. I'm new to Alter, not having read Newsweek in years, but I was blown away at how condescending, partisan, and implicitly desperate the piece is: it is drawing an incredibly dire picture with no evidence whatsoever for the thesis, only facile begging of the question -- "But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law." Hah!

Anyway, I was attracted to your blog out of my search for someone who dislikes Krugman's partisan hackery as much as I do. I see that Krugman and Alter are of a type -- the educated (both have taught at Princeton, a great school), arrogant cultural elites who are blinded by their partisanship and thus become smirking hacks. I would love a blog or web site on these guys and others like them: it might be called "Profiles in Arrogance," and have an updated dossier in each of them.

Anyway, keep up the good work.
If you dislike Krugman...check out Don Luskin's blog...

Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger Pro™