Sunday, January 01, 2006
The best insightful analysis here first: The Instapundit linked to this piece by Rand Simberg over at Transterrestrial Musings on the possible effects of The New York Times breaking the NSA surveillance program just prior to the 2004 presidential election.
But perhaps they had the political acumen to realize that it might backfire on them. Consider--the Democrats were trying (however pathetically), by nominating an anti-war (and anti-military) protestor who picked up some medals in Vietnam for three months, to indicate that they were finally serious about national security, an issue that has dogged them since the era of said protestor--1972. Did they really want, in wartime, to be seen as criticizing the president for intercepting enemy communications, warrantless or otherwise? Was there someone in charge then who was prescient as to the potential blowback of this story, who is no longer?
If so, he (or, of course, she) has certainly been shown to be right in retrospect, and if they had pulled this stunt during the campaign, given his recent surge in approval and the Dems corresponding drop, Bush's victory margin would likely have been even larger.
Of course, if you were reading Hoystory, you would've already known this -- a week earlier.