Even though I still intend to destroy the New York Times, one, out of boredom, and, two, because they've been bad, I still must come to their defense.
While it is true that the New York Times sat on that eavesdropping story for a year, thus writing the joke that the New York Times is all the news that's fit to print...a year later...there's probably more here.
-If criminal elements of the government were in on 9-11, and
-If criminal elements of the government were eavesdropping, and
-Assuming that those criminal elements might be interested in knowing who might drop the dime on them, then
-One may reasonably conclude that those criminal elements had been illegally wiretapping various media outlets and journalists, including the New York Times.
In my notebook I would erase the question mark and instead draw a star next to this thesis:
"Was the New York Times 'leaned on' by criminal elements in the government to remain silent until after the election?" To be fair, I will point out that you can't conclude this without being satisfied in your belief of domestic complicity in 9-11. I am.
And whyever criminal elements would want George Bush and Dick Cheney to remain in office, I just can't understand...
And what well-heeled backers of a politician would ever tolerate the influences of criminal elements on "their" man...unless...they, themselves, were the criminal elements...
So who chiefly financed their elections? ...There you'll find the criminal elements behind the wiretapping and 9-11... Oh my... I just can't stop pouring gas on this, can I?
And whyever would Chief Legal Sophist Alberto Gonzalez concoct ever more fantastical legal theories to make the activities of these criminal elements...acceptable and mainstream? Allie? Are you these criminal elements'...concilieri? Oh, wait; logically, you can't be... ...They pick smart ones for that. Whew! You're safe.
So let's cut the New York Times some slack. ...Until I rip them a new one.
