Hypocritical Concern for the "Right to Privacy"
 

     A Monday front-page story from legal reporter Adam Liptak carries the awkward title "Privacy Views: Roberts Argued Hard for Others."

     It's also more than a bit awkward for the Times to show concern about the sanctity of the (nonexistent) constitutional "right to privacy," in the wake of its aborted foray into the adoption records of John Roberts' children.

     Liptak notes: "Judge John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, has written quite a bit in opposition to a constitutional right to privacy that has served as the basis for Supreme Court decisions protecting abortion and gay rights. But his writings, though distinctive and consistent, were always on behalf of superiors and clients and might not reflect his own views, then or now….Judge Roberts could face serious trouble, liberal and conservative law professors agreed, if he were to embrace similar views at his confirmation hearings in the Senate next month."

     Liptak lets a liberal law professor excoriate Roberts' constitutional philosophy, then cites another lawyer to damn Roberts with faint praise as being "less extreme" than Judge Robert Bork: "Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said the views expressed in Judge Roberts's draft article were at the time 'still at least marginally defensible although, by my lights, misguided even then.' This was no longer the case, Professor Tribe said, after Judge Bork's nomination was defeated, an action that he and many other liberal law professors supported. 'It was not until the mid-1980's,' Professor Tribe said, 'that intervening developments could be said to have exposed such views as resting on so cramped and narrow a concept of liberty that any nominee committed to a project of restoring them to the law posed a danger to the American Constitution.' Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University, said the views expressed in the draft article were less extreme than those of Judge Bork."

     The text box is ominous on Roberts' prospects, tying them with Bork's: "Sketching positions on an issue that echo the words of a failed nominee for the court."

To read the rest of Liptak, click here.

Inflammatory Anti-War Mother "A Problem for the President"
 

     Monday's story from White House reporter Richard Stevenson is on anti-war heroine Cindy Sheehan. The headline: "Of Many Deaths in Iraq, One Mother's Loss Becomes a Protest of the President's Policy." The online headline is more anti-Bush: "Of the Many Deaths in Iraq, One Mother's Loss Becomes a Problem for the President."

     In what way? The Times doesn't say.

     Stevenson begins: "President Bush draws antiwar protesters just about wherever he goes, but few generate the kind of attention that Cindy Sheehan has since she drove down the winding road toward his ranch here this weekend and sought to tell him face to face that he must pull all Americans troops out of Iraq now. Ms. Sheehan's son, Casey, was killed last year in Iraq, after which she became an antiwar activist. She says she and her family met with the president two months later at Fort Lewis in Washington State."

     He writes: "Her success in drawing so much attention to her message -- and leaving the White House in a face-off with an opponent who had to be treated very gently even as she aggressively attacked the president and his policies -- seemed to stem from the confluence of several forces. The deaths last week of 20 Marines from a single battalion has focused public attention on the unremitting pace of casualties in Iraq, providing her an opening to deliver her message that no more lives should be given to the war. At the same time, polls that show falling approval for Mr. Bush's handling of the war have left him open to challenge in a way that he was not when the nation appeared to be more strongly behind him."

     Another reason: Sheehan can rely on a sympathetic anti-Bush press.

     Stevenson lets Sheehan make claims about Bush's behavior during a visit with him in June 2004: "She is also articulate, aggressive in delivering her message and has information that most White House reporters have not heard before: how Mr. Bush handles himself when he meets behind closed doors with the families of soldiers killed in Iraq. The White House has released few details of such sessions, which Mr. Bush holds regularly as he travels the country, but generally portrays them as emotional and an opportunity for the president to share the grief of the families. In Ms. Sheehan's telling, though, Mr. Bush did not know her son's name when she and her family met with him in June 2004 at Fort Lewis. Mr. Bush, she said, acted as if he were at a party and behaved disrespectfully toward her by referring to her as 'Mom' throughout the meeting."

     But as Drudge points out this morning, Sheehan's "information" has changed 180 degrees in a year. She told a California paper a rather different story soon after meeting with Bush in June 2004. According to the Vacaville (Ca.) Reporter, Sheehan said: "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis….I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith….That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together."

     Here's more "aggressive, articulate" vituperation (aimed at, of all possible targets, the Ford Motor Co.)  from Sheehan, from an open letter to the company's chairman: "My son, Casey, was killed in action in Iraq on 04 April 2004. He was an excellent human being and I am sure he would have contributed so much to our society if he wasn't sent to a needless war to make some evil people in the world richer. Casey was also very interested in the environment and in ecology--and very concerned about climate change. Well, he doesn't have to worry about anything, anymore, but I am writing this letter to you for him, the rest of our world's children, and future generations because as the manufacturer of the world's worst fleet when it comes to fuel efficiency, it's time for you to take immediate action to help break our oil addiction….I believe one of the reasons that our greedy mis-leaders invaded Iraq was for control of the oil fields….Our nation's insatiable thirst for oil is also ruining an innocent country and killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Mr. Ford, invasions and occupations to steal another nations' resources are immoral. People, including my son, die to line the pockets of the already wealthy elite."

     Stevenson doesn't go into Sheehan's inflammatory statements, instead pointing out future publicity opportunities: "It is not clear how the White House will handle Ms. Sheehan. Mr. Bush usually comes and goes from the ranch by helicopter, but he might have to drive by her on Friday, when he is scheduled to attend a Republican fund-raiser at a ranch just down the road from where Ms. Sheehan is camped out. She will no doubt get another wave of publicity on Thursday, when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice join Mr. Bush at the ranch to discuss the war."

     Times Watch will see if the paper makes this a self-fulfilling prophecy in its Friday edition.

For more from Stevenson on Sheehan, click here.

Bumiller Marks a Strange Anniversary in Terror War
 

     In her Monday White House Letter on Bush's long August vacations in Crawford, Texas, Elisabeth Bumiller puts President Bush on the defensive over an anniversary perhaps only she remembers: "One reason for the activity might be the desire to be in purposeful motion on another anniversary of the now-infamous C.I.A. briefing that Mr. Bush received at the ranch on Aug. 6, 2001. That briefing, which informed the new president that the terrorist network Al Qaeda had maintained an active presence in the United States for years and could be preparing for hijackings here, created a political uproar when its contents were eventually made public. Critics have long called it a symbol of the administration's complacency in the slow summer days before the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001. Administration officials have countered that there was no specific information to act on, and that the briefing never warned that planes could be used as missiles."

     (The Times filed several misleading stories about the briefing last year, exaggerating its specificity and significance.)

     "His return to his full August idyll -- Mr. Bush cut short his time at the ranch last summer because of his re-election campaign -- is not only the length of a classic French vacation, but grist for some Democrats, who have accused the president of fleeing Washington to escape the federal investigation into who leaked the name of a Central Intelligence Agency officer to reporters, a potential crime."

To read the rest of Bumiller, click here.

The "Gentleman" Pat Leahy, Too Nice for the Senate
 

     Sheryl Gay Stolberg has written many articles fawning over nice Democrats and moderate Republicans (almost all of whom for some reason turn out to be Bush critics). But the headline to Stolberg's front-page Sunday story, "Is There Room for a Gentleman In a Debate on Judge Roberts?" is so favorable it almost works as a parody.

     The story itself features Democrats worrying that Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee (who criticized Vice President Dick Cheney for his ties to Halliburton) may be too nice to lead the Roberts' hearings.

     "The Capitol was buzzing with chatter about the vacancy on the Supreme Court one recent afternoon when Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, spied his Republican counterpart, Senator Arlen Specter, mobbed by reporters. 'Whatever he says,' Mr. Leahy interjected playfully, 'I agree with.' It was a wry comment, clearly intended as a joke. But there was also a grain of truth to it, which makes Senator Leahy's fellow Democrats more than a little bit nervous. Mr. Leahy is front and center as the top Democrat on the committee preparing to consider the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats remain divided about how hard to challenge the nomination, but some of them clearly worry that the gentlemanly Mr. Leahy, the leader of any nominal opposition, might prove too accommodating."

     Stolberg passes along "criticism" from liberal Democratic senators that Leahy is just too decent: "Just before Congress adjourned for August recess, two Democrats on the judiciary panel, Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, challenged Senator Leahy after he made concessions to Republicans in exchange for a September hearing date. 'Pat is not a person that puts confrontation up front,' Mr. Kennedy said in an interview.

     "Mr. Schumer put it this way: 'At his core, Patrick is just a very decent, honorable man who wishes everybody could get along, and he tries to make that happen as best he can.' But the Capitol is not always a decent and honorable place, and Mr. Leahy, a former prosecutor from Vermont who has spent nearly half his life -- 30 years -- in the Senate, is hardly a pushover."

     As usual, Republicans are to blame for any lack of comity in the Senate: "Relations grew particularly poisonous after Republicans accused Democrats of engaging in anti-Catholic bias by blocking some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Mr. Leahy was furious; he had bitter memories of the discrimination his Irish and Italian immigrant grandparents faced in New England because they were Roman Catholic. Last year, Mr. Leahy's sharp criticism of Vice President Dick Cheney for his ties to Halliburton, the oil services company, prompted Mr. Cheney to use an expletive against him in a private spat in the Senate chamber. True to form, Mr. Leahy later tried to patch things up….The Leahys were Roosevelt Democrats at a time when Vermont was a one-party Republican state; it is a point of pride with Mr. Leahy that he is the only Democrat in Vermont history to win a Senate seat. He was elected in 1974, a 'Watergate baby,' and he arrived, at age 34, at a time when the Senate was a more cordial place."

For more of Stolberg on "gentleman" Leahy, click here. 

Anti-War Robert Novak, Aggressive Conservative Partisan?
 

     Saturday's story from White House reporter Elisabeth Bumiller ties media bugbears Karl Rove and Bob Novak together in "Rove and Novak, a 20-Year Friendship Born in Texas."

     She sees Plame-gate as the hot summer story: "These hot months here will be remembered as the summer of the leak, a time when the political class obsessed on a central question: did Karl Rove, President Bush's powerful adviser, commit a crime when he spoke about a C.I.A. officer with the columnist Robert D. Novak?"

     Bumiller insists: "The two men share a love of history and policy, as well as reputations as aggressive partisans and hotheads." Never mind that the war-skeptic Novak is hardly a knee-jerk pro-Bush partisan and often takes delight in criticizing Republicans.

     Blogger Tom Maguire says: "I would be curious to know whether the Times has ever characterized some of Washington's other well known partisans with a temper as 'hotheads' -- Bill and Hillary get heated up occasionally, I have read. I bet James Carville can get riled from time to time."

For more Bumiller on Novak and Rove, click here.

Britain Strikes a "Harsher Note" in Terror War
 

     Saturday's lead story by London-based Alan Cowell is headed "Blair Is Seeking To Curb Radicals Who Preach Hate." But the paper takes care to note in a subhead: "Muslim Groups Condemn the Proposed Measures as Discriminatory."

     "Prime Minister Tony Blair promised new measures on Friday to close down mosques and bar or deport clerics deemed to be fostering hatred and violence, bringing Britain's antiterrorism policy more into line with some of its neighbors' and answering critics who say the country has sheltered Islamic extremists for years."

     Cowell again characterizes the possible changes as troubling: "The changes, which will require Parliament's approval, strike a harsher note in the continuing debate here about the balance between civil liberties and national security. They seem to nudge Britain toward policies adopted by the United States -- and widely criticized by leaders here -- after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."

     Cowell continues: "[Blair] mentioned two groups that would be banned: Hizb ut-Tahrir, which says it supports a nonviolent campaign to restore the Islamic caliphate; and successor groups to Al Muhajiroun, which had made a point of praising the Sept. 11 hijackers before disbanding last year. He also promised broader use of so-called control orders, which civil rights activists regard as a form of house arrest imposed without formal charges being placed."

     Professor Cori Dauber spots an omission in Cowell's description of the group Hizb ut-Tahrir: "The question, one would think, when a group is accused of extremism and links to terrorism, is what other people say about it. It may be non-violent, but it is in every way contrary to the values of a Western democracy. They aren't banned in other countries because they're non-violent, but because their anti-Semitism is frighteningly extreme, and if they aren't linked to terrorism, they certainly glorify it."

For the rest of Cowell, click here.

Air America Update: Day 7
 

     The New York Post on Saturday advanced the story of the financial scandal at the left-wing radio company Air America, noting that Democratic State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had opened an investigation into the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, the Bronx social-services agency that made $875,000 in loans to the company. Still nothing in the Times, a full week after the story broke into the mainstream press.