I'll give you something to cry about

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Shorter Malkin:

The federal government would never, ever abuse any kind of surveillance program, so quit your whining. Also, the New York Times Editorial Board has been infiltrated by agents of al-Qaeda. Andrew Rosenthal, I'm looking at you.

Update: Norbizness points out how weird this is, considering "the secret wiretap court always seems to approve these wiretaps." He also calls Malkin, by association, "fascist scum and an apologist for anti-Constitutional activity." Preach it:

There's only one way to scare the craven apologists [like Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, and Malkin]: remind them of the very real possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2008 with unlimited powers against perceived terrorists, foreign and domestic. You mean you believed that all of those executive orders magically expire when your anointed security sock-puppet exits the White House as the worst executive ever?

That might work, but let's not forget: a) they floated the idea of cancelling the elections once, they can do it again, and b) Maybe they're just that certain they're going to win again in 2008.

Update 2: Heh. Malkin, in an update:

Arlen Specter says the Judiciary Committee will investigate (the Bush administration, not the leakers)...

Yes, that's right. They're going to investigate a possible major breach of the Constitution, not the people who told us about it. I know that's hard to understand.

I guess Bush wasn't kidding.

Shorter Malkin redux:

Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!

Update 3:Another part of the update I didn't notice:

Some on the Left aren't happy with the Times, either...

This, my friends, is what is often called "Manufacturing Consent." Sounds like liberals think the NY Times acted irresponsibly too, right? Well, yeah:

...Will Bunch, the award-winning Philadelphia Daily News reporter who writes the "Attytood" blog there. He charges that the Times likely had this shocking information before the November 2004 election, and if it had come out with it then it would have sunk Bush’s chances for re-election. He also mentions that this comes on top of Times’ reporter Judith Miller not coming forward in the Plame case last year, which allegedly also helped Bush win...

"Simply put, the Bush White House gamed the media in 2004….Voters could have gone to the polls on Election Day, Nov. 4, 2004, knowing that Bush was spying on Americans, that a key White House aide was charged with felonies, and that the initial rationales for Iraq were bogus."

Update 4: By the way, you think the Malkins are pissed now, just wait until they weigh in on this.

Update 5: And in what has to win the award for "most perverse intentional misreading of a news item" - in a career full of them:

Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

"Some," but not all.

No. Nice try, though. Read it again. Repeatedly, until you get it.