It was discovered that George Bush secretly waived the rules that restrict electronic surveillance within U.S. allowing spying of Americans who would normally require a warrant from the court to do so. However, the New York Times withheld the story for a whole year. More than 13 months after the 2nd term victory of President George Bush, the Times gave some few details of the reason behind withholding of the story (Parry, 2005).
Robert Parry from Consortium New and the author of the argumentative essay observed that president Bush had asserted extensive presidential authority overriding the legal constrains. However, there was no slight indication that there were political concerns that had been raised. There was also unwritten rule declared among journalists that sensitive tales shouldn’t be published prior to the Election Day to avoid skewing of the outcomes. The author observed that Bush administration had overridden it mandate forcing journalists to compromise their integrity majorly after the September 11th Attack. Providing as evidence of the suppression, Parry observed that Judith Miller a reporter of the times had resigned because of pressure. Judith who had lacked skepticism in her covering over Iraq’s mass destruction of lives had compromised her standard because of pressure from the senior officials.
Miller whom the author uses as the prime witness over Bush overstepping mandate had been restricted by the government from disclosing over story from Lewis Libby- vice president chief of state, over a CIA officer who had been married to a war critic from Iraq. Miller testimony at the grand jury would have led to the linkage of Libby’s role before the 2004 Election consequently swaying the voting mannerism. The author observed that if such information would have got to the public, Bush would not have taken a second term as his integrity was wanting.
Use of evidence and reason
The argument has substantial evidence to intricate Bush administration in the unlawful domestic spying when the author discloses how President Bush waived rules regarding the issue. This is confirmed when the story is finally published by The New York Times. However despite their strong evidence against the state, New York Times executives held the story for a whole year from October 2004 to October 2005. Their decision was partly influenced by Bush administration intervention citing vulnerability of national security concerns with such kind of revelation. However, the argument has provided convincing reasoning capacity demonstrated by Times executives who considered the political impact of such revelations to the populace especially pre-national presidential elections although this political issue never featured in their discussion with Bush administration. Therefore, Time’s executive reasoning considerations to delay the publication was justified although they had sufficient evidence.