Jay Rosen notes that:

On Dec. 20, James Rainey of the Los Angeles Times reported that “editors at the paper were actively considering running the story about the wiretaps before Bush’s November showdown with Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.”

I wonder why they didn't? At first glance, given their partisan behavior in general at least since the beginning of the Bush administration, one would have thought that it would be a slam-dunk decision, just as Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' tilting at the AWOL windmill occurred a few weeks before the 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.

If they were thinking about publishing it in the wake of RatherGate, it might have impacted their decision. Suddenly the public was a lot less tollerant of political hit pieces.

I'm also wondering about their statement "Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted." Why the word "Some" at the beginning of the sentence? Does it mean some information that could be useful to terrorists was included?

I certainly agree, but I think the case can be put even more strongly than this. I think, given the salutary nature of what happened to Dan Rather and the public pushback, they also realized, that if they made public secrets involving national security in order to influence an election, not only would Bush's numbers ended up higher than they were, but there would have been a huge, huge scandal that would have ultimately cost several of them their jobs. And perhaps more.

I'm not able to find any obvious trends in recent polling that supports "surge in approval" language for the administration. A majority seems to disapprove of its performance. And though political strategy is so far away from being my field as to be laughable, it seems that the administration's desire to keep the warrantless domestic surveillance program quiet probably means that it didn't think that news of it was helpful to their prospects.

Besides, is it "tapping enemy communications" or "eavesdropping on Americans?" The former designation of the administration's activities implicitly assumes that they are for a legitimate purpose. WIth no review and no way to check, I think the argument devolves to "trust the administration."

My host this week said something funny about "tell your conservative friends that they'll come after the guns next! That'll get them agitated." I think saying such a thing is just being pointlessly arch, and is a change of subject regardless. But he has a point in one sense: If you can't trust them with one law, how can you trust them with any?

"I'm not able to find any obvious trends in recent polling that supports "surge in approval" language for the administration. A majority seems to disapprove of its performance."

Perhaps you aren't looking in the right place.

I suggest you pay attention to Scott Rasmussen's sight. Bush has gone from a low of 40% in October to as high as 50% just before Christmas. Is is concictantly polling int the upper 40's and gradually inching upward as time progresses.

Rasmussen's results were consistant thru the 2004 campaign while Zogby and Gallup were showing wild swings that contradicted common sense.

Rasmussen also came closer predicting to the final outcome than any other polster being almost exactly on the money. Better than Gallup and way better than Zogby. If Rasmussen shows consistant movement, you can make book on it.

Hmm. On the 16th (When the NSA story broke) Bush's approval was at 46%. Today, it's 47%.

Surge? Not so much.

...though political strategy is so far away from being my field as to be laughable, it seems that the administration's desire to keep the warrantless domestic surveillance program quiet probably means that it didn't think that news of it was helpful to their prospects.

Consider the possibility that their desire to keep it quiet was not based on how it would go over politically, but whether or not it would be useful to the enemy to know that it was occurring, which is why it was classified information.

Just consider that possibility...

"Hmm. On the 16th (When the NSA story broke) Bush's approval was at 46%. Today, it's 47%.

Surge? Not so much."

Well, when you cherry pick discrete data points instead of using large numbers of samples to sift for trends, perhaps so. If you only count one discrete sample verses another, you run a high risk of assigning significance to an outlier.

The average for the 5 days leading up to and incluing the 16th was 44.8%. The average for the last five days is 47.6%.

Presidential popularity has improved an average of almost three percent since the NSA story broke. Looks like that is statistically significant evidence of an upward trend, especially considering this is coming from a low point of 40% in October.

Polls are generally only accurate to within three percentage points, so a three percent swing is within the margin of error.

What Ed said. "Statistically significant" has a precise meaning, at least in medical statistics, and is excluded by anything inside the margin of error (which is identified in the tiny print at the bottom of the poll on Rasmussen's page).

Also, I picked one day, you picked five days prior.. why is five days the better figure? Why not five after? Or five days centered on the day in question?

Possibly an emerging trend, but certainly not a surge.

Possibly an emerging trend, but certainly not a surge.

You're probably right, Jane. In the MSM, it would only be a "surge" when it benefits a Democrat...

Nonetheless, Rasmussen (who does a pretty good job of tracking these things) sees a clear upside for Bush in the last couple weeks, and a down one for the donkeys. Which makes a lot of sense to me, based on my understanding of the American electorate (which is probably a lot better than that of the Dems, and the MSM, based on election results of the past ten years or so...)

"Also, I picked one day, you picked five days prior.. why is five days the better figure? Why not five after? Or five days centered on the day in question?"

To isolate the impact of the NSA event obviously. Five days centered and after will not achieve that.

"Polls are generally only accurate to within three percentage points, so a three percent swing is within the margin of error."

Which is exactly why Jane should not have cherry picked two descrete sample because they each represent a potential swing of three percent due to sampling error.

My aggregate of five days data will have a much smaller than three percent margin of error because the statistical noise will tend to cancel itself out over a larger sample size.

Rand, I can certainly entertain the idea that the administration kept quiet about the warrantless domestic surveillance program because revealing that it was going on provides information to the enemy that the enemy might find useful. I would be astonished, however, if the enemy had not already assumed than any electronic communications were subject to monitoring.

But the FISA court had sealed cases and warrants and everything. So what is the additional information that is being conveyed if the communication is being tapped without a warrant, rather than with one? In either case, the communication is subject to monitoring.

It seems to me that conveying additional information along the lines of saying "it's a limited initiative that tracks only incoming calls to the United States" provides more useful information to the adversary than disclosing the existence of a warrantless program without any specification of the kind of communication being tapped.

I have figured out though a good way of striking back! I'm putting Al Qaeda on my Do Not Call list. That way, if they call me, the FTC can fine them.

But the FISA court had sealed cases and warrants and everything. So what is the additional information that is being conveyed if the communication is being tapped without a warrant, rather than with one? In either case, the communication is subject to monitoring.

The information you are conveying is that the wiretap is in place.

Consider - and all we have to go on is suppostion so what the heck - that Black Hat Abe has a channel into the FISA court process. Abe doesn't know much; perhaps the only information he gets from the channel is binary - an wiretap is in place or it is not.

How Abe might get this information is irrelevant but is (to me) interesting. Unlikely that it would be a mole. Probable that the very process the FISA court uses betrays the on/off signal - say their standard Monday meeting only lasts for 30 minutes but a meeting when they approve a wiretap goes on for hours, and generates more activity (phone calls, lights on after hours, email chatter, working lunch from the deli for 20, whatever) which is picked up.

So our oppostion can assume they are always being monitored - but living that way is hassle, and they're only human. If you assume they have the binary signal from FISA courts they could have a window of opportunity to relax and they'd 'know' when to impose opsec.

Remember, this is the same bunch that didn't know we could monitor bin Laden by his satellite calls until 'we' tipped him off. They are not possesed of superhuman ability, and are, all said and done, rank beginners at the business of opsec.

I am not making this example up for the sake of arguing - my unit was guilty of broadcasting our intentions in the same way in D.C. in the 80s. We had the latest in zippy encypted radios - you could not eavesdrop and hear us. However we had a set routine when we were conducting operations 'other than normal sentry routine' - the Marines would gear up, turn on radios (one per team) and make a series of 'radio checks'. You could not hear this but you certainly could eavesdrop on the frequency - and when we doing doing 'stuff' we were filing the freq up with a ton of chatter - telling the potential black hats what we were doing. The fix for this was a PITA, and involved the special duty team randomly breaking out the radios and making spurious com checks.

You could make Marines do this - could you impose the same routine on lawyers and clerks in the court? My experience with civlians (and I am now one) says 'no'.

Consider - and all we have to go on is suppostion so what the heck - that Black Hat Abe has a channel into the FISA court process. Abe doesn't know much; perhaps the only information he gets from the channel is binary - an wiretap is in place or it is not.

While I concede what you suggest is possible, it's hard to imagine a diffused organization like Al Qaeda having moles in place to find out about FISA court orders. There are a lot of lower level people involved in the wiretap who wouldn't know if it was authorized by FISA or not and I would imagine they're much more likely to be compromised than a FISA judge or senior Attorney General staff member.

While I concede what you suggest is possible, it's hard to imagine a diffused organization like Al Qaeda having moles in place to find out about FISA court orders.

Right. You'll note I addressed that in the next paragraph. Black Hats don't need a mole, they merely need information. I suggest (with no information granted, but with knowledge that opsec is hard) that the FISA court leaks that like lighthouse leaks photons into the night.

You only need to know where to look. Say - the guy delivering a working lunch from the deli on the corner, janitorial staff, etc.

This is not an unlikely scenario - the United States is their avowed enemy. If they don't have as many operatives as the KGB did there is no doubt in my mind they are surely keeping tabs on us in some fashion.