Has Obama Lost The NYT Over Obama’s Spying Programs? – Updated

NYT

Wow! The New York Times has a scathing editorial about President Obama’s national security policies and his administration’s lame defense of them. It certainly took them long enough to realize The One has failed to live up to his promises and empty rhetoric.

Within hours of the disclosure that the federal authorities routinely collect data on phone calls Americans make, regardless of whether they have any bearing on a counterterrorism investigation, the Obama administration issued the same platitude it has offered every time President Obama has been caught overreaching in the use of his powers: Terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us to deal with them because we have internal mechanisms (that we are not going to tell you about) to make sure we do not violate your rights.

Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability.

The administration has now lost all credibility on this issue. Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it. (Read More)

They went on to bring up the report yesterday that the administration obtained a warrant for Verizon phone data, saying that “There is every reason to believe the federal government has been collecting every bit of information about every American’s phone calls except the words actually exchanged in those calls.” But they didn’t stop there, also noting a Washington Post story on how the NSA has been data mining directly from the servers of nine of the big  US internet service providers.

It’s a far cry from the glowing endorsement they gave him in 2008.

Obama has taken all of the policies the left hated about the Bush presidency and put them on steroids. They’re finally waking up to it.

Update: Figures - the NYT quietly edited their own editorial to make it less damning of the Obama administration after it was published online.