What gets buried in the New York Times?

Here's a prime example, from Sunday's story about the "spying" program that I just wrote about. This was in the sixth and seventh paragraphs in the Oregonian story (which is the one I'm quoting from; it was in print, but isn't available online) but several of the Times' paragraphs were combined in the Oregonian version; it was the 12th, 13th and 14th paragraphs in the Times:

It was unclear whether the White House persuaded Ashcroft to approve the program or moved ahead without his concurrence. However, in early 2004, about the time of the hospital meeting, the White House suspended parts of the surveillance program for several months and instituted more stringent requirements on the National Security Agency on how the program was used, in part to guard against possible abuses.

The Justice Department's concerns appear to have led, at least in part, to that suspension, and it was the Justice Department that oversaw an audit of the program. The audit examined how the NSA determined whether it had probable cause to think that someone in the United States, including U.S. citizens, had sufficient ties to al-Qaida to justify eavesdropping on their phone calls and e-mail without a warrant. That review is not known to have found any documented abuses.

So to sum up: the White House set up an approval process with the Justice Department, that department had some concerns, the White House suspended parts of the program and set up tougher safeguards, and a Justice Department audit found no abuses.

Yep, that Bush Administration. It's violating the Constitution at every turn.