I do not watch television news. I read the papers (WP, WSJ, FT, Economist) and avoid the editorial pages. I listen to NPR from the moment I wake up. So, having said that, I may not be the most informed to comment that there has been little discussion of this.
One thing that seems to be missing from what I have read is something that could be quite illuminating for people on the fence regarding the NSA scandal currently engulfing the WH.
We know from early on that this WH has been more concerned with politics than policy and that it plays a loud and belligerent attack game of CYA. We know that W personally asked NYT management not to publish the NSA story. We know that this happened over a year ago.
The question I have to ask, given all that we know, is whether they deliberately allowed this to go to print without asking for any investigation a year ago, or in the subsequent period, so that it became a very public case and they could shout down the protests using their minions in the right-wing blogosphere, on right-wing radio, and in conservative editorials.
This cabal in the executive branch does not know how to do subtlety or nuance but is very good at in-your-face belligerence (Rove attacking journalists personally, Cheney with his "Fuck you!" to Leahy, and Bush with the decidedly full-frontal assault in the propaganda placed on his teleprompter, inter alia). They can't argue a legal case adroitly and thus perhaps wanted to ensure this whole thing became public to use as a cudgel against those who might protest. If it happened quietly in a closed courtroom, or intelligent hearing in Congress, they would not be able to demolish and attack as they know how.
So, again, I have to ask. Did the White House deliberately allow this program to become public, i.e., allow what they claim is a top secret, legal program to be made public, so they could play their aggressive CYA game as a political tool against those interested in civil liberties and as a way to rally their base who falls into line whenever the magic words "national security" are mentioned? Could they be held responsible for allowing this to be made public given that they knew about it more than a year ago and did nothing about it beyond some special pleading with the NYT?