« | »

Did NYT Wait To Leak National Security Secrets?

Everyone is asking the burning question: Why did The New York Times postpone its treason in publishing NSA secrets when these leaks could have won the elections for their bosses, the Democrat Party?

We certainly know it had nothing to do with any concerns about hurting our national security in the middle of a shooting war.

Even The Times' own PR man felt obliged to (very publicly) upbraid his masters for this tragically missed opportunity, which we present courtesy of the New York Post:

"Old Gay Gray Lady" publisher, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr.

Times' Own Ombudsman Rips 'Stonewalling' Paper


January 3, 2006 — The New York Times' "public editor" delivered a blistering attack on the paper for what he called "stonewalling" about its story on the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping.

Byron Calame said on Dec. 19 that he sent 28 questions to executive editor Bill Keller about the Times' "woefully inadequate" explanation of its decision to sit on the story for a year.

Keller refused to answer the questions, saying, "There is really no way to have a full discussion of the back story without talking about when and how we knew what we knew, and we can't do that."

Calame said that wasn't good enough, and sent the same 28 questions to publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who also declined.

On Sunday, Calame took the issue public — in the pages of the Times.

In a column headlined "Behind the Eavesdropping Story, a Loud Silence," he noted that when the controversial, front-page story appeared on Dec. 15, it included a "terse one-paragraph" explanation.

It said the White House had asked that the story be killed, and "after meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting."

Calame said the mention of the delay, "almost in passing, cried out for a fuller explanation."

The story revealed that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct electronic eavesdropping as early as 2002 without court warrant.

Some critics of the Times said the story may have endangered anti-terror efforts — while others said the paper was too willing to cooperate with the White House by delaying publication.

Calame said "the most obvious and troublesome omission" in the Times' explanation was failing to say whether the paper knew about the politically damaging information before Bush's victory in the 2004 election.

Calame pretends not to see the obvious explanation for The Times' postponement of its latest treason. They and the rest of our one party media were already on track to bring down the President via the "Plame Leak." They had put themselves in a box.

For the "Plame Scandal" was completely dependent upon the nation's outrage at such a grievous thing as leaking classified information. (Never mind that even this claim was false. The Times is so famously protective of our nation's secrets that even the appearance of such a leak is a heinous crime in their elevated moral realm.)

The NYT couldn't very well turn around and publish a series of leaks exposing some of the country's most vital secrets in its war on terror without stepping on their own finely honed self-righteousness. At least not yet.

Besides, the NYT was thoroughly convinced that the Plame game would be plenty enough to swing the election for their masters at the DNC, especially with "Admiral" Joe Wilson, IV, himself working on the Kerry team.

Of course it didn't quite work out that way. But you can't blame the New York Times for believing the DNC/MSM's polls.

Even after the elections, the worthies at the NYT still had to bide their time. They wanted the bogus Plame scandal to do as much damage as possible before they launched into their next trumped-up scandal.

It was only after it became all too painfully clear even to the New York Times that neither Rove not Cheney were going to be frog marched off to jail, that they decided to run with their next installment of seditious leaks and sham but exquisite outrage.

After allowing this respectable passage of time, the NYT knows that no one of importance will dare to call them on their "turn on a dime" hypocrisy.

And of course to be surprised at The Times for committing treason is akin to being shocked that a scorpion will sting. Its hireling, Calame, only expressed his dismay that his bosses didn't get the most bang for their buck.

Calame said "the most obvious and troublesome omission" in the Times' explanation was failing to say whether the paper knew about the politically damaging information before Bush's victory in the 2004 election.

Calame might just as well have quoted the poet (and Nixon alma mater's namesake), John Greenleaf Whittier:

For all sad words of tongue and pen,
The saddest are these: "It might have been!"

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, January 3rd, 2006. Comments are currently closed.

25 Responses to “Did NYT Wait To Leak National Security Secrets?”

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »