Why Did The Times Wait?

Sweetness & Light ^ | January 3, 2006 | N/A

[Sam Hill]

Everyone is asking the burning question: Why did The New York Times postpone its treason in publishing its 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 [excerpted]:

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

Times' Own Ombudsman Rips 'Stonewalling' Paper

By ANDY SOLTIS

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.

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

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!"

[Sam Hill]

Of course another poem applies as well:

"What a tangled web we weave..."

[TommyDale]

With at least 70% and more like 90% of public approval of the wiretapping, what makes you sure that the NY Times would have swung the election? If anything, the public would have reacted to the Democrats as being too soft on terrorism.

[SpaceBar]

The nickname "Pinch" refers to the sphincter action accompanying story production and editing at The Old Socialist Broad.

[Sam Hill]

"With at least 70% and more like 90% of public approval of the wiretapping, what makes you sure that the NY Times would have swung the election? If anything, the public would have reacted to the Democrats as being too soft on terrorism."

I'm not necessarily saying what I think. I am saying what I believe Calame and the NYT think. Calame is obviously disappointed that they didn't use this to help their side win the elections.

And I'm not so sure that this would have been presented clearly enough to the public by the DNC/MSM that they would have seen it as a nescessary move by the Bush administration in a time of war. It would have been portrayed as an outrage on the Constitution. And probably brought out so close to the election that nobody would have a chance to argue for its need.

But maybe this is another explanation. Maybe the DNC did some internal polling and found that this would hurt them. But I sort of doubt they would believe it without some kind of polls. They think they have the popular positions, you know.

[icwhatudo]

Why did they wait? I wonder the same thing, why did they wait until Bush numbers were going up and the day after Iraqi elections were a success?

[EQAndyBuzz]

"If anything, the public would have reacted to the Democrats as being too soft on terrorism."

My bet is the Kerry campaign and the DNC specifically asked that this be held off until after the election. They knew that the Swifties nailed Kerry on being anti-American and this would have sealed the deal. They were also banking on Plame blowing up in Bush's face.

The RATS and Slimes are so petty it is beyond belief.

[Sam Hill]

Pinging in the New Year.

[InsureAmerica]

just opened the mail, found there a letter from nyt. i can get their paper on a 'special' for ONLY $2.90/week.

They would have to pay me about 10 times that to take it.

Folded everything, including envelope together, inserted in enclosed postage-paid return envelope and will put in mail tomorrow.

[Doogle]

Why Did The Times Wait?,

Rockefeller finally gave them the go-ahead...don't anyone remember the democratic strategic email that was sent by Rocky,but delivered to the wrong address..???

Doogle

[Sam Hill]

I do, and I'm sure many here do:

Rockefeller memo=The Hill.com=
http://www.hillnews.com/news/110603/memo.aspx

This and the CIA "Retentions" surely fit that announced campaign.

And Rockefeller himself is almost uniquely positioned to have leaked both stories.

[b4its2late]

Why Did The Times Wait?
"What a tangled web we weave..."

Here's another one - "Timing is everything."

[quantim]

Why did The New York Times postpone its treason

Because they didn't want Kerry either but couldn't admit it.

[rlmorel]

"...when these leaks could have won the elections for their bosses, the Democrat Party?"

I would disagree, but if the screaming of the MSM drowned out everything else and this ran as often as the Bush National Guard story, then...it might have improved the Rat's chances.

As it was, with the complete one-sided bias of the media, Bush still won...I think it speaks to how woefully inadequate their platform and candidate was, and is.

The good news is that the Rats somehow still think America thinks the way they do.

[Liberty Valance]

If not released just before election day the next best thing for the NYT/DNC is to realease this story on the day of the Iraqi elections to quell any "victory" talk by the current administration. Either way it's a victory for terrorists and democrats. The real problem as I see it is that this is a non-story. If after Sept.11th the President WASN'T doing everything in his power to fight terrorists (including wiretaps/intercepts) he would have been impeached by Republicans AND Democrats. JMHO.

Do any of these people even remember 9/11?

[AmericanChef]

I'm in total agreement. I would've loved to see how the dims would present their "no spying on terrorists" strategy for winning the war. I might not have had to sit biting my fingernails for Bush ("Fingernail Biters for Bush!") on election night.

[OldFriend]

They held the story because it would have enhanced the President's election numbers.

That it was released at the time of the vote to renew the Patriot Act has turned into a plus for the President as well.

Just my lame opinion.

[Doogle]

And Rockefeller himself is almost uniquely positioned to have leaked both stories

...eee..correctamundo...LMAO

Doogle

[EQAndyBuzz]

"If anything, the public would have reacted to the Democrats as being too soft on terrorism."

My bet is the Kerry campaign and the DNC specifically asked that this be held off until after the election. They knew that the Swifties nailed Kerry on being anti-American and this would have sealed the deal. They were also banking on Plame blowing up in Bush's face.

The RATS and Slimes are so petty it is beyond belief. They are going to turn this around like they turned around the memogate files. It wasn't the fact that the RATS were trying to take down Bush, it was the fact that the Republicans found out.

[airborne]

I'd like to know exactly what the 28 questions are.