A better question would be for the NY Times to explain why, if Kerik's sordid past was so well known, that the news media managed to keep it all so secret until *after* President Bush nominated him.
Did Kerik's wrongdoing not bother the news media prior to that nomination?! It's OK to do all of those things, unless you get nominated by a President that the liberal news media dislikes?!
Exactly, and not just Kerry!
Yes, I've asked this before. How come the New York Times and the New York Daily News, who were so outraged by the Kerik nomination, never bothered to investigate him during all the years he held important posts in their own home town?
It's getting to be extremely noticeable that ever since Watergate the only investigative reporting these scum ever bother to do is against Republicans.