I think the Times had this story (NAS surveillance) or enough facts for much longer than one year. I think they resisted publishing it just prior to the 2004 election because it could have backfired on them and actually helped Bush (as it appears to be helping him now). Also, James Risen was cobbling together a book using about 98 percent ancient history and 2 percent leaks and release of the story needed to coincide with the book's printing. The first Risen story was front-paged the day after the successful Iraqi elections. Times editors, and Democrats, desperately need anything to dampen the good news from Iraq. The hard news component of the Times news room uses information as a political weapon. There is an unmistakable, shameless pattern.
I think they resisted publishing it just prior to the 2004 election because it could have backfired on them and actually helped Bush (as it appears to be helping him now). If they were smart enough back in 2004 to foresee a backlash, then they would have been smart enough to foresee a backlash in 2005, and they would have continued to withhold the story. So I can't quite agree with your analysis in this case.
Times editors, and Democrats, desperately need anything to dampen the good news from Iraq.
This has the ring of truth, to me -- liberals see success in Iraq, which is their worst nightmare, coming true. I think they're on a childish campaign to try throwing sand in the gears of national security, doing anything they can to cause harm, so they can then blame the harm on the Administration.