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!"

[OldFriend]

LOLOL.....I got that mail from the NYSlimes too.

Even if they paid me I wouldn't want my neighbors to see that blue bag on my driveway.

[veronica]

The NY Times is a disgrace. I regularly get calls from them soliciting me to subscribe to the Sunday Times, which I used to get for the Arts & Leisure section, and the crossword puzzle. No more. And I tell them I prefer the NY Post. :)

[CFC__VRWC]

Someone else on another thread made an excellent point. Recall that Osama bin Laden released a tape just before the 2004 election - Karl Rove let him out of the White House basement to make that tape and throw the election to George Bush (or so implied "Uncle" Walter Cronkite, anyway). If the Slimes had ran with the NSA story then, it would have bumped the public's approval of the "spying" (and thus Bush) up even higher.

[kcvl]

"What a tangled web we weave..."

I think HYPOCRITES fit better.

Wilson/Plame (desk jockey/media "star") leak = bad, National Security leaks = good. They are so transparent.

[Brilliant]

They waited for one simple reason: They thought it would help Bush in his re-election bid, not hurt him.


And they were right.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Did you listen to Risen on Today? Heard the outtakes on Rush today and it sounds like the leak came from Foggy Bottom (again)..not to say Rockefeller isn't involved, I believe he is, but the fine hand of State is in Risen's interview.... some enterprising Freeper needs to find the script or video... the outtakes were fascinating and very revealing.

[nopardons]

Many thanks for the ping!

[Mo1]

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?

Just a guess .. but I think it's about what the NYT thought and not the public in general

The NYT THOUGHT the country would be outraged .. it never dawned on them that the American people actually want our President to fight the terrorists

This is now about the 2006 election and not the 2004

[freema]

"Just a guess .. but I think it's about what the NYT thought and not the public in general"

I agree. They only listen to themselves.

I also think they probably held it because they WERE warned not to release it, then the Plame stuff got going...still listening to themselves.......and now they're listening to themselves with impeachment on a low simmer and thought they'd turn the fire up.

[lawnguy]

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.

There was a time when I would have thought this was terribly cynical, but no more.

I find myself suspecting all connected with the big media, and I think the day will come when we need someone we can trust to disemminate information, and because they have no credibility, people will die.

I have no doubt that people have already died because of the traitors who leak secrets as if they belonged to them.

[Sam Hill]

The Times is very proud of their attempts to throw Presidential elections for one party or another. And they have been doing this since right after the Civil War, if not even earlier.

This is from their "Time Line":

1876
Disgusted with the scandals in the Grant Administration, George Jones, now the publisher, moves The Times away from the Republican Party.

New York Times Company: Our Company: Timeline: NY Times Timeline 1851-1880
http://www.nytco.com/company-timeline-1851.html

[Deb]

Amazing how traitorous the Left becomes when Republicans are in power.