You asked why The New York Times printed this.
Certainly not because their reporters dug it out, that's for sure. The much maligned Judicial Watch handed the State Dept documents to The New York Times on a silver platter, and I guess they couldn't not cover it!
But did you notice, the NYT could not credit Judicial Watch without the prerequisite "conservative" adjective attached.
And the NYT did not identify the Clinton administration officials who failed to respond to calls. (I'm guessing Bill, Madeleine, Jamie Ruben, and their worker bees are still crafting the official CYA response.
I would like to know when Judicial Watch turned the State Dept documents over to the NYT, how long they've had to get Clinton administration replies.
My distrust of the Times is very deep. I cannot believe that this is straight, impartial reporting.
Possibilities for the underlying meaning to this story:
1. They are trying to set up Zekilow as the fall guy.
2. They are trying to get Condi; a later story will accuse her of ignoring a briefing.
3. There is something worse in these documents that is being hidden by printing this story as a diversion.
4. They are trying to go the "old news" route on behalf of Hillary.
I DO NOT TRUST THE NEW YORK TIMES. And what about Judith Miller, who is still in jail? Who was her source? I notice she has disappeared from the spotlight.
And WHY would Judicial Watch turn these documents over to the Times? Why would they think the Times can be trusted? Why not turn them over to the Washington Times, or the Wall Street Journal? I find this entire story and its source very weird.