The New York Times had not responded to Bush's allegations...
Executive Editor Bill Keller said the newspaper postponed publication of the article for a year at the White House's request, while editors pondered the national security issues surrounding the release of the information.
But after considering the legal and civil liberties aspects, and determining that the story could be written without jeopardizing intelligence operations, the paper ran the story, Keller said, emphasizing that information about many NSA eavesdropping operations is public record.
Now the NYT has assumed the mantel of determining what will / will not jeopardize intelligence operations.
Whew... I'm sure our folks - doing the actual fighting in this little thing we call the Global War On Terror - feel so much more assured knowing that the NYT has determined this will have know impact on their operations. /sarcasm
The @ssholes who signed their non-disclosure agreements and then turned around and leaked the information they with which they were trusted to the press need to be prosecuted for treason and and executed as traitors.
And if I am not mistaken, the NYT was one of the ones who took Bob Woodward to the proverbial woodshed for not telling all he knew about Valerie Plame and the White House.
And isn't it interesting that they came to this conclusion just in time for the publication of that book?????? A book that was finsihed FOUR MONTHS ago.
*Rolling my eyes*