[dead]

To counter charges that their newspaper has become a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, the Times hired an ombudsman who accuses them of not committing treason fast enough to adequately help the Democratic Party.

[FlipWilson]

True, but it is great to see them bat each other around.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

That's what I got out of it. Was the upcoming book even mentioned ?

[bkepley]

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.

The damage would have been to Kerry. They probably delayed the story at Kerry's request. Imagine how Rathergate and then Spygate would have looked to most people: an out of control President? Or an out of control press out to get the President?

[Abathar]

"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."

This is the most telling statement of all, how they lament the fact that if enough people in Ohio could have been twisted in believing this just before the election we would be saying "President Kerry".

[okie01]

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.

They couldn't possibly have thought al-Qaqaa was a more damaging story, could they...???

[OldFriend]

If this story had been revealed before the election, the President would have won by another 10% of the votes.

[Archytekt]

nowhere is it mentioned the political calculation of going public with the NSA story the day after the Iraqi elections. I predicted to freinds that the press would come up with something to step on the election good news, and whoop there it is!

[Chode]

that's bout the way i read it too...

[FranklinsTower]

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.

If I recall, OBL released a tape right before the election. I bet they NYT sat on this story because they couldn't release it while the OBL tape was out there as well as Rather-gate. They couldn't find the right time to leak it.