Hey, wait just a doggone minute!They knew about the NSA leak a year ago-

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

If it was so major that the White House ("senior administration officials") would ask the Times not to publish - why didn't they begin an investigation about the NSA leaker a long time ago? What are the logical reasons that they wouldn't? My theories:

1. As usual, they already know who it is and it is one of them who leaked inadvertently. Remember, the leak investigation came out of the response and outrage to the illegal tapping and was a point brought up by a lot of right wing pundits. What if they actually pushed an investigation that the White House really doesn't want?

2. The leaker knows a lot more they could tell if they chose to.

[Surya Gayatri]

1. Exactly! I've been wondering

just that. If the damage is so egregious and the jeopardy so great, why the hell didn't they open the investigation a year ago? SG

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Good point

n/t

[hang a left]

3. Yeah.

They could have listened in to the leaker's emails and phone calls. They are just stalling so that they can use their blackmail tactics to sweep everything under the rug.

[MADem]

4. I asked that very question when the story first broke

Why did they meet with the NYT editorial types, and beg them to hold the story? Why not just slap them with one of their super-duper secret indictments and play hardball?

This whole "investigation" is political retribution, for failing to continue to go along with the program. I think we should investigate why those bastards sat on this story for over a year, myself!!!

Of course, it could be that the Monkey is making late-night, Nixonesque, drunken phone calls, and he is the rat! Remember how Bob Novak said that the BoyKing KNEW who leaked the Plame name? If Novak is so sure of this, maybe he was chatting with Drunky McCokespoon himself, and got confirmation from HIM...!

[phoebe]

5. because they are trying to divert attention away from Plame leak

or something else. On second thoughts, may have something to do with AIPAC spying case and the top "administrators" of this country. The NSA investigation would really bite them in the ass if it was legitimate. Those NSA whistleblowers deserve high praise for coming forward - looks like sections of the intelligence community are prepared to take the gloves off trying to combat the felonious Bush bunch.

This NSA "investigation" looks to be another attempt at misdirection by the asshats in power and to shut up those who know too much.

The only reason the NYT has come out now is because the powder keg information they had a year ago can be denied - no doubt the shredding has already taken place by those in the admin.

[havocmom]

6. NYT public editor raises a voice on the whole thing

Byron Calame starts the new year off with a volley for some explanations. With 40 plus years in the business, one would guess he might be ready to bag it. These words of his might ensure his departure from the paper, but damn, the chap makes some good points in the questions he raises that have gone unanswered by those running the NYT. Like: did the NYT have the story confirmed & ready to run prior to the election in 04? If not, why not come out and say it? If they DID have it all before the election ....

Do check this gentleman's remarks out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/opinion/01publiceditor.html?ex=1293771600&en=73506e1ec61c1adb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

THE New York Times's explanation of its decision to report, after what it said was a one-year delay, that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping domestically without court-approved warrants was woefully inadequate. And I have had unusual difficulty getting a better explanation for readers, despite the paper's repeated pledges of greater transparency.

skip

At the outset, it's essential to acknowledge the far-reaching importance of the eavesdropping article's content to Times readers and to the rest of the nation. Whatever its path to publication, Mr. Sulzberger and Mr. Keller deserve credit for its eventual appearance in the face of strong White House pressure to kill it. And the basic accuracy of the account of the eavesdropping stands unchallenged - a testament to the talent in the trenches.

But the explanation of the timing and editing of the front-page article by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau caused major concern for scores of Times readers. The terse one-paragraph explanation noted that the White House had asked for the article to be killed. "After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting," it said. "Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted."

If Times editors hoped the brief mention of the one-year delay and the omitted sensitive information would assure readers that great caution had been exercised in publishing the article, I think they miscalculated. The mention of a one-year delay, almost in passing, cried out for a fuller explanation. And the gaps left by the explanation hardly matched the paper's recent bold commitments to readers to explain how news decisions are made.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. Shame On Me For Not Realizing That. Excellent Point That We Need To Keep

repeating.

Sure, the public knows about it right now, but the government knew that it was leaked to the NYT far before that, you are right.

So yes, why is dramatizing the effects of the leak to national security so vitally important now? Yes, if so vitally important, why wasn't the investigation already under way?

[rzemanfl]

8. Investigating the leak would have increased the chance of a

leak before the election. People outside NSA would have known about the wiretaps because the leak of the wiretap info was being investigated. To these motherfuckers winning was all that counted.

[Yoda Yada]

9. The Spin Begins...

Haven't we all been amazed at how easily this administration manipulated 9/11 into an "attack Iraq" focus of revenge. (15 0f the 19 attackers were Saudis, not Iraqis etc.) They so adeptly changed the focus from Bin Laden to Sadaam Hussein. We will see an even more aggressive campaign (in 2006) to change the focus concerning the wire-tapping issue. Spin...spin...spin... and yes, I am stating the obvious.

On January 3rd, and onward, the media will be slanting the news to "finding the whistleblower"...who released this classified information? How could this happen? Is our country now in danger? Are we less safe because of the leak? (Were they this aggressive about the Plame leak?) . There will be a barrage of "guesses" and hypothetical scenarios that will make our heads spin. If this diversionary tactic worked for 9/11...it will work again for the "scrapping of our Constituition".

Objective of the Republicans: Change Focus

Solution: Don't LET THEM change focus. Easy? Yes, it is.

Whenever the issue of "who is the leak" comes up...EVERY Democrat MUST reframe and say "First of all, that is NOT the issue...the issue is did President Bush ignore the law by authorizing the wire taps WITHOUT legal warrants? And (don't forget this)... By law, he COULD have tapped FIRST, and then, within 15 DAYS, asked for the warrants, and it STILL would have been legal. Why didn't he do this?

BEFORE ANY discussion takes place....make sure that the REAL issue is discussed, NOT the issue the Republicans want to talk about (i.e., who is the whistleblower?)

This should be EVERY Democrats New Year's Resolution....reframe..reframe...reframe... so the REAL issue is being discussed....not the smoke-screen issue.

Remember: "First of all, that is NOT the issue...the issue is (state the REAL issue)...."

Am I repeating, repeating, repeating, myself? Yes, yes, yes. You must, must, must, do the same, same, same.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. Granted that they are trying to re-focus off the greater issue

of Bush's open, repetitive and non-repentant crime committing. But my point is even where they are trying to re-focus is filled with land mines for them. Again, if they were so concerned about National Security leakage - why didn't they investigate? How about the MOST obvious answer - they KNEW it had nothing to do with National Security in the first place?! Also, here is another thread about leaker issues

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5724269

[Yoda Yada]

11. Thank you for the thread....

It helped.

I guess my greatest concern is that AGAIN, America is not paying attention... and AGAIN Americans will be fooled. I would be much happier if I felt the Democratic leadership was united, focused, and "on message". The words "Democratic leadership" must mean something again.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

12. Sure. And I understand your frustration. But if they insist on "spinning"

lies then we have to counterspin truth. They always get tripped up in simple logic because their lies never make any sense. I also think a big part of this discussion needs to be how they use "National Security" to blanket their nefarious deeds and effectively muzzle their critics. This must end. This is another thread that I tried to start about that part of the discussion that went nowhere.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2444

[TahitiNut]

13. I'd be willing to bet they've kept this secret from the rank-and-file in

... the Justice Department, only using loyalists to covertly attempt to identify the leaker for the past year. Once it became public, they could openly unleash the Justice Department dogs, with lead dog Gonzales.

Remember, there are thousands of people in the Executive Branch who aren't "loyalists" and can't be trusted. After all, they've only had five years. (Three more and there'll be lots and lots of fascist moles.)