The White House asked the New York Times not to publish this article...

[NNN0LHI]

http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/889/59/

<snip>The White House asked the New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Let's do the math: Thirteen months before this story was published there was . . . a national election. Won by George W. Bush. The guy who ordered laws to be broken, because he felt he didn't have to answer to anyone. The last president to behave in this way was Richard Nixon. He faced a public outcry and was forced to resign in disgrace in the face of almost certain impeachment. Indeed, when the wiretapping story was finally published in the Times, it sparked congressional investigations and even calls for impeachment of the president for violating the law.

It turns out the Times did, in fact, have this story ready to go before the 2004 election but decided to wait -- at the request of the people running for reelection, who rightly feared how the public might respond to the revelations.

Imagine, just for a moment, how different things might have been if this explosive exposé had been published when it was written.

The Times delayed publication because it might "jeopardize continuing investigations" -- ignoring, as the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has pointed out, that "placing illegal and unconstitutional programs in jeopardy is the whole point of the First Amendment."

More astonishing was Times executive editor Bill Keller's explanation of why the story was delayed for so long. He said that the Bush administration had "assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." Mind you, this is the regime of George W. Bush we're talking about -- the folks who assured us that torture was legal, that preemptive war was legal, and that holding prisoners incommunicado in an offshore gulag was legal. But for the editor of the Times, it is enough just to take the government's word when it says something is legal. The Times finally published the story -- which won reporters Risen and Lichtblau a 2006 Pulitzer Prize -- only when it became apparent that Risen was planning to publish the revelation in a book a month later.

[rusty fender]

1. And if Kerry had...

won we would still be in Iraq! Kerry vowed to fight a "smarter" war in Iraq. Kerry didn't get it then and doesn't get it now.

[zanne]

2. Do you mean that we're better off now?

I mean; seriously. c'mon.

[Don Claybrook]

3. Professor Einstein....didn't know you were here today

Please do regale me with tales of how it's much better to have Satan's inbred offspring in office than that terrible John Kerry. I'll go make some coffee while I look forward to your reply.

[Sherman A1]

4. Yes

I too look forward to this bit of enlightenment. I will also go put on the coffee as this will be a supremely interesting read I am sure.

:donut:

[SaveAmerica]

6. A smarter war in Iraq meaning cleaning up the mess, training Iraqi

troops and bringing the soldiers home. A plan to get it done, come home as opposed to staying there forever.

[Supersedeas]

5. Remember we are hammered by Media shills in the chattering class, that

if you don't like who is utilizing the powers of the Unitary Executive, then voters can decide to change the policy by changing the Executive.

Well, if the press is going to conceal major policy decisions, how can the election remedy ever be effective?