This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Today's revelations that the "President's Surveillance Program" was much broader than formerly reported is hardly shocking. Coupled with all of the other Bush era scandals that have been uncovered, partially uncovered, and those that have yet to be revealed, this one barely registers on our burnt out outrage-meters.

But there is something about this particular story that is unique. The media's own failure to report this matter timely may have handed reelection to George Bush.

More on the flip


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

The New York Times first reported the NSA's illegal wiretapping program on December 16, 2005. Now remember, the Times is purportedly the charter member of the "liberal media." So, of course, the criticism was strong. But in December 2005, things were already going poorly for Bush for the first time after 9/11.

Bush had been decisively turned around on his attempt to scrap Social Security. Hurricane Katrina happened. Then this scandal came out. This was all part of the beginning of the wave that broke on his ass in the 2006 elections.

The problem is, it should have broke before the 2004 election.

According to many sources, this one is the Los Angeles Times, NYT could have published the story before the 2004 election.

The New York Times first debated publishing a story about secret eavesdropping on Americans as early as last fall, before the 2004 presidential election.

But the newspaper held the story for more than a year and only revealed the secret wiretaps last Friday, when it became apparent a book by one of its reporters was about to break the news, according to journalists familiar with the paper's internal discussion.

IIRC, the initial reports were that the NYT had not learned of this before the 2004 election, only after. But the truth was they knew. And they didn't report it. That's old news. It's obvious that they were scared and didn't want to be criticized of affecting the election. But they assumed—wrongly—that they had the whole story and, gosh, it wasn't that bad. They were wrong and it has affected all of us.

We can't know if Bush would have been reelected anyway. We can't know if the report would have backfired and played into the Swiftboating. But, on the other hand, these revelations in the harsh light of a Presidential campaign may have led to the revelations that only came later coming out earlier, even those today.

I'm not writing this specifically to attack the NYT, but to ask: how many more reporters, federal workers—how many people are out there that could have blown the whistle sooner but were scared by Bush's "war on terror" rhetoric? How many are there still?

Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to Attorney at Arms on Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 01:57 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.