I'm writing this because no one has really addressed the idea, and I feel it needs to be said. I am disappointed with the Times, as can be seen from the vast majority of comments and posts at the moment, I am not alone in that sentiment.
I am in fact fairly moderate in my opinion, comparted to the rage being expressed. I want an explanation, and not just the brief blurb of an explanation available through CNN. I want to see a major editorial discussing this story and its implications, way more than was seen for the Judy Miller debacle.
However, I do think that credit should be given where credit is due. More on the flip...
In one of the comments, someone asked how it was that the times had this MAJOR story for a year, and no one else in the MSM ever got a hold of it. This is a good question, possibly more important than the question of why the Times held on to the story.
The last thing I want to do though is to excuse the Times, every time I think about how the whole world might be different if they had this story, and published it, before the last election... well, I have to count to ten... or a hundred... in several languages.
They did however report it, eventually, and at a pretty good time, as this story did make a difference in the Senate filibuster of the Patriot Act, and I think it made a bigger difference in that respect than it would have if it had been published even a day earlier. Essentially, it was published with the perfect timing for maximum anger at the administration and minimum rebuttal before the cloture vote.
On the other hand, imagine what it would have done if it had been published the day before the election... right, deep breath.
Obviously the biggest question the Times needs to answer is, did it have this story BEFORE the election?
But trying to stick to the point. I don't think that taking a year to check up on the story is in itself inherently a bad thing. This is a major story, the reaction to the story, not just by liberals but by some big name Republicans, is clear proof of that. I think that the times wanted to be very sure of its information, and I hope that in the course of that they turned up a lot more than they initially had. I will give them some credit for that until more information is revealed.
What they were facing, assuming they broke this story after the election last year, there's not really a defense if they had the story before the election... Anyway, what they were facing was a powerful newly reelected White House, claiming a mandate from the people that is known as incredibly hostile to the press, and this White House was putting pressure on them.
I don't think this pressure came in the form of Scott McClellan saying "Please don't reveal this story, New York Times, if you don't I'll be your best friend..." I think that they were approached by a White House that made itself very clear that publishing the article would be a threat to national security, and that as a result criminal charges would be dropped on Times staff like balloons on the Republican National Convention.
Even given that kind of threats from what was at the time a very strong White House, should the Times have reported the story, yes. But should they have reported the story ASAP? I'm not so sure.
Assuming that they got this story after the election, of course. Because then what they're faced with is perhaps challenging a strong White House, with a weak, but mind-blowing story, or taking their time, building up their strength and challenging the White House with a very strong story. And hey, this is a very strong story, almost impossible for the White House to refute, and it is quite possible that this was not the case a year ago, or even 6 months ago.
Of course it is an even stronger story because, somehow, miracle of miracles, and Fitzmas be praised, this White House has finally found its lies collapsing in on it. Certainly this story is more believable because of the recent scandals of this White House; renditions, torture, lists of protesters, etc.
So I'm not saying the New York Times is guilt-free here, but I am saying that I have a few questions I would like answered before I totally villify them. This story, even now is a god send, and may well lead to impeachment, I mean, if 34% of Americans favored it before this story well, I can only imagine how many support it now.
So let's ask the times some important questions, like when they got this story? and how the story developed over the course of the year or so that they had it? Until we know those answers we can't really decide if the Times was a little over-cautious, or criminally negligent.
If you've made it this far, thank you for listening.