Times knew of NSA spying before 2004 election

From the World Socialist Web Site:

A column by New York Times public editor Byron Calame August 13 reveals that the newspaper withheld a story about the Bush administration’s program of illegal domestic spying until after the 2004 election, and then lied about it.

On December 16, 2005, the Times reported that President Bush had authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor thousands of telephone conversations and e-mails in the US without court approval. At the time, the Times acknowledged that it had, at the urging of the Bush administration, withheld publication of the story, saying it held its expose back "for a year." This time frame suggested that the newspaper made the decision to withhold publication of the story after the 2004 presidential election.

Such a delay was, in itself, unpardonable, and provoked angry criticism. Now we learn, from an interview with Executive Editor Bill Keller conducted by Calame, that internal discussions at the Times about drafts of the eventual article had been "dragging on for weeks" before the November 2, 2004, election, which resulted in a victory for Bush.

"The process," the public editor notes, "had included talks with the Bush administration." A fresh draft was the subject of discussion at the newspaper "less than a week" before the election.

The WSWS is a bit silly in suggesting that this would have made any difference:

Aside from the sophistry arising from the fact that Keller admitted to having the basic story in hand for weeks before the election, what is truly astounding is that neither Calame nor Keller shows the slightest concern for "fairness" toward the voters, who went to the polls not knowing, thanks to the Times, that the Republican candidate was tearing up the Constitution.

Anyone who didn't already know, after Patriot Acts and illegal wars and excessive secrecy and 9/11 coverups, that Bush hadn't been tearing up the Constitution since January 2001, wasn't likely to figure it out based on this issue. And how would the scenario have played out if the Times had published before the election?

• 10/27/2004: NY Times publishes article on NSA spying.
• 10/27/2004: White House spokesman Scott McLellan refuses to comment on the subject, saying it is a national security issue.
• 10/27/2004: Cable news channels immediately miss the main point, the pResident breaking the law, and focus on the "necessity" for wiretapping in the face of the "terrorist threat."
• 10/29/2004: Bush goes on TV to brag about the program, just as he did when the story actually broke last December.
• 10/31/2004: John Kerry commends Bush for protecting the American people, saying only that he could do it better. Kerry adds a harsh condemnation of the NY Times for revealing national secrets.
• 11/1/2004: Karl Rove orders the stealing of two more states in the election, just to be sure.
• 11/2/2004: Bush wins with a bigger margin than he actually did.

Not that I'm cynical or anything.