Did NYT Help Bush Win The 04 Elect By Sitting On Illegal NSA Wiretapping Story At Harman's Request?

[kpete]

Did the NYT Help Bush Win the 2004 Election by Sitting on the Illegal NSA Wiretapping Story at the Request of Jane Harman?
Submitted by christine on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 11:48am.


(The New York Times) was swayed by the nation's arguably top Executive Branch attorney
(Alberto Gonzales) and a self-serving, duly elected Congresswoman sitting on the House Intelligence Committee (CA Rep. Jane Harman) to cover up a program of illegal government spying on US citizens-- on the eve of an incredibly close presidential election.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Christine Bowman

A Disturbing Picture Emerges If You Connect the Dots: Rep. Jane Harman's Israeli-Spy Wiretap Story Ties-in with NYT's More Than Year-Long Delay in Breaking the Warrantless Wiretap Domestic Spying Story.

..............

In the Fall of 2004, prior to the November 2 presidential election, The New York Times knew about the Bush Administration's new warrantless domestic wiretapping program, thanks to hard investigative work by their crack reporters. Yet the paper's Washington bureau chief and executive editor kept that information to themselves for well over a year -- sitting on the story until December 16, 2005.

It's interesting to note that, when urging The Times in 2004 not to break the domestic spying story, Harman was doing the bidding of the heads of the NSA and the CIA. Interesting, too, that The Times still, to this day, has not published the exact date of Harman's (or anyone else's) intervention. Nor have they quoted Taubman on what was said or how the quashing went forward.

..............................
It does not seem insignificant either that, later, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales learned (presumably from Keller?) that The Times was finally going to release their report on domestic spying, he stepped in to block a nascent probe of Rep. Harman and AIPAC and alleged Israeli spying -- because he "needed Jane" to help deflect criticism of the domestic spying program:

But according to the two former national security officials, Gonzales said he “needed Jane” to help support the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about to be exposed by the Times. Harman, he told Goss, had helped persuade the newspaper to hold the wiretap story on the eve of the 2004 elections. And although it was too late to stop the Times from publishing now, she could be counted on again to help defend the program."

http://www.cqpolitics.com/frame...

more at:
http://blog.buzzflash.com/analysis/738

[Mister Ed]

1. I always thought the reason the Times gave for holding back the story for a year was pretty fishy

They said that if they'd released it in 2004, it might have influenced the presidential election.

Well, duhhhh! Isn't that what the news media is supposed to do in election season? Give us information about the candidates that will help us decide how we want to cast our votes?

[bullimiami]

2. connect dots. harmon subject of investigation, investigation killed by bushco,

harmon helps bushco kill wiretapping story.

blackmail?

[MisterP]

5. even better: backscratching n/t

[wisteria]

3. Yes, and the NYT is responsible for withholding other information that benefited Bush. n/t

[TacticalPeek]

4. K & R

:kick:

[peacetalksforall]

6. She should resign by the end of the day Tuesday. I assume she is wealthy enough to

line up her lawyers. Investigate and get AIPAC on the stand. Enough!!!!!

Jane, do you know how many people died and were tortured in 2004/5, 5/6, 6/7, 7/8, 8/9???? Do you know how much money was stolen during those years? You stole from us, Jane - if this is true. Why are those words of Gonzales in quotes?

[robinlynne]

7. YES. and yet my parents still think the NYT is "the" liberal newspaper.

[Canuckistanian]

8. We knew the call was made. Now just WHO did the calling?

This seems to be a convincing argument for the 'WHO' part.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. There was something else somebody withheld at the same time.

[Quantess]

10. time for a kick

[omega minimo]

11. Is that a rhetorical question?