New York Times tries to defend why they felt they could withhold a story that could have changed the outcome of the last presidential election.

Here is Keller's statement in full:

"We start with the premise that a newspaper's job is to publish information that is a matter of public interest. Clearly a secret policy reversal that gives an American intelligence agency discretion to monitor communications within the country is a matter of public interest. From the outset, the question was not why we would publish it, but why we would not.

"A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security.

"Officials also 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.

"As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.

"We also continued reporting, and in the ensuing months two things happened that changed our thinking.

"First, we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program.

"It is not our place to pass judgment on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood.

"Second, in the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record.

"The fact that the government eavesdrops on those suspected of terrorist connections is well-known. The fact that the NSA can legally monitor communications within the United States with a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is also public information.

"What is new is that the NSA has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant.

"It is that expansion of authority -- not the need for a robust anti-terror intelligence operation -- that prompted debate within the government, and that is the subject of the article."

So! To sum up. The New York Times was "assured" that the administration was not breaking the law. And they took them at their word? This administration? Who in their right mind believes these assholes?

"What is new is that the NSA has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant.

Hey you know what? That is new! And it would have been new a year ago to when it might have kept these criminals from holding onto the seat of power in this country!

I have a list of people and organizations that I blame for Bush's re-election. Some of them, but not all of them, are as follows;

• The Religous Right who allowed their fervent beliefs to subjugate their commmon sense.
• Diebold, the company that made the voting machines and stole Ohio for the Republicans.
• The Democrats for picking one of the two least charismatic people on the planet to run against Bush. The other one is Al Gore.
• FOX News who used all of their air-time to sell this nation a poisoned bill of goods which directly benefited them and their network.
• John McCain who could have stopped this president by refusing to drink the koola-aid and by really demonstrating the power of his convictions by outing George as a hypocrite and a liar. Instead he hugged him like a Down Syndrome child meeting Chuck E. Cheese.

Like I said there are more but I am too pissed to list them all just now. But anyhow I now add The New York Times to that list of criminally culpable individuals and companies that could have saved this country all of the pain and embarrassment that we are suffering today at the hands of these bastards. How dare you decide what we need to know and when we needed to know it. You find the news and then you fucking give it to us! That is your job!

Would you allow a rapist to ask you to hold an interview with the mother of his victim because it might taint the jury pool? No you wouldn't! Would you allow a child molestor to request that you hold a story which identifies who he is because it may keep him from getting that new job at the school district? No you wouldn't! So tell me, what is the difference? What?