Mitt’s “handkerchief” recalls that bulge on Bush’s back when he debated Kerry…

The Emperor’s New Hump
The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election—because it could have changed the election
By Dave Lindorff

In the weeks leading up to the November 2 election, the New York Times was abuzz with excitement. Besides the election itself, the paper’s reporters were hard at work on two hot investigative projects, each of which could have a major impact on the outcome of the tight presidential race.

One week before Election Day, the Times (10/25/04) ran a hard-hitting and controversial exposé of the Al-Qaqaa ammunition dump—identified by U.N. inspectors before the war as containing 400 tons of special high-density explosives useful for aircraft bombings and as triggers for nuclear devices, but left unguarded and available to insurgents by U.S. forces after the invasion.

On Thursday, just three days after that first exposé, the paper was set to run a second, perhaps more explosive piece, exposing how George W. Bush had worn an electronic cueing device in his ear and probably cheated during the presidential debates.

Read more.

1 thought on “Mitt’s “handkerchief” recalls that bulge on Bush’s back when he debated Kerry…”

  1. Hmm, wasn’t that an odd thing to say coming from Bill Keller (“I can’t say categorically you should not publish an article damaging to a candidate in the last days before an election. . . . If you learned a day or two before the election that a candidate had lied about some essential qualification for the job—his health or criminal record—and there’s no real doubt and you’ve given the candidate a chance to respond and the response doesn’t cast doubt on the story, do you publish it? Yes. Voters certainly have a right to know that”) when at the very moment he said it, he’d been sitting for months on James Risen’s and Eric Lichtblau’s story about Bush ordering illegal wiretapping, and even odder, Keller had obviously gotten a confirmation from the White House, because he went to them in the first place, asking if it was okay to run the piece.

    So, Keller had both evidence before the election of a candidate’s criminality far greater than just cheating on a debate and confirmation from the White House, because they begged him not to run the story. And it wasn’t because the story was inadequately sourced, or had some element of uncertainty about it, because the Times ran the story well after Bush was safely reelected.

    Bill Keller can bite me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *