......The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight...
Who elected the NYT to administer an oversight program?
Nobody, and the NYT might have considered asking the Bush Administration whether this might affect national security if the NYT were truly "impartial."
The Ombudsman buried his second-thoughts mea culpa deep into an article on NYT magazines, hoping that in the words of one reader, only his mother would notice.
He said "vicious attacks" by the Bush Administration affected his news judgment and caused him to support the NYT unethical and possibly illegal disclosure of USG surveillance activities.
This fellow is a fully-fledged weasel, and his employers are completely against America's successful prosecution of a war on terrorism, which they think is a law and order issue.
There were no vicious attacks, or rather the only viciousness displayed was by Dem lawmakers and useful idiots like the ACLU who were trotted out to scream the administration was "violating the freedoms Americans falsely believed they could take for granted."
Bush called the revelations by the NYT of a useful tool to combat terrorism "disgraceful," a term which can be used at least bi-weekly to describe the NYT's factitious reporting and tendentious law-breaking---always to hinder what the possibly criminal cabal of Keller and Sulzberger consider the Bush Administration's Global War on Terror.
The Ombudsman would have a daily column if he actually took the NYT's ethical, journalistic, and legal misdeeds seriously enough to truly investigate their depth and scope.
The SWIFT affair was simply another example of the NYT's war against the war on terrorism.
UPDATE:Jules Crittendon has a good column about the NYT "holier-than-thou" pose needing frequent defrocking.