Imagine the front page of the New York Times this morning, if Bush was president and John Ashcroft was the Attorney General. Splashed across the top would be headlines with the scandal that gun happy Ashcroft had lied under oath to protect the administration from the fact that they were arming the Narco-Terrorists south of the border.
The follow up story would combine fact with accusation, and predict that the "wildly unpopular" Bush administration would not be able to survive the scandal.
If Ashcroft replied to the question: When did you first know about the program, officially I believe, called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?" with "I’m not sure of the exact date but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks. in a May hearing, it would be a major scandal if documents later showed that he was aware of it in July of the previous year.
The editorial page would include an indictment of the cowboys in the Justice department on the left page, and a dissertation on the limits of the second amendment would be posted on the right page.
A Justice department that has been at times corrupt, (the New Black Panther Case); imperious, (Terrorist trial in NYC) and incompetent, ($16 dollar muffins), would be the focus of a perminant New York Times Jihad against a Republican presidency. I could hear the demands even now. "What did the president know, and when did he know it?"
BUT... Today's New York Times was not quite that strong. There was no story at all. No Fast and Furious. No Headline. No accusation. No defense. No editorial. It simply didn't happen. It was not news that was "Fit to Print".
For weeks the New York Times regaled us in an orgy of Schadenfreude with front page details of the "News of the World" scandal, although it took place on a different continent, and didn't directly affect most readers. But perjury, alleged or actual, from the top law enforcement official in the United States of America is not even worth an honorable mention. This is astounding, even for the New York Times.
I realize that they only decided to cover the ACORN story after the organization was de-funded by a near unanimous vote in Congress. They only covered the Van Jones story after he resigned, but eventually they will need to keep up with the rest of the news, won't they?
My question to the New York Times is: What do you know about Fast and Furious, and when did you know it?