Why Now and Not Then?

Today, the New York Times published an unusually long edititorial criticizing Bush for perverting the intelligence basis in the lead up to the Iraq war. Many other papers are now doing the same, including the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. But, why now? Virtually everything we know now about this we knew back in 2002 and early 2003. There really isn't any new information of any great consequence that wasn't around then. Why didn't they get on this bandwagon back then? Many of us knew Bush was lying almost as soon as he got back from cowering somewhere out west after the Twin Towers fell. What's happened that makes it okay for the papers to say now that he was lying when they couldn't say it then? Is it just that they now think this is the popular view. Do they just read the polls to determine what news is popular to cover? Boy, is that a great way to run a newspaper!

Of course, that would explain why so much time is dedicated to covering the case of a missing white woman in Aruba, when the thousands of missing black women and children in Philadelphia are ignored.

Three cheers for the fourth estate.