Sweetness & Light thinks it has the obvious answer:
[Public editor Byron] Calame pretends not to see the obvious explanation for The Times' postponement of its latest treason. They and the rest of our one party media were already on track to bring down the President via the "Plame Leak." They had put themselves in a box.
For the "Plame Scandal" was completely dependent upon the nation's outrage at such a grievous thing as leaking classified information. (Never mind that even this claim was false. The Times is so famously protective of our nation's secrets that even the appearance of such a leak is a heinous crime in their elevated moral realm.)
The NYT couldn't very well turn around and publish a series of leaks exposing some of the country's most vital secrets in its war on terror without stepping on their own finely honed self—righteousness. At least not yet.
Besides, the NYT was thoroughly convinced that the Plame game would be plenty enough to swing the election for their masters at the DNC, especially with "Admiral" Joe Wilson, IV, himself working on the Kerry team.
Of course it didn't quite work out that way. But you can't blame the New York Times for believing the DNC/MSM's polls.
Even after the elections, the worthies at the NYT still had to bide their time. They wanted the bogus Plame scandal to do as much damage as possible before they launched into their next trumped—up scandal.
It was only after it became all too painfully clear even to the New York Times that neither Rove not Cheney were going to be frog marched off to jail, that they decided to run with their next installment of seditious leaks and sham but exquisite outrage.
After allowing this respectable passage of time, the NYT knows that no one of importance will dare to call them on their "turn on a dime" hypocrisy.
I have to admit there is a lot of plausibility here.
Thomas Lifson 1 03 05