[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt the NYT had any good answers for these questions when they decided to go with the story.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure they had a ton of answers, and they were probably similar to the other papers (like the LA Times) that also had the same story and were about the break it:

1. The use of SWIFT data wasn't exactly a state secret, as the SWIFT officials whose cooperation was needed obviously knew about it.

2. It's extremely unlikely that any terrorist presumed that records of financial transactions were untraceable.

3. There is no evidence that any anti-terror operation was or would be compromised.

4. Given the White House's record of invading privacy without legal process, the potential for this information to be misused and the President's position of being above and beyond the law during "wartime," the issue was obviously one of public import.

5. There is no evidence that the White House could not have obtained the same or equally good information through formal legal processes, such as subpoenas under seal.

The only that's even interesting about this story was the White House's ability to coordinate a propaganda campaign suggesting without a shard of evidence that the NY Times compromised state security. They saw the story coming -- and not just from the Times -- and alerted Fox, the blogs and all their sympathetic friends eager to help Bush out of another embarrassment by issuing frivolous allegations of "treason" (as O'Reilly called it, without any facts, the day it broke). It's just more proof that Bush's acolytes will believe anything, no matter how absurd, emanating from the White House PR machine.