The New York Times has done a horrible job on the coverage of the Sandy Bergler story. They ignored the story on day one. They ignored the story on day two. It was so bad I even tried to help them out by giving them a few questions to ask.
But they have finally started asking tough questions. From the front page(!) of this morning's edition:
WASHINGTON, July 21 - The White House said Wednesday that senior officials in its counsel's office were told by the Justice Department months ago that a criminal investigation was under way to determine if Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser under President Bill Clinton, removed classified documents about Al Qaeda from the National Archives.
The White House declined to say who beyond the counsel's office knew about the investigation, but some administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they believed that several top aides to Mr. Bush were informed of the investigation. President Bush himself declined to answer a question Wednesday about whether he had been told, saying: "I'm not going to comment on this matter. This is a serious matter, and it will be fully investigated by the Justice Department."
[These asshats are questioning President Bush over something Sandy Berger stole! Why not question the thief? -ed]
...Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, denied Wednesday that the White House had anything to do with the leak,... [What about the thief!]
Does the word shill mean anything to you? A former National Security Advisor is caught red-handed stealing classified documents to cover SOMETHING up and the NYT is only interested in whether someone in the Bush administration leaked the story.