If you missed this piece in the American Thinker, take a minute to read it:

So, during the Clinton Administration, evidence existed (all of the information used in this article was available at the time) that:
-an invasive, extensive domestic eavesdropping program was aimed at every U.S. citizen;
-intelligence agencies were using allies to circumvent constitutional restrictions;
-and the administration was selling at least some secret intelligence for political donations.
These revelations were met by the New York Times and others in the mainstream media by the sound of one hand clapping. Now, reports that the Bush Administration approved electronic eavesdropping, strictly limited to international communications, of a relative handful of suspected terrorists have created a media frenzy in the Times and elsewhere.

The Times defended Clinton-era eavesdropping as a “necessity.” I think some editors at the Times also understand the necessity of a program that listens in on conversations between al-Qaeda operatives in America and those overseas. I think their decision to hold the story for over a year testifies to that. And I think their hand was forced by careerist James Risen and the imminent publication of his book. Those editors faced a tough choice. They either held the story and faced the criticism from the left that would have followed when Risen’s book came out, or the published the story and betrayed the secrecy of a necessary program. I don’t envy those editors for having to make that decision. But they decided wrongly.