This - Bush Urges End to Attack Ads by Outside Groups on All Sides - is news? Lead article on the NY Times website news?

Helllllooooooooo! Anybody home at the Times? Eleven days ago, President Bush said on Larry King Live:

G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves. There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.

KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...

G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view.

What's worse is that the article starts off with this -

President Bush, who has refused for weeks to condemn a veterans' group's television commercials attacking John Kerry's military service in Vietnam, today said the group and others running independent advertisements should stop running them.

Doesn't this make it seem like Bush hadn't commented at all on the issue until now?

If people in the blogging community like me (who have real jobs and families to attend to) know about this - how do the principals at the Times miss it?