If the Pulitzer Prize were awarded to broadcast journalists, radio talk-show host Sean Hannity would certainly deserve the honor for his remarkable reporting last week of a Democrat Party plot to use the Senate Intelligence Committee as a tool for political gain. Judging by how the story was reported by the New York Times, however, you would think that Sean Hannity didn't exist and that the Republicans, not the Democrats, were the ones engaging in cheap political shots.

The fact is Hannity turned up evidence so explosive, the Democrat Party apologists at the Times could no longer ignore the talk-show host's scoop. But when the paper finally reported the story two days later, the Times not only buried it, they turned to a new tactic of minimizing the scandal by ginning up a nonexistent controversy.

As previously reported by WorldNetDaily, a memo prepared by a Democrat staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee revealed an insidious plot to use congressional investigations into the war in Iraq as a way to apply political pressure to President Bush. Revealing a clear violation of Senate ethics rules, the memo recommended, among other things, that Democrats "pull the trigger" on an independent investigation timed to occur during next year's presidential race.

"If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin," said Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga. Miller called for those associated with the preparation of the memo to be fired.

Ordinarily, the Times would reserve some choice space on its front page to report a scandal of this enormity – how a political party perverted a nonpartisan, objective review of national security activities into a cheap political maneuver. To do so, however, would have been inconsistent with the newspaper's role as the public-relations arm of the Democrat Party.

Initially, the Times ignored the story altogether, displaying their political colors and perhaps a disdain for talk radio as credible source of journalism. When the Republicans finally took the issue to the Senate floor the following day, the "newspaper of record" had no choice but to write it up, finally giving Sean Hannity credit for breaking the story two days earlier. But the difference between the story Hannity broke and the one reported by the Times demonstrates how good the Times has gotten at protecting its liberal allies.

To justify burying the story on page 12, the paper put a spin on the controversy that avoided all hints of a scandal. Instead of a blatant politicization of national security by the Democrats, the story became just another Republican attack in an ongoing political "feud." With remarkable subtlety, the Times morphed the scandal into a story of politics as usual. Nov. 6 headline: "Intelligence Review: Republican and Democratic Panel Leaders Take Feud to the Senate Floor."

According to the Times, Republicans and Democrats took to the Senate floor where they "traded accusations of bad faith." While Republicans held up the memo in outrage, the Democrats charged the Republicans of unauthorized access to their files. One side was shocked at the treasonous nature of the memo; the other was shocked they were caught red-handed. Thus, according to the New York Times, the Hatfields and McCoys were at it again.

The next day, the Republican leadership tried to raise the volume when majority leader Bill Frist took to the Senate floor to declare that the Senate's oversight responsibilities had been "harmed by a blatant partisan attack." In response, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the No. 2 ranking Democrat in the Senate, called for an investigation of who "pilfered" the memo. Again, the "newspaper of record" reported the story as a mere political brouhaha. Nov. 8 headline: "As the Session Winds Down Sniping Rises on Capitol Hill."

We don't have to imagine how the Times would have treated such a revelation had the tables been turned. When, just a few weeks ago, the White House was accused of leaking the identity of a CIA analyst, the news was no mere political squabble. It was a "scandal" that not only earned the Republicans the embarrassment of front-page coverage, but scathing editorials demanding that heads roll.

Heads may not roll this time, but the blatant politicization of our national security and the blatant politicization of the news pages will ultimately have their consequences: The credibility of the Democrat Party and the New York Times will steadily decline as the light of truth is cast upon them.