Did the The New York Times harm national security by running a story today reporting President Bush signed an order in 2002 giving the NSA authority to eavesdrop on certain domestic communications without a FISA court warrant? Hugh Hewitt thinks so:

When the next attack comes, one question will be how did the terrorists evade detection. Today the odds increased that one of their methods will be careful reading of the New York Times.

I think Hugh goes a bit over the top here. I am curious, however, as to the timing.  Why would The Times chose to run this clearly controversial story today, of all days, after it had been sitting on it (at the administration's request) for more than a year?