Nothing New in Eichenwald Op-Ed?

I'm not expert enough on this subject to fully judge but NYT editors seems to feel there was little new or earthshaking in the now-famous Kurt Eichenwald op-ed today.   This comes in a blog post by the new public editor Margaret Sullivan.  The cynic might say they are just covering their asses for NOT finding or reporting some of what Eichenwald, their former reporter discovered.  Or perhaps they are right.

But the question remains:  If what he's reported has all come out before why do the abject Bush administration failures seem so shocking?  If this is "well-trodden" info why do so few in the media condemn the Bushites anywhere close to what Eichenwald does today (true, he is pushing a book)?   Why do not all that many among the public blame Bush?  Why do Democrats never use it politically or as a campaign issue?  It would seem that most in the media either did not fully report this--or did not highlght it or frame it properly or say it often enough.

GOPers even got away with saying "Bush kept us safe" as their convention--with no media "fact checks."  Maybe Eichenwald at least did that today.