Eric Lichtblau, who covers the Justice Department for the New York Times, has an article up on Slate's front page , adapted from his upcoming book "Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice," accusing the Bush administration of lying to him about its anti-terrorist surveillance programs.
You may remember that Lichtblau and Times colleague James Risen, broke the news about the classified National Security Agency's wiretapping program in December 2005, ignoring pleas from the White House. Six months later those same two reporters, in an even more egregious revelation of classified information, revealed classified details about SWIFT, a U.S.-instigated international bank surveillance program.
Describing a tense pre-publication meeting in the White House, Lichtblau basically admitted the paper's bias against Vice President Dick Cheney:
For 13 long months, we'd held off on publicizing one of the Bush administration's biggest secrets. Finally, one afternoon in December 2005, as my editors and I waited anxiously in an elegantly appointed sitting room at the White House, we were again about to let President Bush's top aides plead their case: why our newspaper shouldn't let the public know that the president had authorized the National Security Agency, in apparent contravention of federal wiretapping law, to eavesdrop on Americans without court warrants. As New York Times Editor Bill Keller, Washington Bureau Chief Phil Taubman, and I awaited our meeting, we still weren't sure who would make the pitch for the president. Dick Cheney had thought about coming to the meeting but figured his own tense relations with the newspaper might actually hinder the White House's efforts to stop publication. (He was probably right.) As the door to the conference room opened, however, a slew of other White House VIPs strolled out to greet us, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice near the head of the receiving line and White House Counsel Harriet Miers at the back.
....
On that December afternoon in the White House, the gathered officials attacked on several fronts. There was never any serious legal debate within the administration about the legality of the program, Bush's advisers insisted. The Justice Department had always signed off on its legality, as required by the president. The few lawmakers who were briefed on the program never voiced any concerns. From the beginning, there were tight controls in place to guard against abuse. The program would be rendered so ineffective if disclosed that it would have to be shut down immediately.
All these assertions, as my partner Jim Risen and I would learn in our reporting, turned out to be largely untrue. ....
We went back to old sources and tried new ones. Our reporting brought into sharper focus what had already started to become clear a year earlier: The concerns about the program -- in both its legal underpinnings and its operations -- reached the highest levels of the Bush administration. There were deep concerns within the administration that the president had authorized what amounted to an illegal usurpation of power. The image of a united front we'd been presented a year earlier in meetings with the administration -- with unflinching support for the program and its legality -- was largely a façade. The administration, it seemed clear to me, had lied to us. And we were coming closer to understanding the cracks. By the time we met with White House officials in December 2005, Keller had all but made up his mind: The legal concerns about the program were too great to justify keeping it out of public view. The only real question now was not whether the story would run, but when.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
You have got to be kidding
March 27, 2008 - 14:11 ET by bigtimerYou have got to be kidding me! Outrageous...absolutely outrageous....these two guys along with the NYTs should of been tried for treason...and Eric has the gull, the audicity to write a book about his great endeavor...along with the other treasonous POS Risen...
Simply unbelievable...but then again...our Justice Dept. did zilch about this...I kept waiting.
These people to put it nicely, intentionally attempted to derail this war...never-mind the cost of any-ones lives here or elsewhere...and to aide and abet the enemy with giving away how we were tracking info. on them...and then to act proud and justified for doing so...
I suppose another Pulitzer or any other award is well on it's way...he will be invited on all the cable and alphabet soup networks too...with pleasure.
Despicable piece of shite...talk about the enemy within.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
>>I suppose another
March 27, 2008 - 23:35 ET by seanrobins>>I suppose another Pulitzer or any other award is well on it's way. . .
Worthless. . .
sean robins
www.seanrobins.com
The Rosenbergs were
March 27, 2008 - 14:26 ET by mattmThe Rosenbergs were executed. These traitiors should suffer the same fate.
I would volunteer myself to
March 27, 2008 - 14:37 ET by voodoodaddyI would volunteer myself to pull the switch, or trigger if you prefer, on both of these traitors...without hesitation.
Treason by arrogance
March 27, 2008 - 15:17 ET by KC MulvilleMy first reaction is revulsion against Lichtblau’s arrogance. He and the New York Times feel they have the right to effectively overrule the president on what will be classified. They will reveal the story if they so choose. What’s even more remarkable is that the president and administration went out of their way to justify the classification, out of respect for the reporters’ first amendment rights. The reporters repaid that respect with revealing classified secrets anyway, and now by hurling charges that the president lied, prominently displayed on Slate magazine.
My second reaction is to calm myself. OK, we have the first amendment. The president controls the executive branch, not the country as a whole. He’s not a king. He can’t order a private citizen to do anything. If he wants a private citizen to do something, he has to persuade, not command.
But the arrogance here is overwhelming. Lichtblau plainly works on the premise that his own judgment is reality, and that people who hold a different judgment must be “lying.” For example, since Lichtblau believes that the wiretapping was illegal, he believes the president was “lying” by defending its legality. Watch how Lichtblau offers two reasons for why the administration is lying.
In a meeting, the Bush officials presented a united front about opinion within the administration, but Lichtblau discovered that the administration had (as he reports) “angst” about the program. Lichtblau inflates that into evidence that all the Bush assertions about the program were “largely untrue.” Well, damn, pardon me for not revealing internal discussions while I’m trying to get you to understand how serious and damaging it will be for you to publish national security secrets!
This one astounds me, because he openly reveals how the NY Times made their decision. Lichtblau reports on a “chance” conversation with some unnamed source who claims that the administration was considering an injunction against the NYTimes. That clinched the decision, so the Times could relive past “glories” and retaliate. Two ironies here.
First, Lichtblau obviously wants to keep his unnamed source secret, while blowing a national security secret. Hey, if it’s so important, reveal the source!
Second, Lichtblau was infuriated that the president would consider a legal maneuver to defend a national security secret. But all of this is based on a hearsay conversation that the Bush administration obviously didn’t pursue!
Lichtbrau admits that the decision to publish a national security secret was driven by the Times’ desire to retaliate, based on hearsay. That may not be treason by intention, but it is surely treason by arrogance.
Is Bush too Generous
March 27, 2008 - 17:36 ET by allanfPerhaps Bush is too generous. If I had been running the show, I would have presented Lichblau, Risen and Pinch with sealed indictments. I would have told them the indictments will be unsealed upon publication.
These reporters are
March 27, 2008 - 15:29 ET by ConservativeRexThese reporters are guilty of sedition as well as treason. These yellowbelly's need to be exposed to the public as the Anti-American SOB they are. Bring them up in classrooms across the country as an example of what treason and sedition is. Disgusting sub-humans, do not deserve the protections better men have fought and died for.
I would never let either one of these "reporters" anywhere near the White House or anyone connected to a Republican administration. They do not have America's best interest at heart. They are in fact, the enemy of democracy.
I believe I've asked this
March 27, 2008 - 20:22 ET by balboaI believe I've asked this question before. If they are treasonous, why haven't charges been brought?
Are you suggesting it is
March 27, 2008 - 21:12 ET by general companyAre you suggesting it is not. If so what would warrant a treasons act to you? Do you believe they were honestly looking out for the folks or poking the Bush Admin in the eye? This does what for who?
Who would bring charges, Pelosi or maybe Ried would?
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
I realize that many here think very highly of GWB as CIC.
March 27, 2008 - 20:19 ET by R D HelmI am sorry, but I do not share that view.
He has made some mistakes as CIC, some serious, some not. However, in the area of our media repeatedly releasing classified information that aids our enemies in this war, he has repeatedly failed us, and failed us miserably.
In my opinion, the reason the NYT, WaPo and others continue to do this is due specifically to the utter inaction of the Bush Administration in this area.
Can you imagine what would have happened in early 1944 had the media reported certain aspects of D-Day? Back then, they were arresting and interrogating people for creating cross word puzzles that simply contained the name "Overlord," among other code names associated with the Normandy invasion. Over-reaction perhaps? Maybe, but who knows?
What should have happened was the first time the MSM pulled something like this, not the fourth, fifth or sixth time, the people involved should have been rounded up and charged. Even if the prosecutions were not successful, perhaps it may have at least caused others pause before releasing classified infromation. As it stands now, they know they can get away with it, so they continue to do it.
Yes, I know Mr. Bush tends to shy away from such things, as it is just "not his style."
So what? The damage, as they say, has been done, and apparently, it will continue.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
I do believe GWB is a good
March 27, 2008 - 20:49 ET by SmartypantsI do believe GWB is a good man and leader overall, but I do agree with you; his downfall is being too much of an appeaser. There are countless times over the past 7+ years where this administration should have laid down the gauntlet against enemies that were obviously trying to undermine the war and the overall well-being of the country, and there was deafening silence from Bush's team. I think GWB believes the presidency is above much of this behavior. Unfortunately, I believe the country has suffered for it. Of course, I'm not a liberal, so I don't blame the enabler more than the people who are guilty of the crimes in the first place--Bush's political enemies.
Smartypants,
March 27, 2008 - 21:03 ET by R D HelmI, too, believe that GWB is a good man, and has the best of intentions for this country.
My problem is, as a student of history, particularly in the military area, I have a pretty good sense for what works and what doesn't.
My biggest gripe with the man is his apparent fear of stepping into the "bully pulpit" and tearing a few new ones into certain people when it is called for. Harry Spineless Reid and Nasty Pelosi are two names that spring immediately to mind.
For one of many examples, when WMDs were discovered in Iraq, it appeared the whole administration just sort of shrugged it off. As a result, the lefty MSM pounded the hell out of the man. To this day, I don't think they really "get it."
I can tell you that neither Harry Truman nor Ronald Reagan would have done that. Mr. Bush's unwillingness to speak out at certain times has made him look really weak.
This has frustrated me to no end.
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Requirements for Reporter at NYT
March 27, 2008 - 20:51 ET by djm159Can someone please help me? I can't pretend to get inside the liberal mind, nor would I care to. Just listening to them rant on and on about Bush is akin to standing at the gates of hell and seeing what's on the other side. Must each times reporter first be a certified moron or just your garden variety idiot?
I'm guessing garden variety idiot
March 27, 2008 - 20:57 ET by Free StinkerI'm guessing garden variety idiot is the requirement.
After all, Frank Rich is still employed there.
Pledge to not support RINOs ever again!