Posted on 06/23/2006 12:31:15 PM PDT by oxcart
NEW YORK Eric Lichtblau, one of two New York Times' reporters who broke today's story of a secret government monitoring of private banking records - which the Bush Administration sought to block - said the White House arguments to halt the story were not as strong as those that had kept a previous report on secret wiretapping out of the paper for a year.
"They were similar in terms of the objections raised not to publish," Lichtblau told E&P today. "That the bad guys knew we were listening to them, but they don't know exactly how." But he said the objections "did not rise to as high a level as last time."
But Lichtblau stressed that the paper gave as much consideration to the White House concerns on the banking story as on the wiretapping report, actually spending several weeks in discussions about the Bush Administration objections.
"I don't think we could reasonably be accused of moving too quickly," he said. "We waited so long that the competition caught up to us." This comment referred to the Los Angeles Times' posting a story about the bank records program on its Web site last night. That paper said it had also been asked by the administration to hold off.
Lichtblau said that in the case of the previous Pulitzer-winning story, which detailed a National Security Agency (NSA) program of wiretapping, President Bush himself had gotten involved. The president was not been directly part of the effort to halt publication of today's story. "It was done at the cabinet level this time around," Lichtblau said.
Lichtblau, who co-wrote both stories with Times reporter James Risen, said that in each case the newspaper believed that the information it was reporting would not put anyone in harm's way. "I think we came down on the same side in both questions," he said of the two stories. "That this is not giving away information that is tangibly helping terrorists know what they don't already know."
Risen declined to comment, while Times Executive Editor Bill Keller did not return a call seeking comment.
In the wiretapping story, which ran in late 2005, the paper revealed that it had held off running the story for more than a year after Bush had intervened and requested it be held. In the latest case, Lichtblau said, the administration first sought to block the story several weeks ago, but declined to provide an exact date. "There were complex factors in each case," Lichtblau said, without giving specifics. "But the objections of the administration did not rise to as high a level as last time."
Lichtblau added that the reaction to the wiretapping story, which included both criticism and support for the paper, made it easier to go with this story. He noted that there had been no proof that the previous story had endangered national security.
"Our belief that it did not have any tangible impact has been borne out," he said. "That was in the back of our minds this time." He also said that "the intense public interest in the NSA story showed that this is obviously a matter of intense public interest. We see similar interest in both cases, the pendulum, as far as public disclosure versus national security, has swung in the direction of public disclosure....
"We went about this in a thorough enough way," he added.
Where is a good mechanic when you need one?
Of course. Because public disclosure of something that affects nobody but terrorists is more important than fighting those terrorists.
Time for a good cleansing.....protest.
Since when are reporters the legal arbiters of what is classified and what is not classified?
These asshats need to be tried for treason. And when convicted, they need to be shot, which is the penalty for treason during a time of war.
And no, I'm not kidding.
The key word is "pendulum" which by its very nature swings back, and often swings too far back the other way, never settling in a nice centered position. The world turns, er...swings.
"the pendulum, as far as public disclosure versus national security, has swung in the direction of public disclosure...."
That's the perception because we haven't had a major terrorist act in the US since 9-11. However, these treasonous asshats are doing everything they can to expose the methods GW and the administraion have used to prevent an attack. The inevitable result will be a major attack in the US sooner rather than later.
And then these traitors will want to play the "blame Bush" game.
I'll want to play the "try them, convict them, and then execute them" game -- as will most Americans. And yes, I am referring to both the terrorists and the traitorous reporters here.
If we can't send them to jail where they belong.. we can boycott every company who advertises in the Treason Times.
Hope to see you in court, Lichtblau!
How does he explain his treason?
Yes. Toward disclosure when a Republican is President and the information is believed to be damaging, toward security/secrecy when the information would damage a Democrat.
my thoughts exactly
And how exactly would he know what the terrorist already know????
Have any prominent Conservative figures called for a boycott yet? Radio talk show hosts? Bloggers? Its about time for somebody to step up on the national stage and start a campaign to bring the NYT down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.