Here's why:
Posted on 06/26/2006 5:24:11 PM PDT by wagglebee
NEW YORK Over the weekend, Vice President Cheney stated that The New York Times' scoop (shared with the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal) on bank records surveillance offended him. A leading Republican called for a criminal probe. President Bush today termed it "disgraceful." The National Review asked the White House to revoke the newspaper's press credentials.
Now Press Secretary Tony Snow has aimed another volley across the bow of The New York Times, while suggesting that First Amendment rights would still be respected.
Here is the relevant portion of today's press briefing.
*
SNOW: With that kind of demonstrated efficacy, the question is why on earth make the editorial decision that this program no longer should be effective by exposing it? And that, I think, is the kind of thing that has the President concerned. But I'm going to defer any question about, sort of, legal dispensations until later.
Q He referred to "the" newspaper, "a" newspaper -- is he talking about one newspaper, in particular, or is talking about the three newspapers?
SNOW: Well, I’ll tell you what happened is the New York Times clearly was in the lead on this one. It was ahead. And as it was getting ready to publish, other newspapers made inquiries and we asked questions.
But this is one where the New York Times clearly was leading and everybody waited until it posted its piece online to do their own publications.
Q: We’re told the vice president’s going to make similar comments at his appearance today. With the president and the vice president in essence going after the New York Times today, are they trying to create a chilling effect on media outlets that might…
SNOW: I don’t think so. No, I don’t think so. It’s a very good question, though. If the New York Times decides that it is going to try to assume responsibility for determining which classified secrets remain classified and which don’t, it ought to accept some of the obligations of that responsibility. It ought to be able to take the heat as well.
So the administration certainly is going to lay out its concerns and what it may mean for the safety of the American people and the integrity of the process of developing intelligence that can permit us to track down terrorists and prevent them from killing again.
That’s what this is all about. It’s about what we can do in a time of war.
Traditionally in this country in a time of war members of the press have acknowledged that the commander in chief, in the exercise of his powers, sometimes has to do things secretly in order to protect the public. This is a highly unusual departure. It’s interesting; the Times talking about this program having been a departure from previous banking efforts. This is also a departure from the longstanding traditions here in the United States.
So it’s not designed to have a chilling effect. I think if the New York Times wants a spirited debate about it, it’s got it.
But certainly nobody is going to deny First Amendment rights. But the New York Times and other news organizations ought to think long and hard about whether a public’s right to know in some cases might override somebody’s right to live, and whether in fact the publications of these could place in jeopardy the safety of fellow Americans....
In response, one of the things Bill Keller said is, "It is not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal or effective." Well, it is your job to exercise editorial judgment. All of us got into this business -- I've been in journalism 27 years -- when I got into the business, one of the things that everybody learns is you have to exercise editorial judgment. I daresay many people in this room have been faced with difficult decisions in their careers, and probably all of us have had stories where we killed them because there was somebody's own privacy right or interest involved.
So you simply cannot say, we got this story, we're going to publish it, but we don't have to worry about whether it's legal or effective. In this case, I think it does bear on the debate. * Q Tony, you said a moment ago that there should be a spirited debate over the decision to publish the details on the program. Obviously, outside the walls of the White House you have members of Congress calling for indictments, you have political allies at the White House calling reporters "traitors," and basically says it's committing treason just by publishing it. Do you share those feelings? And, if so, as a former journalist, as you cited, are you comfortable with that kind of rhetoric about the media?
SNOW: You know, I'm not going to engage in name-calling from here. And the other thing is, in terms of the legal issues, there really is a process for doing it. What you have is legal authorities taking a look at the law. I understand the passions on it, and that, obviously, motivates some of what has been said in The Times.
Look, this is an issue that needs to be studied carefully, but, ultimately, also -- and I think you're right, Peter -- people have got to step back and take a careful look -- The New York Times, consumers of news, everybody -- to figure out in a time of war what is the best way to proceed so that you can maintain the integrity of intelligence information that may be useful in saving American lives and defeating -- especially in the case of al Qaeda, a very different kind of enemy; it is dispersed, it is inchoate, it operates in cells rather than large-standing armies, and therefore requires much more sophisticated and varied kinds of intelligence than any enemy we've ever faced before.
So how do journalists discharge their obligations responsibly, and how does the nation proceed effectively in fighting a war on terror? Those are all issues we're going to have to debate.
Tony Snow Ping!
something about this story makes me wonder if this is some kind of misdirection play designed to get the bad guys to act in a way that makes it easier to find them.
Tony for Prez? :)
I think Bill Keller crapped his pants a few times today. I think he needs a long sabbatical in an island retreat... Club Gitmo should do.
Here's why:
Tony has been great. It was a good pick by GW. Most of the left may not like the war in Iraq but our troops are there with their lives on the line. We also have another front in Afganistan. Same situation there. There is a third front in the rest of world. Peoples lives are on the line. I consider this to be treasonist and the NYT should be prosecuted.
Way to go Freeper Tony!
It is time we hold a huge magnifying glass up and expose these vile MSM when they do seditious things like this.
The heat needs to come from the Whitehouse.
I hope you are wrong, but frankly, I'm not holding my breath.
I disagree with pulling the NY Times's credentials
I agree with prosecuting them under the Espionage Act.
We want the LEAKERS PROSECUTED!!
YOU`RE PROBABLY RIGHT NOTHING WILL COME OF IT BUT COULD YOU IMAGINE A NEWS MEDIUM GIVING UP THE MANHATTAN PROJECT,D-DAY INVASION DATE AND TIME OR ANYTHING AS TREASONOUS AS WHAT THE NYT. HAS DONE. CAN YOU DIFFERENTIATE THE NYT AND AL-JAZEERA.
God I wish Bush would take to gloves off and blast the Times for the traitors they are!
If they prosecute them, I would think you would have to pull their credentials, otherwise you would have a huge conflict of interest (even bigger then now) with their reporters.
Personally, I think the WH should pull credentials far more often. Such as:
Helen Thomas, Dan Rather/CBS
Q Tony, two questions. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney of New York reports that after five different letters from dozens of congressmen to the President, the Department of Health and Human Services has written her on behalf of the President, conveying the administration's support for "the availability of safe and effective products and services to assist responsible adults in making decisions about preventing or delaying conception." And my question: Why did this answer take so long, and why did you and Scott McClellan evade it five different times?
MR. SNOW: Because there wasn't an opportunity for a sixth until now.
The Gov may do diddley squat but we as CONSUMERS can make em sweat. F-THE NY-LA TIMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.