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.
He had them on the ropes and he pulled all his punches. In Boxing parlance, that is the equivalent of taking a dive. He should have given them hell. Instead he gave them cover. What the NY Times did 3 times is nothing short of treasonous. Americans will die because of their treason.
The Attorney General needs to convene a grand jury immediately and drag these editors down and ask them who leaked this information. If they refuse to respond, they should be hauled off to Guantanmo and held in solitary confinement until they are ready to give answers. Somebody needs to go down for this crime.
The NY Times IS the enemy.
I'd like to see the shirt NY Times Loves Jihad
I think this story coming on the heels of our brutalized soldiers last week may be the "jump the shark" moment for the Times.
They have been on our radar for a long time, but this story might penetrate deeper into the minds of the masses, and an already teetering empire will hopefully topple on over.
Yep, they gave Tony three or four openings to say something like "...we are gravely concerned about the publishing of this material, and are investigating whether national security laws have been violated..." and he went the other way every time.
The same thought crossed my mind. But then I remembered--it's the NYT. They would never participate in activities that, directly or indirectly, assisted the US in a time of war.
Oh, please. Your rhetoric is over-the-top, and under the Pentagon Papers case, inaccurate.
Your right, I said Americans will die because of the NY Times' release of information regarding our terrorist tracking methods. I'm sorry, I'm certain a few have already died. Particularly in regard to the Sat phone release.
Jude if the NY Times had the same attitude in WWII that they do now, the information regarding the D Day invasion would have been in Rommel's hands and the Normady invasion might have been turned back. If the NY Times had the same attitude in WWII then they would have, if given the chance, released information regarding the Japanese Code being broken, the German Code being broken.
The NY Times is clearly on the side of the terrorists in this war. They have no patriotic loyalty to the Unitied States. Their attitude, like that of the leading democrats, is that as long as Bush goes down, they don't care if they take the rest of the country with him. Their hatred of republicans and Bush exceeds their love of this country.
See #30. I agree with you totally.
If this is Tony Snow getting tough with the NYT and giving them hell, then it appears that a snowball does have a chance in hell.
If you think that the release of the Pentagon Papers did not cause deaths, then you are out of touch with my era. That was a linchpin in the propaganda campaign against the US. It played directly into the hands of the N. Viet who had been on the ropes and ready to give up.
If the propaganda front had not been so favorable for them, MANY, MANY US lives would not have been lost.
The liberal media and the communist 5th column lost that war, and that's what they are attempting here.
It falls under the heading for the NYT, "They're bastards, but they're our bastards."
The NYT is ON THE SIDE of the terrorists.
If the DOJ is already investigating and considering whether or not to prosecute, Tony is right to "pull his punches" as you and P-Marlowe seem to think he did. (I disagree, but for the sake of argument I will concede that point.) Statements from the press secretary's podium would be cited by attorneys for the Times as prejudicial to the case. Plus, if they think the administration won't do anything, they won't be trying to hide their notes and such. Much better to catch them by surprise.
Time will tell, but where are the statesmen of the caliber and ability of Winston Churchill.
We could surely use a bold spokesman for a time like this.
I still think W should suggest that people stop buying the Slimes to make a point...
As far as I can tell, their readership is probably at the lowest point ever if you adjust for the NYC metropolitan population and if 20% of their readers voted GOP I would be shocked.
I think Bush should simply inform them that they no longer represent his target audience (people who actually like the United States) and that they are no longer welcome at press briefings.
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.