Are You A Good Leak, Or A Bad Leak?

The NY Times editors, with emotional support from Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, explain good leaks and bad leaks to the rest of us:

Given the Bush administration's appetite for leak investigations (three are under way), this seems a good moment to try to clear away the fog around this issue.

"Clear the fog"?  Why do I suspect the opposite outcome is more likely?  (And how does my involvement affect the odds...)

A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials.

Hmm.  What if what "those in power" are concealing are important national security secrets in wartime?  Who makes the call?  And how long can we survive if every disputed wartime decision is debated on the nation's front pages?

Reporters need to be able to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences.

Now wait - the Times is entitled to keep their secrets, but the government cannot?  Who died and made Sulzberger king publisher?  I understand the importance of running ads in the Christmas season, and I guess its easier to do that if a news story or two accompanies them, but why should we trust the Times?

This is doubly important with an administration as dedicated as this one is to extreme secrecy.

Fight fire with fire, and silence with silence.

The longest-running of the leak cases involves Valerie Wilson, a covert C.I.A. operative whose identity was leaked to the columnist Robert Novak. The question there was whether the White House was using this information in an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband, a critic of the Iraq invasion, and in doing so violated a federal law against unmasking a covert operative.

Well, that was certainly the question as framed by David Corn and Joe Wilson, and trumpeted by various partisan Democrats (Howard Dean, question 4, or others).

Bob Somerby noted that other framings were possible, as did Howard Fineman, who put the Plame leak in the larger context of White House-CIA tensions back in October 2003:

I am told by what I regard as a very reliable source inside the White House that aides there did, in fact, try to peddle the identity of Joe Wilson’s wife to several reporters. But the motive wasn’t revenge or intimidation so much as a desire to explain why, in their view, Wilson wasn’t a neutral investigator, but, a member of the CIA’s leave-Saddam-in-place team.

Or, from a different perspective, consider the absurdity of the media coverage of Wilson's role in the CIA-White House dispute in July of 2003.  Joe Wilson, distinguished retired ambassador, assures us that, in the dispute about pre-war intelligence between the White House and the CIA, it is the White House that is at fault.  Only in TimesWorld (where the experts on good leaks reside) would it be irrelevant that Wilson's wife works at the area of the CIA that is involved in the dispute.

Just try to picture this headline: "In CIA-White House Intel Dispute, CIA Spouse Vouches for CIA".  Compelling, huh? 

So why didn't the Times want to present their big Wilson guest op-ed that way?  Presumably they judged him to be a good leaker.  On the other hand, Walter Pincus of the WaPo got a leak on July 12, 2003 - here is how he characterized it (we strongly believe) on Sept 30, 2003:

The journalist, who asked not to be identified because of possible legal ramifications, said that the information was provided as part of an effort to discredit Wilson, but that the CIA information was not treated as especially sensitive. "The official I spoke with thought this was a part of Wilson's story that wasn't known and cast doubt on his whole mission," the person said, declining to identify the official he spoke with. "They thought Wilson was having a good ride and this was part of Wilson's story."

Mr. Pincus provided a more complete account in 2005, writing in the Nieman Watchdog:

I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson.

Advising a reporter that Wilson lacks credibility and objectivity may have been a motive of the Plame leakers, even if that did not occur to either Howard Dean or Joe Wilson.

As to the rest of the question posed by the Times - was there a violation of "federal law against unmasking a covert operative" - the Times lawyers concluded that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act had not been broken by the Plame leak.  Did they reach that self-serving conclusion simply because their own Ms. Miller faced a stretch in jail?  Impossible!  These are the disinterested Guardians of Truth. 

Well.  As to possible framings of the Plame leak, was it all sweetness and light at the CIA when they sent along a criminal referral to the Department of Justice?  Let's cut back to Howard Fineman:

And on Tenet’s part, it was time for payback—whatever his past relationship with the Bush’s had been. First, he and his agency had been humiliated, caught by the White House trying to distance themselves from the president’s speech. Then the CIA was forced to admit that it had signed off on the speech. Now one of its own investigations was coming under attack, as was one of its own undercover staffers.

Are we to believe that it was a routine matter for the CIA to forward to the Department of Justice a complaint about the leak of Valerie Plame’s name and job? Are we to think that Tenet didn’t know that the complaint was being forwarded? Or that Tenet couldn’t have shortstopped it if he wanted to?

And, although Mr. Fineman did not know this in Oct 2003, there has been no evidence offered that the Plame leak compromised national security; set against that is the "sloppy tradecraft" argument that, by allowing Joe Wilson to call attention to his own CIA consulting, and by failing to bring in the top talent to quash the story with a call to Novak's editor or publisher, the CIA revealed its indifference to Ms. Plame's "covert" status.  However, as a dirty trick to embarrass the White House, that criminal referral and the attendant hype worked brilliantly.  That said, if Lewis Libby had found his courage and skipped the weird spin to the grand jury, we could have moved on a long time ago.

Oh, well - the Plame leakers were evil.  Let's revert to the Times attempt to clear the fog:

There is a world of difference between that case and a current one in which the administration is trying to find the sources of a New York Times report that President Bush secretly authorized spying on American citizens without warrants. The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have.

Can I opt out of this?  Please?  I don't want the Times deciding, in wartime, just what information I "deserve to have", thank you very much - they are not elected, they are not accountable, and frankly, I do not trust their politics.  But rather than abandon my fellow citizens to the mercies or depredations of the Bush Administration, let me offer a constructive suggestion - since we have a representative democracy, complete with institutional checks and balances and two parties, how about if the purveyors of classifed info, when troubled by their consciences, take their troubles to a Congressional oversight committee rather than the NY Times?

As an added bonus, that would actually comply with the legal requirements of the Federal whistleblower act as it relates to the intelligence community.  I am *NOT* a lawyer, but - here is some Senate debate from 1998 explaining that intelligence community whistleblowers are not covered by normal whistleblower protections laws.  However, Congress believed (sensibly) that the intel community ought to be allowed to bring their concerns to their oversight committees without fear of reprisal; sadly, for Times readers, I see no mention of newspapers as an alternative to Congressional oversight in the area of classified info:

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the passage of S. 1668, the Disclosure to Congress Act of 1998.

This legislation directs the President to inform employees of the intelligence community that they may disclose information, including classified information, to an appropriate oversight committee of Congress when that information is evidence of misconduct, fraud, or gross mismanagement.

The committee is hopeful that this legislation will also encourage employees within the intelligence community to bring such information to an appropriate committee of Congress rather than unlawfully disclosing such information to the media, as happens from time to time.

It is imperative that individuals with sensitive or classified information about misconduct within the executive branch have a `safe harbor' for disclosure where they know the information will be properly safeguarded and thoroughly investigated.

Further, employees within the intelligence community must know that they may seek shelter in that `safe harbor' without fear of retribution.

It is not generally known that the Whistle Blower Protection Act does not cover employees of the agencies within the intelligence community.

The whistle blower statute also expressly proscribes the disclosure of information that is specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs.

In other words, classified information is not covered by the current whistle blower statute.

Therefore, employees within the intelligence community are not protected from adverse personnel actions if they choose to disclose such information to Congress.

In fact, an employee who discloses classified information to Congress without prior approval is specifically subject to sanctions which may include reprimand, termination of a security clearance, suspension without pay, or removal.

As I follow the trail, it appears that S.1668 became S.2052 and was eventually enacted as HR. 3694.

So, in my world, we have a government, we have laws, we have an outlet for intel community whistleblowers - why couldn't these concerned citizens rally a few Congressman to their cause?  And let's note - the Democrats controlled the Senate Intel Committee from the Jeffords defection in 2001 until the new Congress was sworn in in Jan 2003.  What went wrong?  Find me a Dem with a voice and the courage to speak out!  What will Hillary say?  (Or is it possible that the oversight Dems encouraged these folks to go public, asserting that they could only help if the discussion was carried out on the front page of the NY Times?  The Times will never tell, but it could never be - these were good leakers, and pure of heart.)

Let's cut back to Times World for one last gasp:

When the government does not want the public to know what it is doing, it often cites national security as the reason for secrecy. The nation's safety is obviously a most serious issue, but that very fact has caused this administration and many others to use it as a catchall for any matter it wants to keep secret, even if the underlying reason for the secrecy is to prevent embarrassment to the White House. The White House has yet to show that national security was harmed by the report on electronic spying, which did not reveal the existence of such surveillance - only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law.

What?!?  Now the Administration has to prove that national security was damaged before they criticize the Times?  Maybe the Admin should simply release some details of exactly which programs were compromised so the Times can front-page that - this just gets better and better.

The fact that Administrations often cite national security does not mean that national security is never at risk. 

Of course, the Times routinely cites press freedom in "explaining" their decisions - are they also crying wolf?  Never?  How can we tell?

UPDATE:  A picture is worth a thousand words.

Comments

[topsecretk9]

before I read on, I must inject a triple snort of laughter at this bit of Cybil schizophrenia in the "latest" editorial

"Given the Bush administration's appetite for leak investigations (three are under way), "

We digress....

""After an egregiously long delay, Attorney General John Ashcroft finally did the right thing yesterday when he recused himself from the investigation into who gave the name of a CIA operative to the columnist Robert Novak. Mr. Ashcroft turned the inquiry over to his deputy, who quickly appointed a special counsel."
--New York Times editorial, "The Right Thing, At Last," December 31, 2003

I think the more compelling question is how they write this shit with a straight face?

[Lug]

Liberal moonbats hasten their own demise!!!!! Incredible!!!

<>

The real reason the West is in danger of extinction.

BY MARK STEYN
Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

"Patriotism is stupid!"......Cindy Sheehan

[Tom Heard]

Is your trackback function not working?

[rob]

I have no problem investigating the leak. But the first priority should be investigating if W conducted warrantless taps.

And BTW can anyone tell me how national security was breached by the disclosure that we are listening in to Al Queada? I'm sure Al Queada new we would listen to their conversations.

[PeterUK]

Perhaps there could be a rider forbidding pecuniary gain from "whistleblowers" information,this would leave news organisations free to perform their patriotic public duty without being sullied by the taint of MONEY.

[The Unbeliever]

Excellent post, TM. Good blogs like this are why I stopped reading newspapers. I swear, this article was better than any op-ed I've read in my local papers for the past five years.

[rob]

Lug(nut)
Did you even read what you linked to?

He doen't say anything about Sheehan.

Mostly it is about how we are reproducing less than Islam.

[dorf]

TM: one of your best. Suitable for framing. Thanks.

[Tom Heard]

rob, if that is all you got out of that editorial I suggest you read the whole thing again. Respectfully suggest I mean.

[boris]

After basking in lethal doses of postmodern emanations and ultra violet penumbras, the MSM, the moonbat left and Defeatocrat leadership are completely impervious to cognitive dissonance. As long as they can believe their own lies they will have things both ways until evolution in action takes effect.

(looks like a tag line rob)

[topsecretk9]

anyone tell me how national security was breached by the disclosure that we are listening in to Al Queada? I'm sure Al Queada new we would listen to their conversations.

This "sentiment" keeps popping up.

If you are so "sure" Al Queda "knew"...then why is this revelation worth printing at all? Are you suggesting the Times is "hyping" something everyone knows anyways?

[clarice]

Bravo--Let's send Pinch a copy of the Truong opinion so he can have his crack lawyer Abrams explain it to him.

I can't believe these nuts.

[John]

So it's a crime for Libby to lie to a grand jury (a technicality)...but it's not a crime for an intelligence employee to break the law that flatly states that whistleblowers NOT go public but rather go to Congress with their allegations???

How does revealing that the NSA has the capacity to data-mine every conceavable type of modern communication media the enemy uses (short of word of mouth or carrier pigeon) affect our national security? How could it NOT?! It strikes me as very suspicious that the NYT had narry a peep to say about Clinton's ESCHELON program in the 1990's which conducted domestic surveillance. Once again, the liberal double standard.

They make rules for OTHER people to follow.

[Bill Arnold]

Have we yet discussed why the NSA leak investigation was launched now rather than a year+ ago?

[epphan]

Gee, Bill, I don't know. I guess it's because Bush is now trying to get out of this pot of hot water...or maybe it's because a year ago would have revealed what they were trying to keep secret.

Rob: No reason for an investigation. W has admitted conducting warrantless taps...a legal effort to fight our war enemy. Maybe an investigation is needed to see if they kept the records of who you are watching on cable or what color underwear you wear.

[PeterUK]

The revelations offend aginst one of the tenets of intelligence,never deny or confirm anything unless it suits your purpose.Of course some in al Qaeda knew of the probability of surveillance,but given its disparate nature many would not,certainly not the extent or method.
One extremely valuable piece of information has been revealed,if calls are restricted to USPERS only one of the communication will be retained.

[topsecretk9]

Bush is now trying to get out of this pot of hot water

Yes, lets ignore the pot Bush got boiling by cooperating so nicely with the reporter hounding prosecutor Fitz!

BTW I wear ALL SORTS of colors! Free of charge.

[Lores Rizkalla]

Excellent post!

[larwyn]

"Timespeak" - "truth to power" by "none of the brave"

No AUTHOR/S NAMES are affixed to the "Timespeak" editorial.
So what is written to read as a courageous "truth speaking to power"
has been composted* by "none of the brave".

*originally a TYPO - BUT TOO APT TO CORRECT!

January 4, 2006
Editorial
On the Subject of Leaks

Given the Bush administration's appetite for leak investigations (three are under way), this seems a good moment to try to clear away the fog around this issue.

A democratic society cannot long survive if whistle-blowers are criminally punished for revealing what those in power don't want the public to know - especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials. Reporters need to be able to protect these sources, regardless of whether the sources are motivated by policy disputes or nagging consciences. This is doubly important with an administration as dedicated as this one is to extreme secrecy.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO READ THE WHOLE THING:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/opinion/04wed2.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

[noah]

Excellent speech today by Cheney...not sure when but certain that it will be available at some point on C-SPAN.

Congrats TM...another excellent post!

[kim]

Better to be anonymous than compost.
====================================

[clarice]

Big break for Bush Administration--SCOTUS just agreed to allow Padilla to be transferred to civil prison for criminal (not military) prosecution. (4th Circuit smack down).

[maryerose]

Great post TM!Imagine our need for security and some semblance of secrecy is referred to in TimesWorld as a "catchall". Incredible statement. First question for the leakers: " Why did you feel the need to go to the NYT instead of Congress?"

[Dwilkers]

I detect that the MSM may be going for broke on this one.

[BurkettHead]

NYT: "good leak" = successful book launch

[BurkettHead]

NYT: "good leak" = successful book launch

[maryrose]

Ben-Veniste is on Hardball, soon to be followed by Katrina V. Ben Ginsberg was the voice of sanity in the discussion.

[Syl]

Absolutely superb cutting biting chewing article, Tom!

The New York Times, and half the country, has forgotten that we are a representational democracy. Though we'd love to know absolutely everything that is happening, we accept that some secrets must be kept. So we delegate the secret-keeping to people we elect.

We, the people, have given our government the authority to keep secrets so crying that the government is keeping secrets is just plain whining. There is no right-to-know all the secrets fit to print.

And, as has been pointed out, there are laws in place to protect whistleblowers. So what's there for a citizen not to like?

We did not elect the New York Times to make policy, to be an arbiter of secrets, to be the decision maker concerning what may harm national security, to be the arbiter of the constitution. They decided to print a secret that should not have been made public. They will hurt for this.

[Chris Hagar]

"Now wait - the Times is entitled to keep their secrets, but the government cannot?"

One point to keep in mind: The secrets the administration, offices, etc. of the government have are not /their/ secrets; they are discovered and kept under the authority and by the money of the people, but that is not the same thing as the secrets that the individuals who work for a newspaper have. Now, of course it may be best that certain secrets are entrusted to the government for our own security, but that is not the same thing as saying that these secrets belong to the government. The general form of the Times' argument is not unreasonable, they just may have laden it with partisan content.

[arrowhead]

Not bothering with the NYT's rationale for its actions, it seems to me that the use of the term whistleblower is an example of doublespeak in the extreme. The name implies a person who is risking his/er job by reporting an impropriety or illegal action to a responsible agency. That isn't what has happened in this case.

A newspaper has used its power to betray a clandestine operation of its government during Wartime. The fact that this was done in spite of the pleadings of that government not to reveal the information and, incidentally, to promote an upcoming book makes the action even more heinous. This is not an example of whistleblowing; it is treason.

They did not reveal the information to an investigating arm of the Congress because they knew that the Congress was informed and on board. They were not concerned with preventing or stopping an alleged abuse of civil rights. They waited and held this little bit of treachery in their arsenal to use when it would fit their agenda - their hope - of bringing down this particular Administration. They acted irresponsibly and without any concern as to how the revelation of a covert program would affect the safety and security of this nation.

The public seems to understand the stakes involved and has reacted appropriately. The fact that the actions of both the leaker (that's doublespeak for traitor) and the NYT have backfired on them should not allow anyone involved to escape scrutiny and prosecution.

[Bill Arnold]

Epphan,
Gee, Bill, I don't know. I guess it's because Bush is now trying to get out of this pot of hot water...or maybe it's because a year ago would have revealed what they were trying to keep secret.
OK, but what about a secret investigation? I'm ok with a public investigation now if a secret, internal investigation has been proceding for a year+, though it might be better from a National Security PoV to just keep the whole investigation secret. So, has there been a secret investigation? If there has, then do we already know who the culprits are? etc...

[Gabriel Sutherland]

I think the Times would rather keep those holiday ad revenues rather than operating a faux check kiting scheme for high priced first amendment lawyers.

The editorial is a defense of their own market position. Well, defense may be the wrong word here. Perhaps, 'act of desperation' is closer to the original intent.

If we recall from the left politicos we know that if Fitzgerald is still investigating then there must have been a crime committed. Therefore, if the DoJ is now investigating leaks from the intelligence community then should we assume that a crime must have been committed?

We know that the only reason the Plame investigation has taken this long is because of the media's reluctance to cooperate with a criminal inquiry. They held out for as long as they could until it became obvious that the SCOTUS would not bail them out with a Pentagon Papers Redux.

I'm hoping that the source of the leaks is Judge Robertson, formerly from the FISA court. If you're gonna blow the whistle, then step down and do it as an independent citizen like the rest of us. Don't abuse your power to bake your cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous Liberal]

This is a great post, TM. Very informative. I agree with you regarding the Times Op-Ed. It was weak and poorly reasoned. I just wrote about it myself. I also agree that the leakers had other forms of recourse and should not necessarily be spared prosecution. They could have gone to Congress, and they should, at the very least, be prepared for the potential consequences if they decided it was important enough to go to the press. I think that prosecutors should perhaps, when all is said and done, exercise their discretion not to prosecute in this case, but only if those involved don't lie to investigators (like Libby did).

Where I totally disagree with you is on the issue of whether the Times should have published the story. Risen had almost a dozen sources for this story, and he claims that all of them were genuinely concerned about the legality of this program. Of course the Times has to weigh the news value of the story against the possibility of harming national security, but it looks like they did. They held off for over a year, did lots of additional reporting, and eventually printed the story in a way so as to minimize any possibility of harming national security. Whether administration apologists want to admit it or not, the President's legal position on this is questionable at best. A lot of people, including many conservatives and nonpartisans are genuinely concerned about the legality of this program and its implications for the rule of law and separation of powers, including, apparently, quite a few in the administration itself. This is the paradigmatic example of a newsworthy story. This is exactly why we have a free and independent press. Criticize the leakers if you want, but the Times actually did the right thing here. They were presented with information that was unquestionably important and newsworthy, they made sure it was accurate, and they were careful and circumspect about what they printed. Their crap editorial aside, they performed admirably on this one.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

A lot of people, including many conservatives and nonpartisans are genuinely concerned about the legality of this program and its implications for the rule of law and separation of powers, including, apparently, quite a few in the administration itself.

Impossible. The left tells me every morning in my inbox that the Republicans are the "Amen, Dear Leader" party.

I'm still trying to explain the extra year. Was the Times trying to get Bush re-elected playing tag team with the Washington Post?

[noah]

AL:...exposed their leakers to justifiable prosecution and jeopardized national security so that the public can know about a program that Democrats in Congress were aware of...public service?

Balderdash!

[Anonymous Liberal]

Is that how news works, Noah? The public doesn't need to know something if two Democrats also know it? That's about the strangest thing I ever heard. I can just see the conversation at the Times:

"That's a hot scoop, but quick, you better find out if Pelosi and Reid know about this. If they do, there's not need for us to run with it."

[arrowhead]

AL - on the legality of treason:

I...agree that the leakers had other forms of recourse and should not necessarily be spared prosecution. They could have gone to Congress, and they should, at the very least, be prepared for the potential consequences...

Uh huh. He continues...

Of course the Times has to weigh the news value of the story against the possibility of harming national security (Just a minor concern, I guess)...but it looks like they did. They held off for over a year, did lots of additional reporting, and eventually printed the story in a way so as to minimize any possibility of harming national security.

Say what!!!!! Just how did the NYT minimize the damage to the national security by revealing the existence of a covert program during WARTIME?!

The Jabberwocky Lives!

[noah]

AL: Typical dishonesty from you. They wait for a year to report an important story according to you and them. If it is (was) important why wait?

Your post could well have been written by Dr. Dean himself...no wait, your post was just a REASONABLE compendium of NYT talking points!

[MayBee]

Excellent commentary, TM. Give us more! Every time I read this editorial I find a new gem. My current favorites:

The spying report was a classic attempt to give the public information it deserves to have.

For some reason, the phrase 'classic attempt' amuses me to no end. It sounds like something the newsroom intern threw in when they couldn't figure out exactly what to call it.
Heroic effort? Too strong.
14-month delayed book-sales related teaser? Too honest.

only how it was being done in a way that seems outside the law.

love the weasel word 'seems'.

especially if it's unethical, illegal or unconstitutional behavior by top officials.

If this whole editorial weren't double speak, this line would be the best argument for exposing the possibly unethical and illegal behavior of the leakers.

[Anonymous Liberal]

Noah,
What about anything I wrote is dishonest? Disagree if you want, but don't accuse me of lying unless you're going to back it up.

As for your question about why they waited, I think the answer is that they were trying to be as responsible as they could be. The Bush administration told them the program was legal and they shouldn't run with the story. They did additional reporting and found evidence (12 sources in total) that many people within the administration were not convinced it was legal. So they eventually published what is unquestionably an important story. That's what newspapers are supposed to do.

[MayBee]

AL: I'm not sure that I agree with you about NYTs publishing this, but I do think you have a valid position.

However, what I can't stomach is their constant drumbeat that they must be able to protect their source. If their story was printed because it was newsworthy, then let it stand on that alone. To elevate themselves from writing what is 'newsworthy' to being somewhere above the law (for us!) whenever they make an editorial decision is hubris.

[clarice]

AL--Packed to the gills with excrement that post of yours is.
Doesn the public have the right to know what's in the Barrett report they paid over $20 million to get to? It's not secret. Doesn't involve national security. And yet--correct me if I'm wrong--I'm not seeing any front page WaPo or NYT articles about.

Whistleblowing and public's right to know, my eye!

[noah]

Ok AL I will concede the point if you promise not to whine when the leakers end up in prison. Deal?

[richard mcenroe]

I look forward to seeing little Pinch Sulzberger frog-marched out of the Times offices....

Or is that pleasure strictly reserved for the other side?

[max]

Excellent post TM. Thanks.

[clarice]

Rick Moran has done a good job on the editorial, too. http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/01/04/more-jaw-dropping-idiocy-from-the-times/

[Syl]

Damned straight, Clarice

All the news that's fit to print that we decide you have a right to know about.

[Sue]

AL,

I think that is BS. The NYTs did not hold the story for over a year because they weren't sure if it was legal or not. Their reporter was writing a book. If you could take away the book aspect of the story, I might be more inclined to buy into your theory on why they held it.

[Sue]

AL,

"That's a hot scoop, but quick, you better find out if Pelosi and Reid know about this. If they do, there's not need for us to run with it."

Actually, that is exactly what they should have done, especially when the premise of their story is a secret wiretap program. How secret is secret when everyone who should have known...knew?

[arrowhead]

AL clarifies the role of the NYT in governance: They did additional reporting and found evidence (12 sources in total) that many people within the administration were not convinced it was legal.

So now the NYT is the investigating agency and independant arbitor responsible for truth and justice. Forget the Constitution. Don't need the Justice Department or the Congress. And heck, why go to the bother of FISA. Just ask the NYT to do a little digging, see what they turn up and let them decide whether the issue is newsworthy or not. Never mind national security. If they can find 12 sources that question a policy, that's good enough for them to blow a covert program right out of the water.

In government, you can spit and find 12 sources (more doublespeak that I hesitate to translate) that aren't convinced of anything. Twelve sources that people aren't convinced: that's not evidence, that's sophistry.