The SWIFT Decision - Everyone Knew But Congress

Byron Calame, Public Editor of the NY Times, defends the Times decision to break the SWIFT monitoring story.  His gist - it wasn't really a secret anyway, but Congress had not been properly briefed on the non-secret:

My close look convinced me that Bill Keller, the executive editor, was correct in deciding that Times readers deserved to read about the banking-data surveillance program. And the growing indications that this and other financial monitoring operations were hardly a secret to the terrorist world minimizes the possibility that the article made America less safe.

...

So what were the most solid reasons to publish the story?

There was a significant question as to how secret the program was after five years. "Hundreds, if not thousands, of people know about this," Mr. Keller said he was told by an official who talked to him on condition of anonymity. The 25 bankers from numerous nations on the Swift board of directors, and their predecessors going back to 2001, knew about the arrangement. So did some consortium executives and staff members — a group that probably expanded during this period. Starting in 2003, Swift representatives had to be stationed alongside any government intelligence official searching the data.

Further support for the conclusion that the Swift program hasn't remained totally hidden from terrorists, or anyone else, emerged last week. A former State Department official who has served on a United Nations counterterrorism group pointed to a 2002 United Nations report noting that the United States was monitoring international financial transactions. Swift and similar organizations were mentioned in the publicly available report, although there were no details. "The United States has begun to apply new monitoring techniques to spot and verify suspicious transactions," the report noted.

The Times's June 23 article "awoke the general public" to the Swift program and "in that sense, it was truly new news," Victor Comras, the former State Department official, wrote on The Counterterrorism Blog last week. "But," he added, "the information was fairly well known by terrorism financing experts back in 2002."

The administration has sometimes invited press attention to its effort to track terrorist financing. In September 2003, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and a team of his aides took reporters from The Times and other papers on a six-day tour on a military aircraft "to show off the department's efforts," Mr. Keller and Dean Baquet, the editor of The Los Angeles Times, noted in a joint Op-Ed commentary that appeared yesterday. The aides "discussed many sensitive details of their monitoring efforts, hoping they would appear in print and demonstrate the administration's relentlessness against the terrorist threat," according to the two editors.

Another reason Times editors were right to proceed with the 3,550-word Swift story was the skimpy Congressional oversight of the program. Secrecy is vital for intelligence and national security programs, but so is oversight by the courts or elected legislators. The Swift program, however, doesn't seem to have any specific Congressional approval or formal authorization. The Treasury Department has not provided a list of who in Congress was informed, or when, The Times has reported.

This 'everybody knew but Congress' explanation is, one the one hand, touching - it is nice to see the Times so concerned about the preservation of Congressional prerogatives.  However, it would look a lot less like an ex post rationalization if the original story had run some quotes from outraged Congressfolks deploring a lack of Administration candor - I cannot find any mention of Senators Frist, Roberts, or Rockefeller, or Representative Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in that first pass.

Comments

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'...a 2002 United Nations report noting that the United States was monitoring international financial transactions. Swift and similar organizations were mentioned in the publicly available report, although there were no details.'

Well, yeah, I suppose the circulation of the Times is approaching that of obscure UN reports, so the news probably didn't get out to anyone who didn't already know.

[Laddy]

Calme, being termed the ombudsmen, is a joke just like the Times is these days.

[Mackenzie]

Anyone who has ever transfered funds overseas through a bank has been required to fill out pages of forms, including an acknowledgement that information about transactions may be shared with regulatory authorities. It is difficult to comprehend why the 3 newspapers thought this to be worthy of front-page coverage. It is equally difficult to comprehend why the White House reacted so strongly to this non-news, and why they did so on a delayed basis.

[bgates]

"Hundreds, if not thousands, of people know about this," Mr. Keller said he was told by guy who is known to hundreds if not thousands himself, yet didn't want his name printed in the paper.

[Carol Herman]

One after another, they're just lining up. Like drunks at a party who get so drunk they drop their pants.

Me thinks part of the derangement is that they're upset at the flack!

And, it's a slow news cycle!

Now, if I had to guess, part of the problem must stem from the phone calls they've gotten from their previous squealers ... Telling them that careers are dropping down around them like flies.

[Old Dad]

Do I have this right?

The Swift program was classified, but apparently not very effectively.

Was the Times story focused on this alleged breach? No. Rather the Times rationalizes its own breach of security by arguing that the program wasn't really very secret anyway, so why not blow it completely out of the water.

[Jane]

As Hugh Hewitt said, knowing about the operation is not the same as knowing means and methods.

The public is furious, and that is not about to abate. With any luck, this little breach of our national security will signal the beginning of the end of the NY Times.

[Old Dad]

Mackenzie,

Not sure what your point is. Certainly it's common knowledge that many aspects of international finance are open to scutiny.

But this program was classified. Why? Apparently because its tactical approach was not widely known--until now.

It was apparent to Hitler in the Spring of 1944 that the Allies were building a massive invasion force, but he thought they would invade Calais. Should the Times have informed him that the real target was Normandy?

The German high command debated fiercely about where to stage their Panzers. Well golly gee, the Times might reason, since dozens of the German brass already suspect that Normandy is the target, let's remove all doubt.

Their readers deserved to know. I'm clearly missing something. What?

[omar]

despite quoting a huge chunk of the article, what resonated with me most was left unquoted. here it is:

"Temporary emergency measures cloaked in government secrecy can too easily become permanent shortcuts. That's why oversight is important. It is also a reason to publish the article. The reservations expressed by some of the 20 current and former government officials and industry executives who were disturbed enough to talk to The Times were based on this concern: "What they viewed as an urgent, temporary measure had become permanent nearly five years later without specific Congressional approval or formal authorization," in the words of the article."

this seems a standard tactic of the executive branch.. institute programs with no oversight, and keep them going indefinitely. this is the type of program that congress should be watching. maybe they will finally start doing that now.

[craig mclaughlin]

Brian Calame,

On the 28th of June when I quoted commenter Wilson's a Liar, and added my comment:

'"Why would the Times blare a front page above-the-fold headling about a "SECRET" program that wasn't a secret? Are the Times' defenders suggesting that the Newspaper of Record is sexing up headlines and stories now? Because that's the only logical conclusion one can reach from what they are trying to sell us now. Not much of a defense if you ask me. I think they need s new set of talking points."

Yeah, everybody knew about it-- but Congress.'

I was being trying to be sarcastic...

[craig mclaughlin]

Or is it Byron?

[Paul Zrimsek]

Darn that Administration and its indefinite programs! Why would they want to keep monitoring SWIFT transactions now that terrorism is a thing of the past?

[David]

The argument that everyone already knew about the program is also disproved by the fact that it was effective. It led to the capture of some key terrorists.

Note also Calame's support for the silly argument that the Times shouldn't be criticized publishing this classified info, because in the past they withheld publication of other classified info.

[eric]

It's not illegal to publish most of the classified information out there. What seems to be happening here is that some peoples' feelings got hurt: Congress at being caught out of the loop, and the administration for being caught not being forthcoming to Congress.

So of course all eyes turn to the messenger.

[eric]

David,

The only people who are called "key terrorists" are the ones who are caught. What the SWIFT controversy illustrates is that the only terrorists caught by the program were the ones who were too dumb to change their behavior after the myriad previous mentions (by the administration and others) of the fact that this monitoring was going on. In other words (and paraphrasing the apocryphal): The only key terrorist is a dumb terrorist.

[paul]

The funny thing about 100's of people knowing(a lot of Europeans in there)-

The Europeans never went to their press. It took American's to 'whistleblow' on our spy program in Europe.

Beautiful, just f***in beautiful.

[lurker]

"It is equally difficult to comprehend why the White House reacted so strongly to this non-news, and why they did so on a delayed basis."

It's not one leak but a culmination of leaks that caused not only the WH but alot of people out there to react to the fact that one more classified program was leaked.

Patterico is probably the most focal about the leak if you would check his site, he's got plenty to say.

Fox just did a replay of Keller. GAG! But Fox just did a good job of pointing out the facts over Keller's statements.

[lurker]

Hugh Hewitt Vs Lichtbau

Hugh just did a great job against Eric Lichtblau.

[Gary Maxwell]

Eric

Heres hoping that a "too dumb" terrorist now that the program is compromised, who otherwise does not get not caught is not successful in attacking somewhere in America. And here is hoping that if he does, it your house and not mind. Seems to me you wont mind given your post.

[Gary Maxwell]

first mind = mine. Sheesh

[Patton]

What's bad is the NYT didn't even realize how stupid they sound...

We printed it because everyone knew about it anyway and because Congress didn't know about it.....Hmmm...think the hayseeds will buy that story? OK, go to press.

[Gary Maxwell]

Did anyone see Keller and his "performance". Quintessential smug liberal well past the critical need stage of needing to be hit by a clue by 4.

[Patton]

Noone at the NYT wants to answer a simple question, if once they got the story, rather then printing it in the paper, what if the reporters flew to Pakistan and revealed the information privately to Osama Bin Laden and perhaps read their story to Bin Ladens top financier people.

WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN A CRIME? If yes, then why isn't passing it to him in a public piece of paper also a crime?

What if Keller wrote an OP-ED stating the reason they were publishing the story is:

1). They want Al Queda to win the war and will help them in anyway they can.

2). He hopes more Americans die, especially young children and women, now that Al Queda has the information and can avoid detection.

3). They are just trying to show they are good liberals so Ted Kennedy will smile at them.

[Gary Maxwell]

And anyone seen an outcry from Congress? Come on Democrats step up and tell the American people how outraged you are about this secret program. Be sure to speak directly into the microphone, and then after the normal tape delay pause, be sure to duck.

[Jane]

I saw it. Keller knows he is in trouble. My guess is that he will be smug to the bitter end.

[lurker]

One Democratic Senator did this morning.

It was Feinstein that wanted FISA to review the SWIFT program for approval. Wasn't she the one that said that this Iraqi war is not a real war but a civil war.

GAG!!

However, this is going to be something that forces the Democrats to tell the public of their positions regarding the war. The more they say these things, the more the public will see how soft they are on national security and their difficulties in balancing national security with the individual civil liberties.

[lurker]

OH CRUD!!

The new UN human rights council now wants to review the recent Israel attacks.

I read somewhere this morning that USA is going to consider cutting back the UN budget.

Looks like UN has just a few more years if they don't drastically reform...seriously.

[Dwilkers]

You can download and watch Keller on Face the Nation here at Eye on the Left.

Watching it again I was struck by how uncomfortable he looks. My guess is he doesn't like having to explain his editorial decisions to the hoi polloi. Kinda makes you wonder why he's doing it.

[lurker]

Jane, I think you're right. Keller and Lichtblau (as evidenced via the Reliable Sources) are denying the facts with their delusional conclusions and justifications.

Allahpundit claims that Patterico is fuming AND ready to submit subponeas! :)

NRO reports:

Wonder what their findings will be when their investigation concludes? That they will agree that it is a perfectly legal and successful program?

Just like Europe did with the "secret prisons"?

Just like England did with the fake Joe Wilson reports?

[lurker]

Cr*ap! Need to download the BB tags to my "new" laptop.

If you go to the above link, click on "further...", which takes one to crooked timber, which provides some details on the consequences of Keller's decisions.

[richard mcenroe]

The country's gonna be okay folks; the Democrats just found the key to peace and victory, domestic and foreign. Biden announced his candidacy today.

[lurker]

Saw that, Richard, GAG!! Who is challenging Biden?

[Gary Maxwell]

Exactly what question would "Joe Biden" be the correct answer to?

[SunnyDay]

I'm sorry, why do the libs keep saying there was no oversight of SWIFT?

[PeterUK]

The terrorists do not necessarily have to be stupid,just out of the loop,been dormant or in extremis.Al Qaeda is not a a great monolithic organisation but a loose amalgam of disparate groups,of course they move money legitimately,just like organised crime,onece it has been laundered money is just money.
What SWIFT has to offer is the end points of transactions.If a sudden flow of money from a charity starts flowing to an obscure bank in Kaboomistan,intelligence agencies can follow up both ends.
Finally the Mob knew the powers of the IRS,but Al Capone still got caught.

[lurker]

Oversight? The key dems were briefed, for god's sake!

What exactly did the dems agree to right after 9/11?

And the fact that the privacy human rights organization in England filed lawsuits in so many countries shows how wrong Keller and Lichtblau were. The action of this privacy human rights organization shows that not many knew about the SWIFT program.

PUK, what do you know about this privacy organization?

[Bob]

The fact that the ACLU didn't file a law suite, proves the terrorists didn't know about.

Because ACLU is a terrorist organization!

[clarice]

I wonder what tomorrow's excuse will be?

And let me offer a suggestion:If when the blowback started, Keller had said "I made a judgement call , and from the response we're getting I blew it. I am sorry" this would be over.

Kinda like it's not the ctrime but the coverup--These carying lame excuses are only enraging people more.

[clarice]

***Kinda like it's not the crime but the coverup--These varying lame excuses are only enraging people more**

[Jane]

http://www.exposetheleft.com/2006/07/02/hh-nytimes-rs/

Here is the video of Hewitt on reliable sources. He nailed it.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
This is the ne aristocracy,they never explain and they never apologise.How is your knitting?

[Syl]

The term 'classified' is thrown around in a general sense, not the particular. A program may in general be known to the public, but it's the details, the sources and methods, that are the actual classified data. It's apples and oranges.

The rationalization Calame uses is just semantic plinking.

If the program was so widely known, why didn't Congress bitch about it?

The New York Times believes Congress is the only entity on the planet that didn't know which is stupid on its face.

I think the New York Times is simply angry that Congress didn't bitch so it blew the program wide open.

[Kevin B]

I like Roger Simon's take on why Keller and co are so taken aback by the public reaction to the SWIFT furore. They've forgotten that no-one likes a stoolie and the anonymous sources who "blew the whistle" on this and the other high profile leaks are seen by most people as worthless stoolies.

I hope these stoolies end up like most of the snitches in the old Hollywood movies Roger is talking about. They seldom come to a good end.

[PeterUK]

Lurker,
Privacy International has the usual suspects on the board,Gnome Chomsky,Harold Pinter,straight down the line communists.

[Old Dad]

Syl,

Interesting take, but with evil implications.

Let's start with the obvious. Bush sucks and can do right. He's put forward a legal program that is classified and appears to be effective. Congress knows. What to do?

Why leak the program and implicate Congress. We're agonized that the evil Bushies are foisting one over on the Republican Congress who are not competent enough to fulfil their Constitutional duty.

Well, we'll fix that. By golly they endangered the troops, smeared the Administration and implicated Congress, all in one fell swoop.

They hit the lefty trifecta.

[Patton]

Peter says:
""Finally the Mob knew the powers of the IRS,but Al Capone still got caught. ""

Yes, but that isn't the proper comparison. The mob knew the powers and therefore the tried to hide Capones income. It was the catching of him, by proving that he was receiving income he didn't claim.

So if the mob DIDN"T know about the IRS powers, like Al Queda didn't know about SWIFT, they wouldn't have been concealing Capones transactions and he would have been caught in one year of income rather then it taking 12 years.

Your argument actually proves the point on the other side, that when the mob found out about the IRS powers, they did everything they could to avoid any transactions showing income going to Capone.

It was an IRS INTELLIGENCE guy that broke the code and proved in a ledger that income was going to Capone....but by that time Capone had reigned for over a decade.

So now Al Queda will do just like the mob, avoid the catching of transactions so they can stay in business.

[Syl]

Besides...

If the program wasn't a secret why are their sources ANONYMOUS?

[PeterUK]

Patton,
I agree,but if the NYT had told the mob that the IRS had a code breaker...
I isn't even really about the money but flows of money,to avoid international banking is going to make it difficult for apparently legitimate ,laundered money,to be sent from front organisations to dodgy end users.

[PeterUK]

Syl,
..and why didn't the anonymous leakers use the "whistleblower" procedure,why didn't the NYT advise them this was the best course if Congress was in the dark?
Since the NYT did this as a public service,can we expect them to donate all the proceeds to charity?

[Rick Ballard]

Peter,

I think you're touching upon the real reason that this has come out. Soros is reneging on promises made with the excuse that he doesn't want to expose his transfers to scrutiny. That or the Sulzbergers are concerned about being asked embarassing questions by Treasury.

[Carol Herman]

From the looks of things, it seems the NY Timers are weaving and bobbing. And, not necessarily keeping their heads above water, either.

Way back in 1972, when the story began breaking around Nixon, Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee NEVER looked this desperate!

There must be blood on the floor over at Slime's headquarters ... to create such lack of traction.

Meanwhile, the veep's having a blast at NASCAR. And, our President is dancing with the Japanese prime minister at Graceland.

The sea of troubles looks to be an east-coaster; splashing from the boston harbor to murtha's vineyard. While bella-pelosi, sure her rag was gonna wipe down some new seats for donk newcomers might as well just use to blow snot out of her nose. Hardly likely the donks got much to cheer about ...

And, we still haven't seen Bush's summer surprise.

[PeterUK]

Rick,
Have a look at the Piracy International link at 2:10 pm.

We are seeing a most peculiar inversion,first the left waxed indignant over the exposure of an agent from the "Heart of Darkness" being exposed to the public gaze,now they are fulminating over the right of plutocrats,criminals,drug barons and terrorists to shunt their money around the globe in privacy.
As for headhackers being entitled to more human dignity than their victim....

[Semanticleo]

CH;

Notwithstanding the disappointed disaffected amongst us, it seems as though the consensus
is rolling down the aisle like the detached heads of same. The dismemebered remember when it was all joy and there was little to lose.
Now that the curtain begins it's descent, the players keep insisting on making curtain calls despite the absence of applause.

Sour grapes would taste as sweet.

[Bob]

cleo,

It takes you all day to come up with such splooge?

Please send us your decoder ring!

[Old Dad]

Semanticleo:

Gotta go with a 2. Ya definitely can't dance to it.

I'd go with an 8 or so on the pretentious tripeometer, though.

You got that going for ya.

[Pete]

There was a lot of interesting discussion on this issue on TV today.

The money quote came from Senator Feinstein who said that the Bush administration only sought to inform the Senate Intelligence Committee when it became apparent that the New York Times had the story and was going to run it.

There was a lot of interesting commentary defending the press from William Safire (who is no leftie) and from Joe Klein. Keein's comments were pretty close to the views that I have previously expressed here.

Safire stood solidly behind NYT, and he also responded to a question often asked in this blog:

MR. SAFIRE: Let me respond to what Bill, to the point he’s making, that who elected the media to determine what should be secret and what should not?

MS. MITCHELL: Which is the fundamental point.

MR. SAFIRE: Right. And the answer to that is, the founding fathers did. They came up with this Bill of Rights beyond which the constitutional convention would not move unless there were a First Amendment to challenge the government...

[PeterUK]

If Septicleo is going to perpetrate purple prose that pathetic,perhaps we should have a Pseuds Corner.

[Syl]

Pete

MR. SAFIRE: Right. And the answer to that is, the founding fathers did. They came up with this Bill of Rights beyond which the constitutional convention would not move unless there were a First Amendment to challenge the government...

This is a strawman, Petey.

We're not trashing the First Amendment, we're trashing the New York Times JUDGEMENT.

Seems the public agrees.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

It's not illegal to publish most of the classified information out there.

Wrong.

Next?

[sbw]

I expect Safire to be smarter than that, and am disappointed to find he is not.

The First Amendment is not a Get Out of Jail Free Card.

[Bob from Ohio]

What paper does Safire work for? So, why should we care about his opinion?

[Rick Ballard]

The Seditionist Times claims freedom to betray the United States while wrapping itself in the First Amendment and we claim the freedom to correctly identify them as traitors. The market will rectify what the law cannot. Not as immediately satisfying as a noose, perhaps, but it will do. For now.

[PeterUK]

The differenece being that the Founding Fathers would probably have had Keller hanged.
Celebrate the Fourth of July enfranchise a jihadi.

[Carol Herman]

Sure. It's a slow weekend. But I've never seen the NY Times in so much trouble!

They seem to be taking fire from their own! Just like them to take cannibalism to new heights. While the needle fell off the tick-tock clock at 60 Minutes, as well.

It's as if the earth is standing still for them.

And, if Dianne Feinstein's best defense is that the "senators" weren't given early peeks; she's folding a very weak hand of cards.

At best, the donks have deuces.

And, Bush dances the night away at Graceland; with the prime minister of Japan, having a great time. Shows ya, the White House isn't even in the line of fire on this one.

The NY Times, by the way, lost its reputation on this one. Exactly the opposite of the WaPo's rise on Nixon's undoing.

Nope. We're not in Vietnam, anymore. While Kerry was only there for 4 months; but he's carried around his dellusions ever since. Mental illness triggers are not a time honored way to win Purple Hearts; but they're deserved, just the same. Too bad the paperwork (he won't let anyone see), won't express it that way. But truth is TRUTH.

[Pete]

Syl - Tom Maguire himself raised similar questions earlier.

It is rather funny to see people here trashing the judgement of NYT, while the same people are all solidly behind Rove and Libby who disclosed the CIA affiliation of Plame. Hypocrisy has no bounds.

And like the Plame situation, we should go after the leakers instead of making a scapegoat of the press.

[SunnyDay]

Better to be silent and be thought a fool...

[vnjagvet]

On this story, the First Amendment argument is nothing more than the old pea under the three walnuts trick.

Of course the press remains under that Amendment's protection. I have seen little argument that questions the press's freedom to publish whatever it decides to publish. There is no movement afoot to censor the press.

There is a substantial movement afoot to criticize the press for being stupid, naive, self-destructive, petty and for making it more difficult for the nation to protect itself.

And that movement appears to have plenty of evidence to support its criticism.

In forty years of law practice, I haven't seen any court cases that intimated that the first amendment protects the press or any of its practitioners from criticism.

I sure would be interested if any reading this thread can cite me any.

Or if any of the apologists from the NYT and LAT have, in their extensive experience and reading on media matters, run across such legal authority.

I'll be checking in from time to time to see if I get any takers.

[PeterUK]

"It is rather funny to see people here trashing the judgement of NYT, while the same people are all solidly behind Rove and Libby who disclosed the CIA affiliation of Plame. Hypocrisy has no bounds.

And like the Plame situation, we should go after the leakers instead of making a scapegoat of the press."

So Pete by the same token if it was illegal to disclose Plame,it is illegal to disclose SWIFT,there should be a Special Prosecutor,journalists should be subpoenaed and jailed if they refuse to disclose their sources?
Just as the CIA claims to have ruled mention of Plame out of bounds,so the Government told the NYT not to print.

[PeterUK]

The other points are, SWIFT didn't send its husband to Niger and have him return to write an opinion piece for the NYT.
Oh! There it is again the NYT,amazing,involved in two stories damaging to your national security.Never mind Pete,as long a you stand up for the right of the NYT to get youi killed.

[Rick Ballard]

Few things would give me more satisfaction than seeing the leakers prosecuted and jailed. They are cowards without an ounce of conviction. The journalist slime who publish anonymous sources are also cowards - and lazy cowards to boot. And the editors and publishers who depend on cowardice for their paychecks are also cowards - making their living from the malice of the first cowards too ashamed to allow the use of their names.

The First Amendment does protect cowards - it makes no distinctions as to character. A perfect coward's shield which can be turned into a spear by those unafraid to give a name to others who would use it as a shield.

Peter,

The Founders weren't big on hanging editors. They weren't big on chasing the citizenry that occasionally resorted to hot tar and feathers to register their displeasure with publishers either. A ride on a rail while wearing tar and feathers would be a fine thing for Keller and Sulzberger to enjoy.

[Syl]

It is rather funny to see people here trashing the judgement of NYT, while the same people are all solidly behind Rove and Libby who disclosed the CIA affiliation of Plame. Hypocrisy has no bounds.

Um, Petey. There's no proof that Rove or Libby revealed anything and nobody has been charged for leaking a word.

And the source for Novak has not even been revealed.

[SunnyDay]

*No evidence* is proof of the conspiracy. ;)

[Syl]

vnjagvet

In forty years of law practice, I haven't seen any court cases that intimated that the first amendment protects the press or any of its practitioners from criticism.

That needs repeating.

[Syl]

Has anybody asked Keller if Pinch was in on the decision?

[PeterUK]

Rick,
Oh well! Get Clint Eastwood to do it

[maryrose]

SunnyDay:
you are on a roll tonight !

[Carol Herman]

Syl, that's a good question.

Just who was the "top guy" who finally delivered the green light apparatus? You'd think, at least, that pinch would be involved.

Katherine Graham stepped to the plate, right up there with Ben Bradlee; even though they kept secret that the leaks were coming from the FBI.

A lot of time has to pass before you can walk away from putting Deep Throat, now demented, and 92, in jail for anything. All you get is his living gripe that he didn't make money! And, he was jealous at what Bob Woodward, and his pal, (now, not such a"pal"), Carl Bernstein, raked in.

The First Amendment's in good shape. What the NY Times did was destroy its reputation. And, its credibility.

It's exactly where you see a tear in the fabric. In 1972, the WaPo climbed UP on the admiration of others. While the NY Times now has crashed into the gutter.

Why send in the police? Let's see what they've got left to sell? If they're unaware, still, that any errors were made; you'd get a different impression if you just looked at others on the left ... tossing down their cards on the table. And, walking away.

What did Bill Keller do? He made a decision that puts a lot of careerists at risk at the NY Times. That's why Safire is doing the whitewash. It must hurt to know the truth. And, so far, all you're seeing is "first reactions." At the stage of denial.

This is not looking like its going to be a very good summer for the donks. Or the aged stars of nutwork TV.

It wasn't soundless when the Titanic went down, either. Here, Bill Keller just drove his ship into an iceberg. I bet if he could do this one over, again, he wouldn't. What a bunch of Clymers.

[PeterUK]

Carol,
My money is on the moosehead.

[eric]

If writing about the SWIFT program was such a big deal, I'd imagine that someone would be getting the Judith Miller treatment, or there would be talk about it. However Bush, as the most visibly scandalized, only calls the the NYT names and prays for prior restraint. Is it possible that the NYT/WSJ story is only illegal if enough people think it helps The Terrorists? Because, you know, I haven't anybody come up with any serious scholarship countenancing the legality of the story.

All we see is "Why'd ya do it Mr. Keller?" which I think is quite the vivid illustration of the seriousness of all of this. Whether it's accurate or not is beyond my depth, but putting my ear to the train-tracks tells me that what we're seeing is journalistic backbiting in the name of embarrassed politicians.

[eric]

Oh, and should the NYT really be worried that the people who say the NYT has lost credibility over this seem to be people who already didn't like the NYT?

[Barney Frank]

"It is rather funny to see people here trashing the judgement of NYT, while the same people are all solidly behind Rove and Libby who disclosed the CIA affiliation of Plame. Hypocrisy has no bounds."

I think I can explain this for you Pete.

Our country is at war. 'The people here' would like to win that war.
The NYT has harmed that war effort and has done so in a manner which is illegal on its face.
Rove and Libby did not do anything illegal on its face, having under gone a thorough investigation and no charges being brought regarding any 'leak' of classified information. And they were acting in furtherance of winning the war by countering the insipid and dishonest bombast of Mr. Wilson etal.
Consequently there is no hypocrisy in the position of 'the people here'.
However when you want to 'go after the leakers' regarding Plame who apparently did nothing illegal and defend the NYT which by its own admission revealed a legal, useful, and classified program you ARE engaging in precisely what you accuse others of, hypocrisy.
Projection has no bounds.

[PeterUK]

Patience Eric,Keller is waving the First Amendment like a talismen,hoping that if he can cause enough of an outcry the political tables will be turned.This was done in the public interest says the NYT,"Patriotism the first refuge of a scoundrel".

[Paul Zrimsek]

If writing about the SWIFT program was such a big deal, I'd imagine that someone would be getting the Judith Miller treatment....

Only if you've forgotten how long it took for Judith Miller to get the Judith Miller treatment.

[vnjagvet]

eric (the ee cummings of JOM) tries another ploy:

One week and no subpoenas = no big deal.

No roundups of Lichtblau, Keller and Company means Bush is a wimp.

No guts, no glory.

And the JOM crowd hated the NYT anyhow, so no harm no foul.

But eric, I remember when the NYT was respected by left, middle, and all but the far, far right. Its news page was second to none, because of its depth and objectivity. Sadly, it is now devoted primarily to advocacy, and has lost the middle and intellectual right (yes, there is one).

For a mess of pottage, if you ask me. Of course, no one has.

[SunnyDay]

maryrose: I'm usually busy reading what the smart people post. :D

[PeterUK]

vnjagvet,
Presumably the polygraph machines will be working overtime to discover the source of the leaks,what if,heaven forbid,but not an unknown technique of newspapers,money had changed hands?
This isn't just a political muscle flexing exercise,but an attempt to clean up government departments.

[SunnyDay]

Ahhhhhhh the newest Keller talking point - "the Bush administration is embarrassed because they can't keep their secrets secret." I caught that this morning.

My my, they believe beople will keep their oath of service.

Sorry, but Keller is squirming - he protests too much.

[clarice]

But, Eric, as long as we are comparing Plame and this, I hope you will recall that it was the NYT that led the witchhunt when in May 2003 Kristof printed Wilson's lies, and then the paper said leaks of classified information were so serious, whoever did it had to be tracked down and punished no matter what the cost.As it turned out their was no leak by the objects of the hunt (Rove, Cheny and Libby), Plame was not a covert agent, and there was no harm to national security by the disclosure of her name.

[clarice]

****ChenEy*******8

[Jane]

Bill Kristol said this morning that the case had definately been referred for prosection. Hopefully eric will get his wish quickly.

[PeterUK]

Clarice,
And no CIA to make a CYA referal to the DOJ,it all fitted together very neatly,the trip,the op-ed,the "outing" and the referal.Nothing at all like the current NYT treason.

[PeterUK]

Jane,
I'll believe nothing until we hear from Jason Leopold.

[Rick Ballard]

"Sorry, but Keller is squirming - he protests too much."

No Dem pol other than extraordinarily safe seaters will defend him and he seems to have irked the nutroots for some reason. Maybe he should rub a little Kosola oil on the tender parts.

I sure hope he sticks with partisan advocacy. The Times has become a definite plus to the party.

It's good to see the few defenders using preschool logic of the "that was then, this is now" variety. Nothing like a few fungoes to sharpen the hand eye coordination.

[Syl]

I'll believe nothing until we hear from Jason Leopold.

LOL

It's good to see the few defenders using preschool logic of the "that was then, this is now" variety.

Actually, this is perfectly timed to go along with Dean's 'Forward to the Past' rhetoric.

[SteveMG]

"We must publish this classified information in order to show that the Bush Administration can't keep classified information secret."

Great, Federico Fellini is now editor of the NY Times.

SMG

[Syl]

Which is a hoot because lefties tell us (listen to Neil Gabler on Media Watch) that this administration is the most.secretive.ever.

Like he'd know.

[SunnyDay]

Honestly, that was his point this morning - he seemed to be gloating that he had supposedly put the administration on the hot seat.

What he did was deplorable, but if he was going to do it, it's nice that he framed the national security/are we rally at war issue so clearly.

Republicans who have been unhappy at the progress in Iraq have been made aware of their choices again.

Having Keller say Bush is capitalizing on it doesn't diminish it. The choices are clear.

The Times' attempted coup backfired.

[vnjagvet]

I wonder how many interviews Bill Keller had given on national television prior to this morning on Face The Nation.

After viewing the tape, I had the distinct impression that he could have used a bit more rehearsing.

It looked to me like he took a crash course in condescension.

Not a warm and fuzzy guy.

[Lesley]

Roger Simon has an excellent post on "Stoolies." Shameless geekster that I am, I thought I'd look up the derivation of Stool Pigeon: "A police spy or informer, a decoy. The name alludes to the former practice of tying or even nailing a pigeon to a stool to act as a decoy for other pigeons, which were then shot by the waiting hunter's guns." - Brewer's

Guess "Stoolie" doesn't quite mean what Mr. Simon, or I for that matter, thought it meant. However, I shall leave it up to those far more clever than I to come up with the proper appellation.

Perhaps Mr. Simon was thinking of "dog ends" when he came up with "Stoolie."

[Rick Ballard]

Lesley,

Why seek a new word when there is a perfectly good old one?

Traitor \Trai"tor\, n. [OE. traitour, OF. tra["i]tor, tra["i]teur, F. tre[^i]tre, L. traditor, fr. tradere, traditum, to deliver, to give up or surrender treacherously, to betray; trans across, over + dare to give. See Date time, and cf. Betray,Tradition, Traditor, Treason.]
1. One who violates his allegiance and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to an enemy, or yields up any fort or place intrusted to his defense, or surrenders an army or body of troops to the enemy, unless when vanquished; also, one who takes arms and levies war against his country; or one who aids an enemy in conquering his country.

The leakers took an oath and broke it. They're traitors. Just as the people at the Times are seditionists.