For context, start with our previous post on this subject HERE.
In that post, I called for a multi-pronged approach to stopping the New York Times and other irresponsible media. And point three called for press credentials to be pulled:
Third, demand that our government, and most especially the White House, pull the press credentials for the New York Times and the LA Times too, if you believe them to be equally guilty. End all cooperation with them and all their media, no interviews, no credentials. Anyone meets with or talks to them, they lose their job or get demoted or counseled. Treat all contacts between their reporters and government officials as we would contacts with foreign agents.
I have also made the point that no approach would work where public outrage is the driving force without publicity so that the outraged public can find each other and join forces to get something done. So with that in mind, I could not be happier than I am right now to see a National Review editorial calling for the implementation of my Suggestion Three:
The New York Times is a recidivist offender in what has become a relentless effort to undermine the intelligence-gathering without which a war against embedded terrorists cannot be won. And it is an unrepentant offender. In a letter published over the weekend, Keller once again defended the newspaper’s editorial decision to run its TFTP story. Without any trace of perceiving the danger inherent in public officials’ compromising of national-security information (a matter that the Times frothed over when it came to the comparative trifle of Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee), Keller indicated that the Times would continue revealing such matters whenever it unilaterally decided that doing so was in the public interest.
The president should match this morning’s tough talk with concrete action. Publications such as the Times, which act irresponsibly when given access to secrets on which national security depends, should have their access to government reduced. Their press credentials should be withdrawn. Reporting is surely a right, but press credentials are a privilege. This kind of conduct ought not be rewarded with privileged access.
Moreover, the Justice Department must be more aggressive than it has been in investigating national-security leaks. While prosecution of the press for publishing information helpful to the enemy in wartime would be controversial, pursuit of the government officials who leak it is not. At the very least, members of the media who report such information must be made to understand that the government will no longer regard them as immune from questioning when it investigates the leakers. They should be compelled to reveal their sources, on pain of contempt. ... More
With the President's outrage this morning, perhaps something will begin to happen:
Via Hot Air:
Video: Bush calls Times’s expose “disgraceful”
I haven’t seen him this angry … ever, really. Maybe prosecutions aren’t that unlikely.
The White House has a transcript.
My reaction was exactly the same as to Bush's anger. And I would add ... he is at his very best when he is angry!
But the President's anger pales next to Treasury Secretary, John W. Snow. (Letter to the Editors of The New York Times by Treasury Secretary Snow) Talk about hot! Whew! He all but calls Bill Keller out to a duel and he does call him a liar: [emphasis mine]
Mr. Bill Keller, Managing Editor The New York Times 229 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036
Dear Mr. Keller:
The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails.
Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program.
Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place.
You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable.
Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here.
What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times.
Sincerely,
[signed]
John W. Snow, Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Let's tell it like it really is. A job at the New York Times is the pinnacle for a reporter. I doubt there is a single working or retired reporter who hasn't drooled over the prospect of getting a job there. So, to get any of them to speak out against the paper is a statement against interest in their minds. And the New York Times, with their cohorts of other massive media, whether the Washington Post or TV news, are the life-blood in a politician's mind. Get mentioned positively or negatively in the Times and it gets picked up by every TV and newspaper news department in the country via the wire services. So, it is with great risk (the way things stand right now) for a politician or government employee to speak against the big media. They can be vicious if they turn on you. They can be your best friend if you are one of their darlings.
The best way to combat this is to implement my First, Second, and Fifth suggestions:
First, stop linking to either paper. And most especially, stop linking to anything behind a "pay" wall such as Times Select.
Second, start demanding that major news outlets, especially TV cable news outlets, stop using the New York Times as their primary source for news. I'm sick of always hearing, "according to the New York Times," aren't you?
Fifth, find the quality newspapers and TV outlets that can move into the slots vacated by the NYT, the LA Times and dare I say it, the Wall Street Journal. If they are quality but have been struggling to make it against the big boys, throw the blogosphere weight behind them. Of course, I would like to see news outlets with a more libertarian or conservative bent get the nod, but partisanship should not be the criteria. Instead, make national security the criteria and make this a "citizen" issue rather than a political one.
My hope of seeing this happen on a scale of one to ten is about a four at this point.
This country is being torn apart by the traitors. The leakers are controlling a debate that is a false debate. We've got nearly half the electorate actually believing in the lie that "Bush lied so people died." I have grave reservations about how we as a people can take back this country and bring some sense back to those who have now been brainwashed for years with this skewed and disengenuous meme.
It is a constant battle, never more apparent than by some of these statements:
3. Jane Hall, eternal defender of the MSM on the unwatchable Fox News Watch, says on Bill O'Reilly that we mustn't accuse the New York Times of anti-American or treasonous sentiments because reporters are risking their lives in Iraq.
2. This absurdity by Bill Keller, defending his decision to reveal top national security secrets to the enemy:
Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservative bloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to the government's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I could ask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to the story themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)
1. Juan Williams claims the NYT did American national security a favor, by informing Al Qaeda we were watching their bank transfers, thus forcing them to seek other means of transfering money.
And yes, Betsy, it is very infuriating:
What is so infuriating is that if Bill Keller had called up a terrorist from Al Qaeda and told them about this program, he'd have been guilty of treason. But if he publishes it on the front page where that same terrorist can read it along with all his terrorist buddies, there seems little that we can do to Bill Keller other than cancel subscriptions that, judging by the NYT's subscription numbers, many have already cancelled.
I'd like to see the Justice Department call these reporters and publishers before a Grand Jury to investigate who leaked this story to them. And when they refuse to answer, throw them in jail. At least they won't be receiving any leaks about our anti-terrorist efforts while they're there. If Judy Miller can go to jail for a story she never even wrote for a leak that Fitzgerald didn't even find was illegal, these guys can certainly warm a cell.
Captain Ed sums it all up rather nicely:
The inclusion of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission is particularly telling. The Times urged the Bush administration to adopt the Commision recommendations in toto, parroting the Kerry campaign's demands after the publication of the Commission's final report. They considered the Commission's findings determinative, and brooked little dissent from the Bush administration when it hesitated to implement the entire set of recommendations. Now, however, Keller and Pinch Sulzberger finds them less than expert on matters of national security, and their efforts "half-hearted".
Well, one has to have a heart before one can put half of it into any effort, and as far as Keller has demonstrated, we lack evidence that he qualifies. His whiny excuse-making had already been rightly and roundly denounced as non-responsive. Now we know it was dishonest and misleading as well. The New York Times has descended rapidly into the mainstream media's equivalent of the Weekly World News. The Sulzbergers may want to rethink Pinch's oversight of the family business.
Related:
Just One Minute Tom Maguire, with tongue firmly planted in cheek opines:
Hmm. At the CNN site, the story is this:
Keller said he knew of only three people outside of the administration who were asked by the administration to contact the paper -- Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton from the 9/11 commission, and Democratic Rep. Jack Murtha.
"Not all of them urged us not to publish," Keller said.
Keller, who was accused of arrogance by Snow, told CNN, "I think it would be arrogant of us to pre-empt the work of Congress and the courts by deciding on our own that these programs are perfectly legal and abuse-proof."
"We spent weeks listening to the administration's case," he said.
Well, I am glad the Times decided to pre-empt Congress by publishing their story rather than deferring to Congressional hearings, legislation, or, dare we say it, Congressional silence.
So does that mean one of the three did tell them to publish? Or, does it mean one expressed no opinion one way or the other? Which one? Where's the sunshine?
Leave it to Sweetness and Light Check out the date of this editorial in the NYT:
What a bunch of BDS-laden hypocrites!
The New York Times on a Swift Boat to Court? American Thinker "In today’s terror-stricken world, which is more vital to the public’s interest: being safe, or being informed?"