They.... lied?

I can't believe it!

Money quote:

The administration, it seemed clear to me, had lied to us.

Mr. Lichtbau missed a huge opportunity to save some Iraqi and American lives.

If Kerry had won due to disclosure of this information, it is highly probable that he would have scaled down our involvement in Iraq.

I wonder if Mr. Lichtbau feels any guilt.

gergor -- I think it's clear from the article that Mr. Lichtbau feels regret, and some degree of guilt, even if he does not pour it out. Save your damnation for the unrepentant.

Remorse won't bring back the dead.

The Times held onto this story because they didn't want it to be a factor in the 2004 elections. That's not my interpretation -- that's the reason Bill Keller gave.

So gregor's comment is right-on.

"The Times held onto this story because they didn't want it to be a factor in the 2004 elections."

and sure enough, it is likely that it *was* a factor. what is hidden has effects just as does what is visible.

Read the whole thing? That's what we have you you for.

The administration, it seemed clear to me, had lied to us.

There are a lot of tombstones on which this could be inscribed.

It is bitterly ironic that NYT did not want this story to influence an election when that was the purpose of the program! Do we really think it was to listen in on terrorists? FISA gives plenty of leeway in allowing the DOJ to spy, even on Americans, so there is more to this story than even Lichtblau says.

How many of those intercepted communications were calls and e-mails from and to Howard Dean and then John Kerry? If we were to ever find out, and I doubt we will, I would bet there would be plenty there.

If you want to get tough on the "suckers" being taken in by Bush et al, check out this link:
John Dolan
He's right IMHO, and it gives you (if you're not a coservative) a good buzz.

Eric Lichtblau tells all in a book that is years too late to protect America. BFD.

It looks like the entire media elite is still in bed with the Republicans. They are already shilling for John "100 more years" McCain. In 5 or 6 years some of the shills are going to come to the realization that they helped get a lot of people killed. Then they will write mea culpa books like Lichtblau and we are supposed to forgive them. Give me a break.

In the immortal words of John Wayne, "sorry doesn't get it done, dude."

What I'd like to know is whether there's anything else the the Times, or any of the rest of the MSM for that matter, is sitting on and not publishing?

Sorry for the typo, I meant "that the Times"

Here's a marvelous bit:

the episode was critical in reflecting the media's shifting attitudes toward matters of national security—from believing the government to believing it less.

The "believing the government" part of that shift was in late 2004.

Boy howdy, do we need independent media in this country.

Cheney: "So?"

Sorry huh?

So, what's their punishment for deciding to not do their job and inform Americans what their government is up to?

Will they kill themselves?

Will they quit their jobs and never pretend to be journalists ever again?

Will they dock themselves pay?

Or, more likely, will they just say "sorry" and go on as if nothing happened and people didn't really die because of their stupidity?

There was never any doubt about the illegaility of the program. The media wants to exonerate itself. The Times allowed a demonstrably crooked, incompetent and amoral administration to intimidate them. Nice. Accountability is the raison d'etre of the press. Here we see they themselves are unaccountable. I blame the media for the disasters of the past 8 years. I predict they will become harsh critics again for President Obama . . .

N.B., that John Dolan article rocks! Good tip.

Don't buy the bastard's book. In fact don't buy any of those sons of b**ches mea culpa books. They have given Bush, Cheney and McCain a free ride for far too long.

As to the rest, Kevin could start by culling a lot of the usual suspects from his posts. If we don't talk about them, they don't exist.

Jeez, people, give the man a break. He believed his government when it said that lives were at stake and national security was at risk. It is not unreasonable to give the government the benefit of the doubt when these issues are on the table.

Now, of course, we know that with *this* administration, they abused any and all trust that was given to them. Maybe Lichtblau should have known by 2003-4 that it was all a crock of shit, but if he wasn't willing to get a bunch of people killed (according to the gov't) or enable a bunch of terrorist plots (again according to the gov't) who can blame him?

I say give the man some credit for eventually seeing through the bull and blowing the whistle anyway. Most in the media haven't yet done that. Lichtblau has done more good, by blowing this story, all of his John Ashcroft stories, etc. than anyone here on this blog or in the comments.

And *maybe* give him some grief for being too credulous, but not too much. Remember: More than 1/2 of this country was too credulous in 2004, proven by their reelection (or election) of GWB.

You want to talk about integrity? Integrity is the lowly AT&T tech whistleblower who reported that AT&T routed its fiber trunks through the NSA in a back room.

The Times has no integrity. When did they promote themselves to be judge and jury? Checks and Balances dude. Checks and balances. Neither prosecutor nor defense get to be the judge. In many cases the jury decides the matter. Checks and balances.

They need to have their feet held to the fire so that even if they don't learn then those following them will.

zadig,

He believed his government when it said that lives were at stake and national security was at risk. It is not unreasonable to give the government the benefit of the doubt when these issues are on the table.

Nope, sorry. That is not a reporter's job. That is not an editor's job.

Hell, lives are at stake during a murder trial too. Why bother with the trial? The jury should just believe the government prosecutors and kill the perp. It would save a lot of money right?

Checks and balances. Checks and balances. You cannot be one of the checks if you don't check.

What makes me absolutely sick is when the "checks" get the prestige and perqs of the title without doing the hard work.

zadig,

And *maybe* give him some grief for being too credulous, but not too much. Remember: More than 1/2 of this country was too credulous in 2004, proven by their reelection (or election) of GWB.

I'll say it again - Lichtblau is not an average guy. He claimed to be a reporter. A journalist. That is different. He took money for having the title without doing his job. He assumed the job of Judge instead. The job description for being a reporter requires skepticism, not credulity.

When a bridge falls down and people die because an Engineer makes mathematical mistakes should we say "Awww, most people can't do that math, give him a break?"

Tripp,

The job description for being a reporter requires skepticism, not credulity.

See, that's the problem. In practice, the job description for being a reporter at the NYT means whatever the NYT says it means. And they apparently didn't think it meant what you or I would think it meant.

It's definitely fair to hold people who know more to a higher standard, especially if they purportedly have the job of ferreting out the truth. And our media have fallen down on that job, catastrophically. All I'm saying is, it's not unique to Lichtblau.

Hell, lives are at stake during a murder trial too.

Since you bring up trials, if the court says "keep these underage witnesses' names a secret because their lives might be at risk" should the reporter go ahead and print it anyway, because you can't take the government's word for the danger? What about keeping a rape victim's identity a secret -- should the reporter just ignore the gov't request to hide that?

The fact is, a reporter has to use judgment to determine when to leave out sensitive information. You can question the reporter's judgment, especially in hindsight when it's much, much easier, but you can't condemn the practice entirely.

Lichtblau has done a lot of good reporting, and a lot of good whistleblowing and exposing of government practices. Because he (or his editors... I haven't read the book yet) used flawed judgment to withhold a story, we'll condemn his whole career as a journalist?

Don't attack your allies. There are people much, much more deserving of your ire than this particular reporter. Can you honestly point to many journalists with a *better* overall record than this guy, whatever his flaws?

Because he (or his editors... I haven't read the book yet) used flawed judgment to withhold a story, we'll condemn his whole career as a journalist? zadig.

What about the tattered Constitution? Does that have any meaning? We aren't talking about looking another direction when some politician visits a hooker, we are talking about the systematic violation of the United States Constitution by officials charged with protecting it.

Since you bring up trials, if the court says "keep these underage witnesses' names a secret because their lives might be at risk" should the reporter go ahead and print it anyway, because you can't take the government's word for the danger?

If the court has a well-known and well-documented history of repeatededly and compulsively lying to you, and you can tell just by looking at the "underage witnesses" that they all appear to be in their mid-40s, and you have good reason to suspect the whole supposed crime has been cooked up by them just to falsely implicate the accused, then no, you shouldn't take the government's word for it.

zadig,

Lichtblau has done a lot of good reporting, and a lot of good whistleblowing and exposing of government practices. Because he (or his editors... I haven't read the book yet) used flawed judgment to withhold a story, we'll condemn his whole career as a journalist?

You bring up a well known Ole and Sven joke. For those who may not know it Ole and Sven jokes are popular in Minnesota, usually told with a bad Swedish accent because few can come close to a Norwegian accent.

Ole and Sven are farmers sitting on Ole's porch looking out at his farm. Sven asks Ole why he is so down in the dumps. Ole says "Look at my driveway I built myself. Look at my fields ripe with food. Look at my house I built with these two hands. Does anyone notice that? Am I Ole the farmer, Ole the builder? Nope. A guy makes one little mistake and all the sudden he's Ole the pig-*ucker."

John McCain gives the press free drinks and weenies! There is no amount of overseas suffering, warfare, death, corruption, mayhem or vice, nor is there any domestic issue that could overshadow the importance of drinks and weenies to our media. If Hitler were around today, handing out free schnitzel, lager, Jagermeister and Leibfraumilch, he would be the frigging king of the EU!