Dan Froomkin summarized the problem nicely yesterday: “In accusing the press — and specifically, the [tag]New York Times[/tag] — of putting American lives at risk, President [tag]Bush[/tag] and his allies have escalated their ongoing battle with the [tag]media[/tag] to nuclear proportions.”
Indeed. We’ve see Bush and his supporters get upset over media revelations on the White House’s legally dubious conduct before, but last week’s reports about Bush’s secret international [tag]banking[/tag] surveillance program have raised the temperature from simmer to boil. Phrases such as “[tag]treason[/tag],” “aiding and abetting,” and “siding with al Qaeda” have all been used, rather casually, by conservative personalities on mainstream news outlets. As I noted yesterday, one relatively high-profile right-wing blogger even recommended “executing” [tag]journalists[/tag].
On the Hill, House Homeland Security Chairman [tag]Peter King[/tag] (R-N.Y.) has called for an “investigation and prosecution” of the NYT. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman . [tag]Pat Roberts[/tag] (R-Kan.) asked for a formal investigation into whether national security had been damaged by the news reports.
And today, congressional [tag]Republicans[/tag] will stoke the fires a bit more with a meaningless [tag]resolution[/tag].
House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today [tag]condemn[/tag]ing The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records.
The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents, said one Republican aide with knowledge of the impending legislation.
The vote on this may come as early as today. It’s all a lot of grandstanding, of course, but since they don’t have a legislative agenda to work on, lawmakers have nothing better to do that whine bitterly about out-of-control journalists.
So here’s a thought: if the media outlets (NYT, LAT, WSJ) have committed treason during a time of war, why not [tag]prosecute[/tag]?
Republican luminaries such as radio talk show host Melanie Morgan, Ann Coulter, and The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol have all said the news outlets need to be prosecuted. By way of follow-up, a reporter asked Tony Snow at yesterday’s briefing if the White House believes the news reports should “lead to prosecution.” Snow said, “Look let me make this really clear. At the [tag]White House[/tag], we don’t do legal referrals. That’s the business of other people. I’m not getting involved in it.”
But why not? If the White House believes a crime has been committed, it has the option — one might say it even has the obligation — to refer the matter to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation. Except, in this case, the Bush gang appears unwilling to do so.
In trying to understand why that isn’t happening, Greg Sargent narrowed down the possible motivations for the Bush gang.
1) Officials won’t act aggressively against an institution they’re claiming puts American lives at risk, because it’s politically untenable. That would mean the administration is putting politics ahead of aggressively prosecuting behavior it says endangers American lives. Or:
2) The administration doesn’t genuinely believe The Times has put our national security at risk at all, and hence won’t act. If this is the case, both Snow and Cheney blatantly and repeatedly lied.
I suppose it’s possible option #3 is that the administration has too much respect for the First Amendment guarantees on freedom of the press, but since it’s hard to even type that with a straight face, I think Sargent’s two choices are compelling. Going after news outlets would be politically dangerous or is substantively unnecessary. (Or, I suppose, it could be both.)
But doesn’t that lead us to a put-up-or-shut-up moment? If the reports are accurate and fair accounts of a legitimate news story, Bush and his allies should stop whining. If the reports are literally treasonous, then call the FBI. The GOP machine seems to have picked a spot in the middle: hollow bluster.