Question the Media: Lichtblau Live Blog

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:11:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

mcjoan has a live blog going with NY Times reporter Eric Lichtblau who broke the warrantless surveillance story. He is discussing his new book on the subject:

As political bombshells go, the headline that popped up on New York Times Web site on December 15, 2005, "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts," was a pretty big one, the biggest in the chronicling of the Bush administration's "war on terror." The story had been well over a year in the making, the process of it coming to light filled with nearly as much intrigue as the story itself.

More...

Eric Lichtblau and his colleague James Risen won a much deserved Pulitzer prize for that story. They also won the enmity of the administration and the right wing Wurlitzer. Just this year, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell predicted that "some Americans are going to die" because of the public debate. Now that the full story of Lichtblau's and Risen's reporting on the NSA warrantless wiretapping, on torture, on FBI- and CIA-bungled operations, on Cheney and Gonzales and Addington and Bradbury and Ashcroft and Yoo, is compiled in one coherent and compelling book by Mr. Lichtblau, he's like to see his press pass, one revoked but restored by the Pentagon, permanently black-listed.

Ask the reporter.

< Penn Is Out Of Clinton Campaign! | Wright Not Put to Bed Yet for Obama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Question the Media: Lichtblau Live Blog | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Another impeachable offense is confirmed... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by ctrenta on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:52:13 PM EST

... and the Democratic Congress says we shouldn't be holding them accountable. Investigations into impeachment is the wise thing to do. It's obvious it's not going to happen but I really think history is not going to look too kindly on the so-called Democratic opposition years from now. Pity, really.

you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:25:09 PM EST

according to the Senator for Change:

Obama Opposes Bush, Cheney Impeachment
The Illinois Democrat said he would not back such a move although he has been distressed by the "loose ethical standards, the secrecy and incompetence" of a "variety of characters" in the administration.
"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breeches, and intentional breeches of the president's authority," he said.
Obama spoke at a weekly constituent breakfast he and fellow Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin sponsor. He was asked about impeachment.

My doubts about Obama's "progressive" values got confirmed after I read that quote.


No Progressive (none / 0) (#5)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:04:08 PM EST

In their right mind, who was capable of thinking would bother. Can you imagine an impeachment going, going, going, grey mail, stalling, until after the election. Most Americans, including myself would be furious at the Democrats for wasting time and money on an entirely symbolic gesture, read empty.

The SCOTUS is to important to hand over to the Republicans for another four years.


Impeachment (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by sister of ye on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:27:57 PM EST

Heaven forfend that have the president occupied with coming before Congress to answer for his unconstitutional behavior. Better to just give a nod and a wink and an unfettered at destroying our country's welfare and reputation.

As for Sen. Obama, if lying our country into war, blowing off a PDB warning of imminent attacks on the country, illegally wiretapping U.S. citizens, breaking signed international conventions and U.S. laws that forbid torture, and blatantly announcing that he and his administration don't have to obey the law aren't impeachable offenses, what precisely would be?


No (none / 0) (#7)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:33:51 PM EST

It is important to keep the eye on the ball. There was too little time to start impeachment and have it succeed. Failure would have been a disaster for the Democratic party. Now we have a good chance of regaining the WH.

Kick and scream all you want, I am glad that the grownups were in charge over this one.


Obama said nothing about timing (none / 0) (#11)
by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:03:04 PM EST

of impeachment. He could have parried, and said yes, Bush's behavior is impeachable, but Congress needs instead to focus on what we can get done quickly. I can halfway buy that argument.

But Obama said that BushCo's actions weren't grave enough to warrant impeachment. It boggles the mind. And he's supposed to know about what's unconstitutional behavior.

Mar 30, 2007 ... "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution."

...yeah, except for when he doesn't think unconstitutional actions are really "grave" actions.


No time to start impeachment proceedings? (none / 0) (#16)
by sister of ye on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:10:04 PM EST

Baloney. The House started an impeachment inquiry against Bill Clinton in Oct. 1997. Had Pelosi started an inquiry in Feb. 2007 it would only have been four months later relative to the end of Bush's term. I'm no lawyer, but since House investigations as well as senatorial impeachment trials are functions of the legislative branch, they shouldn't be subject to judicial interference.

At the least, occupying Bush and his cronies with defending themselves in Congress might have helped distract them from more active efforts to gut the Constitution.


Apples And Oranges (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:18:52 PM EST

Different numbers in the senate. It is the math that makes it impossible. The secrecy aka greymail tactics are not helping either.

Do you have a mathematical idea how it would work to impeach GW? During a war? For example do you think Lieberman would cooperate? Pelosi was correct.


Not apples and oranges (none / 0) (#21)
by ctrenta on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:20:33 PM EST

Keep in mind, Nixon's impeachment took three months. Clinton's impeachment and trial combined took four months. The current Congress has wasted more than that amount of time already in avoiding impeachment (Steroid hearings anyone?), and has almost nothing to show for it (a minimal partial and gradual correction to the plummeting minimum wage). Congress has taken no serious steps toward ending the occupation of Iraq, and has in fact provided major new funding for it. During Nixon's impeachment and the lead up to it, in contrast, the threat of impeachment allowed Congress to raise the minimum wage, create the Endangered Species Act, and end a war.


Apples And Oranges (none / 0) (#23)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:28:22 PM EST

The composition of the Senate was vastly different in numbers and mentality during Nixon. The Republicans were not in lockstep. Same with Clinton.

In order to impeach you need 66 senators after the house votes for it. It is an impossibility in this Legislature.

Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a President, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. Otherwise, the Vice President, in his capacity as President of the Senate, or the President pro tempore of the Senate presides. This may include the impeachment of the Vice President, although legal theories suggest that allowing a person to be the judge in the case where she or he was the defendant would be a blatant conflict of interest. If the Vice President did not preside over an impeachment (of someone other than the President), the duties would fall to the President Pro Tempore.
In order to convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required.

WiKiPedia

Chief Justice Right WIng? and which Democrats will cave? and which Republicans will move out of lockstep? It is a mathematical impossibility today. You are dreaming.


We only need 16 to comply... (none / 0) (#25)
by ctrenta on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:44:52 PM EST

Read comment #22.

Congress has a better chance getting things done with investigations into impeachment than they do trying to clean up Major League Baseball.

So Squeaky, it doesn't bother you that by not holding Bush & Cheney accountable that it gives the green light to future leaders? What do you think should be done in order to make sure nothing is repeated again in future administrations? The genie's been taken outa the bottle and we can't put it back in. I think future leaders will do the same, if not worse actions than Bush & Cheney. Whether we win or lose, it will be worth it, for the long term health of our country and system of government.


Keep Dreaming (none / 0) (#26)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:28:33 PM EST

So Squeaky, it doesn't bother you that by not holding Bush & Cheney accountable that it gives the green light to future leaders?

Never said that, so don't even go there. What is more important to me is that the SCOTUS not be filled with one more republican appointee for a long time. That will have a much greater affect on the future of the American landscape than a failed attempt at impeachment.

Only 16 Republicans. That is a laugh, I do not think you have been following US politics for some time. Besides it would take more than 16 because Lieberman, Nelson, Pryor et al, will not go for it, they are Bushlickers.

And if the GOP is so hell bent on distancing itself from Bush why is McBush Mc Same? YOu are living in a dreamworld.


So then, what's your solution? (none / 0) (#28)
by ctrenta on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:12:43 PM EST

As John Lennon said, "You may say I'm a dreamer... but I'm not the only one."

I gotta give credit to all those wanting our elected members of Congress to pursue investigations into impeachment. I just don't think any member of Congress up for re-election will want to associate with a president and vice-president who's been put under the spotlight like this. It's not like Clinton's impeachment when he had high approval ratings and sympathy. Bush and Cheney have none of that. So I don't think we need to worry what the public thinks.

As a I said before, if this is all about winning elections, then the Dems should pursue it. Whether they remove or not, the electorate has shown that they reward those who stand for the Constitution and history backs this up. Go read John Nichols "The Genius of Impeachment" and that's your evidence to the argument.

What I want to know from you Squeaky is what is your solution to hold Bush & Cheney accountable? Mind sharing that? Elections don't count. That's letting them off the hook and sends a bad message to future leaders. To me it's like wishing things will get better if we just wait for the next guy/girl to come in. What makes you think they won't abuse power when they get in? Especially if we don't do something? If you don't have a solution for accountability, then don't bother criticizing our efforts for wanting to do something. At least we get off our behinds and try to change the world, not throw potshots at those you disagree with. Know what I'm talking about?


Get Back To Me (none / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:57:10 PM EST

With the names of the sixty six senators that would vote to impeach the chimp and his trainer.


We take it one step at a time. (none / 0) (#30)
by ctrenta on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:48:41 AM EST

Finding 66 senators is something you do last. I don't think it's on their radars right now. Besides, we focus on the House, which is what the impeachment movement is working on now.

While the odds are stacked against us, that doesn't mean we throw up our arms, go home, and quit. We can't afford not to do anything or say, "oh, that's never gonna happen." I know that certainly wasn't the case with Congresswoman Liz Holtzman in '73-'74. Even though there were many more Dems back then, many of them did not go along with the House Judiciary back then. We all know the rest.

So even though it's impossible, it still doesn't mean we don't do anything. Besides, if the Red Sox can win four straight games come from behind to beat the Yankees and go on to win the World Series, then miracles do happen. Don't we all live on hope? If not, how could we keep going?


The Kind Of Hope (none / 0) (#31)
by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:47:26 AM EST

You are espousing is like the unfettered hope of a child. Good thing the grownups have been in charge on this one. When Kucinich tried to impeach Cheney, a much more popular idea than impeaching Bush, the House republicans voted against the Democratic leadership who wanted to stop the measure.

From WaPo

Republicans decided they had a chance to politically shame Democrats into a full debate on the sensitive issue. Republicans gleefully said they wanted the debate to show the public how many Democrats would actually support impeaching Cheney, which they consider a move supported only by a fringe element of anti-war activists.
More than 120 members, predominantly Republicans, then switched their votes in favor of holding a one-hour debate on the issue, with a final vote of 251-162 supporting a debate on impeachment. Rather than allow a debate fraught with political risk, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) moved to send the Kucinich resolution to the Judiciary Committee...

Where it was tabled.

I would love to see both Cheney and Bush serving long jail terms, but I did not see the possibility of that happening back then. Now the idea of impeachment is absurd.


: Whatever. n/t (none / 0) (#32)
by ctrenta on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:10:17 PM EST

Why elections are not as important (none / 0) (#20)
by ctrenta on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:18:30 PM EST

Squeaky, let's review:

Even if elections were more important, we would be wise to recognize that impeachment is the best guarantee of electoral success for Democrats and Republicans alike. Voters appreciate efforts to push for a cause. Cowardice and restraint are not very popular.

When the Democrats held back from impeachment during Iran Contra, they lost the next elections. When the Democrats led the effort to investigate and impeach Nixon, they won big in the next election, even though Ford was running as an incumbent. When the Republicans tried to impeach Truman, they got what they wanted out of the Supreme Court and then won the next elections. Articles of Impeachment have been filed against 10 presidents, usually by Republicans, and usually with electoral success following. When the Republicans impeached Clinton, impeachment was actually unpopular with the public. Even so, the Republicans lost far fewer seats than is the norm for a majority party at that point in its tenure. Two years later, they lost seats in the Senate, which had acquitted, but maintained their strength in the House, with representatives who had led the impeachment charge winning big.

Parties that seek to impeach are not punished at the next election. In fact, they frequently improve their position -- as evidenced by Dems in 1974, Republicans in 1952, and all the way back to the Whigs of last century. In every election back to 1842 where House members of an opposition party to a sitting president have -- as a whole or a significant caucus within the party -- proposed impeachment of the president, that opposition party retained or improved its position in the House at the following election. There is no instance of voters responding to a significant impeachment effort by sweeping its advocates out of office. In fact, history points in a different direction -- suggesting that voters frequently reward parties for taking the Constitution and the rule of law seriously.

All the more reason to conduct investigations IMO.


: Waxman Is Working Overtime (none / 0) (#24)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:36:07 PM EST

And the R's are not cooperating because they have the numbers on their side to infinitely stall. The math will not work for impeachment. It is simply an empty gesture aka a waste of time.

It's one thing to make a judgment (none / 0) (#13)
by litigatormom on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:25:50 PM EST

AFTER investigation, that Bush/Cheney's offenses do not warrant impeachment. It's another thing for Nancy Pelosi, or Barack Obama, to decide WITHOUT such an investigation that no "grave, serious breaches" have occurred.

As for the time frame left for impeachment, the fact that time is now short is completely a function of the fact that Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table before she'd even been sworn in as Speaker.

Finally, I happen to think that even based on what we know now, Bush could be successfully impeached and convicted, and that the impeachment process would actually HELP Democrats regain the White House, not to mention solidifying majorities in both Houses.

But what do I know? I'm just a voter.


May 12, 2006 (none / 0) (#15)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:38:04 PM EST

Not enough time to impeach. The WH would tie it up in the courts with greymail, and there are not nearly enough pro impeachment senators to pull it off.

Imagine a losing Impeachment procedure going on now, weak support, in the heat of Clinton v Obama. Oy, and it would be clear that once GW is out of office it is an empyu gesture.

If the maxim every eight years of Republican rule gets a switch to Democratic rule, impeachment not working out and running up to the election would likely break the maxim.

Not worth the risk, imo.


Re: (none / 0) (#22)
by ctrenta on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:23:56 PM EST

After investigations and the trial, it will be obvious to everyone that Bush is guilty of serious crimes. At that point, many Republicans will feel compelled to vote for a guilty verdict.

Many Republican politicians oppose Bush because they feel he is hurting them politically. Many Republican voters are calling for impeachment. If Senators want to get reelected they may have to convict Bush.

To convict Bush we only need 16 Republican Senators in addition to all the Democrats. It is quite possible that we will get them.


: Who (none / 0) (#27)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:47:18 PM EST

Do you have in mind? And we do not have all the Democrats. Unlike Republicans, they do not move in lockstep. I am not even sure that the House could get a simple majority to even start the process.

i guess starting a war, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by cpinva on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:38:33 PM EST

under clearly false pretenses, doesn't, in sen. obama's mind, constitute a grave violation of the president's constitutional duties. go figure.

while you're on the live blog, tell them their cohort, frank rich, is, without a doubt, one of the era's unmitigated assh*les. that their employer, the nyt's, allows him and maureen dowd free reign on their rag shows just how far the "paper of record" has sunk.

: NonSequitur (none / 0) (#9)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:40:55 PM EST

I just bought the book yesterday after (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:15:32 PM EST

reading the NYT review.

Great Work (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:18:50 PM EST

Can't wait to read the book. I read that the only way Risen And Lichtblau got the Times to finally publish the article was that Risen mentioned that he was going not going to wait any longer and would put in his book. Once the decision was made the Times took the most unusual step of putting it online the night before the Front Page article, just in case the Feds stopped the presses.

I'm looking forward (none / 0) (#10)
by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:54:12 PM EST

to reading the book. How good we still have journalists like Mr. Lichtblau. May he inspire more like himself!

Pity that the book wasn't published in 2004. (none / 0) (#12)
by hairspray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:22:00 PM EST

: I've read a bit about the pressure that (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by litigatormom on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:35:21 PM EST

was brought to bear on the NYT by the Administration that resulted in the year's delay in publishing -- including the Administration's warning that the NYT would have "blood on its hands" if the terrorists attacked after publication. But that's not the only thing that delayed publication. The NYT accepted the Administration's lies about the unanimity of opinion supporting the domestic spying program -- this, after accepting Judy Miller's pathetic excuse for reporting on WMD. It was only "later," according to the NYT, that it learned that internal legal opinion had not been unanimous.
The NYT claimed that it was this discovery, along with "other additional reporting," and not the publication of Risen's book, that finally got them to publish.
Putting all that aside, however, to me the worst thing is that the NYT attempted to justify the delay by saying that it had wanted to avoid influencing the 2004 presidential election.
Isn't that what frakkin' investigative journalism is supposed to do -- influence elections? If it is okay to attempt to influence elections with Richian punditry, not with Dowdian snark, or even Brooksian whinginess, why the hell isn't it okay to influence elections with the publication of FACTS demonstrating the corruption of the Constitution?

Int'l Conference on Computers, Freedom, Privacy (none / 0) (#18)
by Ben Masel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:07:40 AM EST

May 20-23, New Haven CT
Website
Facebook Group

The level of violations on are Constitutional (none / 0) (#19)
by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:04:22 AM EST

rights has been unyielding. The administration, media and legislative branches have all done us a disservice. Including Clinton and Obama, what we need to do is show the will of the people and vote against the current administrations next in line McCain. Whether that be Obama or Clinton whoever it is we need to send a message. Very disturbing times we live in. The collapse of the freedoms we all hold dear are close at hand. This is why we all need to come together. Like it or not if every elected official is given the memo vote in our interests or you will not be elected then you will see change. But for this to happen we need a majority of Americans to become engaged in the process. Which may be alot more difficult then it sounds. It's like smoking ciggaretes we know we should quit and it will kill us but we just keep on smoking. Politics is much the same way we vote based on gut feelings and likability and not policy stance or experience which hurts us in the long run. Yes I'm an Obama fan with a slight crush on Clinton. They both rock although I'm sure many of you will say at least I'm half right.