Stupid Questions, 1 And 2

First from Pat Buchanan, who seems to be siding with the NY Times unimpressed with the administration's response in the dustup over the publishing of national security secrets.

The U.S. government has thus declared that what the Times did was reprehensible, and rendered aid and comfort to the enemy.

But if Bush believes that, why hasn't his Justice Department been directed to investigate these crimes against the Espionage Act and acts of treason in a time of war?

Rhetoric aside, the core issue here is this:

Does Bush believe the Times committed a crime in exposing the secret financial tracking program and the secret National Security Agency program to intercept U.S. phone calls of suspected terrorists -- for which the Times won a Pulitzer? If he does, why has he not acted?

Why has he not ordered Justice to dig out the disloyal leakers and prosecute their media collaborators, who refused White House requests not to compromise these vital programs? If Bush believes what he is saying, why does he not do his duty as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States?

The phrase, often attributed to Mark Twain, comes to mind: "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."  If the Bush administration tries what Mr. Buchanan is suggesting is the logical path, the Times (and every affiliated left-wing Bush-deranged organization and individual this side of Katmandu) would scream "Fascism!!  They're trying to stifle a free press!"  And such a claim would look a lot more believable.  Mr. Buchanan later notes that:

On this issue, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., is right. He has called for an investigation of the leakers of these secret programs and criminal prosecution of the editors and the publisher of the Times: "The time has come for the American people to realize and The New York Times to realize we're at war and they can't just be on their own deciding what we declassify, what to release."

Fine.  Let a strong bi-partisan majority of Congress call for an investigation of the leakers, and call for an assessment of whether the Times violated the Espionage Act.  The Justice Department could then comply with the desires of a bi-partisan majority and proceed.

The second question is posed by Washington Post associate editor Robert Kaiser and repeated by Bill Keller and Dean Baquet, editors of the NY TImes and LA Times, respectively.

As Robert G. Kaiser, associate editor of The Washington Post, asked recently in the pages of that newspaper: "You may have been shocked by these revelations, or not at all disturbed by them, but would you have preferred not to know them at all? If a war is being waged in America's name, shouldn't Americans understand how it is being waged?"

The answer to that last question is, of course, "not if it harms national security."  And Mr. Keller and Mr. Baquet should know that, and honor it.

People will certainly say they would prefer to know about them.  There is in most individuals a desire for information, to know what's going on.  But wouldn't it have sufficed to know - as most of us did already - that the intelligence services of the country were tracking terrorist finances in general terms, without revealing the details of the specific programs?  Without, that is, revealing details that make further utility of the program questionable?  It's refreshing to know that there was some information held back.  More should have been.

Mr. Keller and Mr. Baquet showed bad judgement on this occasion.  They printed enough about a successful anti-terror program that it is likely now no longer a successful anti-terror program.  Fess up to it and move on, gentlemen, before your credibility - and your honor - are further questioned.

Submitted to Wizbang's (possibly final?) COTT LXXV.  Also, more from Lorie Byrd on the second article at Wizbang.

7/2/06 0635: Further discussion at Wizbang from The Hatemongers' Quarterly, making a similar point to mine from a few days ago.