WH knew about leaked papers, thanked NYT for being responsible

[babylonsister]

snip//

The Times has clashed with the White House before over publishing secret information. In late 2005, George W. Bush intimated to Times editor Bill Keller that the paper would have blood on its hands if details of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program appeared in print.

But it doesn't seem like the Obama White House raised any similar alarms, to judge by Baquet's account.

Baquet, along with reporters Mark Mazzetti and Eric Schmitt, went to the White House last week to discuss what they planned on publishing. (Politico’s Glenn Thrush first reported on aspects of the meeting, but did not speak with Baquet.)

“I did in fact go the White House and lay out for them what we had,” Baquet said. “We did it to give them the opportunity to comment and react. They did. They also praised us for the way we handled it, for giving them a chance to discuss it, and for handling the information with care. And for being responsible.”

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100726/pl_yblog_upshot/nyt-defends-publishing-leaked-military-records

[Ian David]

1. That's because Obama never called someone from The NY Times a Major League Asshole...

... and then never shut them out of interviews.

[HughMoran]

2. Interesting

In some ways, the unvarnished truth about what's going on there adds a seriousness to the debate that can get lost during the political debate. I like the approach, condemn the release of secret documents, then praise the NYT for being responsible and move forward.

[babylonsister]

4. I'm idly wondering if this was a calculation by the WH.

Could they have wanted the release of all these documents to become an issue they would have to address, possibly leading to ending our involvement earlier? A girl can dream... :)

[Clio the Leo]

5. lol, so is Rush....

http://twitter.com/owillis/status/19584525321

The simple fact of the matter is, if the President didn't want us over there, we wouldn't be. He's said since 2002 that he thought we should refocus our efforts on Af-Pakistan. We're left with either questioning his judgement our our knowledge of the facts at hand.

Love ya Babs .... but no. ;)

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Different situation than warrantless wiretapping

In the WikiLeaks case, a web site, and multiple newspapers both domestic and foreign had, and were planning to publish, the same exact information. Asking the Times to not publish would have done zero to suppress the info from getting out.

In the case of the (still ongoing!) warrantless wiretapping, the Times was the sole source.