Posted on 06/27/2006 6:24:22 AM PDT by Republican Red
TREASURY TO KELLER: "IRRESPONSIBLE;" MURTHA, KEAN, HAMILTON INTERVENED By Michelle Malkin · June 26, 2006 07:24 PM ***update: video of Keller revelations about Murtha here***
Keller CNN interview video
Keller: “Not all of them urged us not to publish.”posted at 12:06 am on June 27, 2006 by Bryan
Hm. The Bush administration asked three prominent people outside the administration to contact the NYT and urge them not to publish the SWIFT story. Two of the three did urge the Times not to publish, but according to Times editor Bill Keller, “not all of them urged us not to publish.” A bit later in the CNN interview with Keller, we find out who the three Democrats are: Lee Hamilton (who was a conservative Democrat when he held office and a co-chair of the 9-11 Omission), Gov. Tom Kean (also from the 9-11 Omission) and Rep. Jack Murtha.
“Not all of them urged us not to publish,” says Keller. Which means one of them green-lighted the story, or at least didn’t go to bat for the administration. The boss has the definitive answer as to which two of the three did urge the Times not to publish: Hamilton and Kean, who were the co-chairs of the Omission. They’re identified by Treasure Secretary John Snow as having weighed in with the Times against publication.
Which leaves Murtha as the one who did not urge the Times not to publish the story. Murtha greenlighted it. That’s the same Jack Murtha who has been prejudging the Marines guilty of a massacre in Haditha and trying to get us out of Iraq quick enough so we can all watch the fledgling Iraqi government collapse rather than waiting until it can defend itself.
And it’s the same Jack Murtha who was an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1980 Abscam bust. Question for the White House: Whose idiotic idea was it to make Murtha your go-to guy with the Times? Who thought you could trust that senile buffoon?
Ping to a new thread about Murtha's negotiations with the NYT not to publish.
If this is true that Murtha is the one who didn't press the NYT, we need to get this to his opponent's campaign.
Murtha was waiting for a payoff from the WH that never came.
Why would the administration contact Murtha, anyway?
Just to get him to PROVE he's a traitorous back-stabber?
Fox and Friends reported Murtha asked the NYT to hold the story. Somebody is wrong.
I guess we need a transcript of the interview...getting hard to keep up!
That video of Murtha with the Sheik in 1980 should be in every GOP congressional commercial.
Somebody is lying.
So Murtha is the man who has the final say on de-classifying documents? Wow.
Not exactly. INDC Bill now has a post up which explains it much better than I could:
http://www.indcjournal.com/
Murtha-NYT Notes (The Bush Admin Asked Murtha to Intervene?)
Posted by Bill
I've seen a few things get buried in quick analysis of Wolf Blitzer's interview with NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller, and I'd like to highlight a very odd aspect of his statements. As I e-mailed Allah at Hot Air, Wolf Blitzer explicitly asks Keller, "who were the three outside of the administration who asked asked you not to report this information," and Keller names "Murtha" as one of the three.
But earlier in the conversation, Keller says "I'm happy to tell you who I spoke to, but I'll leave it to them to tell you what they actually said," and prior to that he says "Three people outside of the administration were asked by the administration to call us ... all of them spoke, they thought in confidence, and I don't think I'll, I don't think I'll breach the confidence of what they said, um, uh, although I will say that not all of them urged us not to publish."
There are two major pieces of information to take from this:
1. Not all of the 3 individuals who spoke to the Times urged them not to publish. Since two of them are essentially on the record as asking the Times not to publish via Treasury Secretary Snow, Murtha was the one who "did not urge them not to publish."
2. Keller states that the three individuals "were asked by the administration to call us," essentially stating that someone in the Executive briefed John Murtha about the impending publication and asked him to call the Times to intervene.
Assuming that Keller's statement is accurate, I don't know who's crazier: John Murtha, for urging (or at least not trying to stop) the Times for exposing the program, or the fool in the Bush Administration who assumed that Murtha would be a rational advocate, prioritizing national security over his severe case of BDS.
Of course, my assessment wholly relies on the accuracy of an editor of the New York Times, so, grains of salt and all.
Absentee President.
Irey should cut an ad right away. "Murtha encouraged the NY Times to leak a classified successful anti-terrorism program."
Put the burden on Murtha and the Times for once..
Krauthammer reported that he was told Murtha tried to get them to hold the story. I heard him say it.
Keller just gave Murtha opponent another 10 points in the polls IMHO.
Thanks for that post RR.
I wasn't talking about Krauthammer :)
RR broke the interview down. Good stuff. Post #12
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.