Yesterday, Slate published a 1,733 word adapted-extract from Eric Lichtblau’s upcoming book, Bush’s Law: The Remaking of American Justice. The section, while full of other interesting nuggets, is notable for its insider account of the tense moments leading up to The New York Times’s belated decision to publish Lichtblau and James Risen’s blockbuster December 16, 2005 story on the Bush administration’s warrantless NSA wiretapping program.
Gabe Sherman, who was, at that time, a writer for The New York Observer, is something of an expert on what happened at the Times before publication. That’s why it’s weird that yesterday, in writing on Slate’s excerpt for The New Republic, he overstepped by suggesting that “Bill Keller’s prior public comments on the episode now are contradicted by Lichtblau’s version of events.”
Why does this matter? We still don’t have a complete explanation for why the Times declined to run after a delay of at least a year. There are a lot of possible answers: that they wanted to avoid accusations of an October surprise shortly before the 2004 presidential election; that they were cowed by an atmosphere of fear; that they bought the administration’s claim that disclosing the program would unnecessarily aid and abet terrorism; that the story wasn’t truly ready; or yes, that they finally acted only to forestall being scooped by James Risen’s book. It could be all, none, or some combination of the above.
Lichtblau presumably knows a lot of the story. Yesterday, he offered just a glimpse, which we would be wise to read strictly. But here’s what Sherman offered yesterday on “The Plank”:
A lot of this confirms what we already know. But the most salient disclosure in Lichtblau’s account comes later. Lichtblau writes that Risen’s book was the “trigger” that spurred Times editors to finally run the long-awaited NSA investigation.
“Risen spoke with our editors about what he was contemplating, and so began weeks of discussions between him and the editors that ultimately helped to set the story back on track,” he writes.
But re-reading Lichtblau, there’s a bit more nuance. Take a look:
One night in the spring of 2005, [Risen] called me out to his home in suburban Maryland and sat me down at his computer. There on the computer screen was a draft of a chapter called simply “The Program.” It was about the NSA’s wiretapping operation. “I’m thinking of putting this in the book,” he said. I sat and stared at the screen in silence. “You sure you know what you’re doing?” I asked finally. He shrugged.
Risen spoke with our editors about what he was contemplating, and so began weeks of discussions between him and the editors that ultimately helped to set the story back on track. Risen’s book was a trigger, but we realized we weren’t in the paper yet.
Notice how Lichtblau says that it was “a” trigger, and not, as Sherman wrote, “the” trigger. Also, note how Lichtblau and Risen’s computer-front conversation, as recounted, is remarkably undefinitive: I’m thinking about, you sure?, and then a shrug. That vagueness is only underscored by the next sentence’s use of the word “contemplating.” What, exactly was he contemplating?
It’s not at all clear at that point what Risen had decided to include or not include in his book. And, as Sherman himself reported for the Observer in January 2006, the Times’s editors didn’t even know that “The Program” chapter would be in the book at the time they published the article.