Yesterday, NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell interviewed James Risen, the reporter who broke the NSA surveillance story and the author of the just-released State of War. The ego of the man is really something—he claims to be certain of the motivations of his sources, takes it upon himself to decide when the law should and should not be broken, has no second thoughts about the possible impact of his revelations on national security, and endorses the sanctity of the New York Times secrets.

____________________


When asked why the public should trust the revelations of Risen’s whistle-blowers, he responded by saying that they weren’t motivated by anything except a sense of seeing something that deeply troubled them, and this made them patriots. Evidently, Risen considers himself to be an expert at ferreting out hidden agendas, should they exist.

    Mitchell: You’ve described your sources as classic whistleblowers. Why should we trust you and them and their version of events? They were anonymous sources.

    Risen: Well, I think that these were people who came forward because they believed something was wrong in the government and that they felt that, you know, they weren’t motivated by anything, I think, other than a sense that they were seeing something that was deeply troubling and they felt the American people should know about it. And I think that in a very real way makes them patriots . . .

Risen believes in the rule of law—sometimes. It’s up to him to decide when it does, and does not apply.

    Mitchell: Weren’t they breaking the law?

    Risen: I think that’s really a balancing act.

It never passed through his mind that his article could undermine our nation’s security.

    Mitchell: Did you have any concerns about revealing this secret program?

    Risen: No, I thought that the American people really needed to know about this. I think it had to be debated publicly.

While he feels obligated to reveal the government’s secrets, he sees no need to disclose those of the New York Times.

    Mitchell: Was there pressure not to report this before the election?

    Risen: Well, I can’t get into all the details about what happened inside The Times . . .

    Mitchell: What changed to permit The Times to publish this story after holding it for a year?

    Risen: Well, I think that you know we got more information as the paper has said, but I have agreed not to discuss in any detail what happened.

When asked about the CIA’s role in the War on Terror, he immediately changes the topic to the CIA’s role in Iraq and is apologetic about the CIA’s failure to connect the dots before 9/11.

    Mitchell: You are very, very tough on the CIA and the administration in general in both the war on terror and the run up to the war and the war itself — the post-war operation. Let’s talk about the war on terror. Why do you think they missed so many signals and what do you think caused the CIA to have this sort of break down as you describe it?

    Risen: I think that, you know, to me, the greater break down was really on Iraq. It’s very difficult to have known ahead of time about these 19 hijackers.