The New York Times' Eric Lichtblau sparks a raging debate with excerpts published last night on Slate from his new book, "Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice." Lichtblau, who with fellow reporter James Risen broke two of the more notable stories on the administration's post-9/11 surveillance techniques -- warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency, and snooping on international financial records -- used his excerpt to telescope in on some of the most interesting journalistic insights the book provides (I've read the galleys, so I can say that with some authority). At The New Republic's "The Plank," Gabe Sherman examines the role that Risen's book reportedly played in forcing the Times to publish a story that it held for 14 months. Sherman also usefully links to stories from 2006 that explored what then was known about the Times' news decisions. Over at Slate's "Convictions" blog, Eric Posner sets off a fascinating debate over the Times' role and Lichtblau's explanations of what the Times could and should have done. Followup posts by David Barron, Marty Lederman, and Posner himself thoughtfully examine the issues. What I find ironic and unspoken in all of this, though, is the simple fact that for all the flak the Times and Licthblau/Risen will take anew, it's mostly from pundits who wouldn't have anything to debate if it weren't for reporters like Lichtblau digging up the goods. Disclosure (or plug?!): Lichtblau will appear in his native Syracuse on April 21, at this event at the Newhouse School, where I'll host a discussion with him about the book and its revelations about journalism.