NATIONAL SECURITY LEAKS: Are White House politics and not the safety of the nation, the primary factors at work?
by BUCK SEXTON
August 22, 2012
President Obama has dismissed and derided the former military and intelligence officers who believe his administration passed out sensitive national security information for partisan gain. In a press conference yesterday, he said of the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund and similar groups-"I don't take these folks too seriously."
Unsurprisingly, the White House has been quick to attack the men behind these accusations instead of explaining to the American people that this administration has not leveraged defense secrets for positive press reports. The best Obama was able to muster in his defense yesterday was "this kind of stuff springs up before election time."
Of course, this does not adequately address accusations of leaks that many believe could amount to treason. While the specific source of the leaks remains in question, as a former intelligence officer, I see why so many informed observers, including the OPSEC whistleblowers, smell something rotten at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Let's press into the facts of the case.
From the start of the controversy, the news articles that leaked the information claimed that their sources were members of "Obama's national security team." That would seem the drain the pool of possible leakers rather quickly, but alas-no progress has been made on the White House-approved investigation.
Even without that massive clue, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence pointing to the White House as the source. The leaks are obviously political because they are positive. Leaks usually hurt administrations, but not these leaks. Whoever told the press about these sensitive national security matters had very high-level access and used it to lionize the President. From the Bin Laden raid details to the President's so-called "Kill List," the leaks bolstered the perception that Obama had transformed into a hawk.
In response to the OPSEC group's accusations, media outlets often tout that Obama's Department of Justice has brought more Espionage Act prosecutions-six and counting-than every President before him combined. They cite this to further a narrative that Obama takes leaking seriously, but that's a misreading. The prosecutions have everything to do with appearances for Obama and very little to do with national security.
Leaks can create major political headaches, as seen during the Bush years. To blunt this liability, the Obama administration established an early precedent: leak, and Attorney General Holder's DOJ will ruin your life. This approach ensnared a range of offenders-from legitimately dangerous offenses to a case against former NSA analyst Thomas Drake that completely fell apart in court.
Thus the Obama administration has maintained a two-track enforcement approach to leakers. Senior political operatives seem to get away with them; working-level national security professionals cower in fear of DOJ's wrath.
Instead of pulling clearances and firing alleged leakers, Obama's DOJ jumped right to felony charges in these instances. Regardless of the trial outcomes, the message to all who have classified access and a political disagreement with Obama was heard loud and clear.
At the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland, President Obama suggested that Catholic schools are divisive. The controversy over the president’s comment prompted a Twitter user to wonder exactly what kinds of schools Obama would approve of. It only takes a tweet to get things going: I propose a new hashtag: #ObamaApprovedSchools – Hogwart's Academy – […]
“May we, in humility, confront this national sin, & may we mourn what abortion reveals about the conscience of our nation.” – @VirginiaFoxx— Sister Toldjah (@sistertoldjah) June 19, 2013 Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), speaking on behalf of the unborn and in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (HR 1797), was brought to tears […]
Unlike many in the GOP, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is willing to speak bluntly and honestly about the Gang of Eight’s amnesty proposal. Of course, he is absolutely right. It is 1986 all over again. And if the Gang of Eight bill passes, the low-wage-worker lobby will be pushing another amnesty proposal down our throats […]
That’s exactly what happened, as evidenced by this quote from President Obama at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland: 'If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can't see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,' […]
Logic is not exactly Amanda Marcotte’s strong suit. Case in point: Marcotte can’t seem to wrap her head around the idea that Republicans are capable of having opinions about abortion. The only way she can explain it is that they’re icky: It is always unnerving to realize how many creepy Republican politicians were once gynecologists.— […]
The views expressed in the articles published in FamilySecurityMatters.org are those of the authors. These views should not be construed as the views of FamilySecurityMatters.org or of the Family Security Foundation, Inc., as an attempt to help or prevent the passage of any legislation, or as an intervention in any political campaign for public office. COPYRIGHT 2012 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.