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.
Noted ornithologist Jeb Bush today confirmed that the call of the right-wing “wacko bird” is the standard chirp, and he’s adept at ignoring the sound. The Washington Post reports that Bush, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, defended his conservative credentials and assured supporters, “I will be able to, I think, manage my way […]
In its coverage of the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which is headed to the House floor tomorrow, the New York Times was careful to note that the idea that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks is a “scientifically disputed theory.” Pro-lifers, though, used the #TheyFeelPain hashtag today to pressure legislators to at […]
One thing that you never see and hear in Washington, D.C. is somebody looking at a piece of legislation and saying “have you lost weight?” That’s certainly not the case with the immigration reform legislation: Immigration bill largest since Affordable Care Act, weighs 24 pounds washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/…— WatersandHoodReport (@watersandhood) June 17, 2013 President Clinton taking healthy […]
The above tweet references an article in the New Yorker written by Ryan Lizza. In the piece, Lizza quotes an unnamed staffer for Sen. Marco Rubio as saying a guest-worker program is a necessity because some American workers “can’t cut it.” National Review’s Rich Lowry, who mentioned the quote at NRO’s The Corner blog, pointed […]
Let’s be honest. We had never, ever, not for a second mistaken President Obama for former Vice President Dick Cheney. But now that Obama has reportedly claimed in an interview with Charlie Rose that he’s not Dick Cheney, we’re beginning to have our suspicions. Maybe the Huffington Post wasn’t that far off with its mock-up […]
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.