Skip to comments.New York Times v. Obama
Posted on 06/13/2012 2:53:27 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Both cant be telling the truth. One is lying.
The New York Times says that the national-security leaks that exposed our cyber-war against Iran and how our drone strikes against terrorists operate came from aides to the president and members of the presidents national security team who were in the [White House Situation Room] during key discussions, as well as current American officials involved with the program who spoke anonymously because the effort remains highly classified. The author of one of the Times stories, David Sanger, writes that some of his sources would be fired for divulging classified material to him.
White House press secretary Jay Carney calls the charges grossly irresponsible and attacks Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for making them.
They cant both be right.
My money is on The New York Times.
At stake is not just some routine Washington leak. Both the substance conveyed and the motivation for passing the information along separate this story from the run of the mill.
The material leaked could not be more sensitive. It includes the procedure by which kill targets among al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen and the Horn of Africa are selected and the personal role the president exercises in the decisions. Another leak explored the details of Americas cyber-war against the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
But the intent of these leaks is what makes them all the more extraordinary indeed, sui generis. While most national-security leaks (like those of Daniel Ellsberg and WikiLeaks) are aimed at exposing and discrediting a program, these leaks are friendly fire designed to enhance the presidents image during a tough reelection campaign.
These leaks are just means to the end of the presidents reelection. They are of a kind with the spiking of the football presidents do.
When George W. Bush declares, Mission accomplished or Obama rehashes the details of his decision to kill bin Laden, these are justifiable victory laps around the stadium. But when the leaks compromise ongoing security operations, they fall into an entirely different category. Indeed, they border on treason.
Yet compare the fury generated by the leaking of Valerie Plames status as a CIA agent with the silence that has greeted these leaks. Plames leaking involved no threat to our nation and did not interdict or threaten any ongoing operation. The leaks were investigated out of pure partisan bloodlust.
The outrage the leaks have kindled in Congress is bipartisan. But from the White House we hear no outrage. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) said the leaks are, frankly, all against [our] national-security interest. I think they are dangerous, damaging, and whoever is doing that is not acting in the interest of the United States of America. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the leaks endanger American lives and undermine Americas national security. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has convened hearings about the leaks.
But from the administration come only the sounds of silence and the accusation that criticism of the leaks is grossly irresponsible.
Top political consultant Pat Caddell speculated that National Security Adviser Tom Donilon might be the source of the leaks. That makes sense. What made no sense was to appoint a political consultant to the role of national security adviser (unless it was for this very purpose to turn state secrets into campaign ads). But as the leaks surfaced in the newspapers, the president himself must have figured out that it was his top people doing the leaking. But he has resisted calls for an independent counsel to investigate the source of the leaks and relies, instead, on his own discredited attorney general to locate their source.
To quote the comic strip Pogo, the president should admit we have met the enemy and he is us.
Don’t worry, Hussein assigned his Attorney General to determine the source of the leaks. Rest easy.
There is a certain amount of quoting that you can do....and get away with it. In this case....they’ve done eight years worth, in just eighteen months. It may take two years, but eventually, someone is going to face a pretty sad situation with legal issues, and the President do a massive toss on them. At that point, no one is going to stand up and speak to any newspaper. If Obama wins in November, this will be an awful long period of no talking.
Ever notice how everything, every SINGLE thing, Obama does to improve his image backfires?
Thanks 2ndDivisionVet. Of course, the Slimes is already aware that it will need an alibi beginning early next year, and this is a step down that road.
Maybe one of them could blame this on Bush. They have to blame someone.
If Ann Coulter’s surmise is right (and she’s not exactly on my A-list at the moment), the leaks caused more damage than discussed here. The Seal-Team Six helicopter deaths (no minor tragedy) shortly after the Osama raid can also be laid at Obama’s feet. Why isn’t this aspect alone generating broader outrage?
Remember Gents, the re-election of the president must be achieved at all costs, even if one of the costs is the destruction of the nation. Obama must win, nothing else matters. I’m sure his view is: it is better to rule over a heap of rubble than to lose and see the nation survive and perhaps prosper and return to being “the shining city on the hill” of that book of, whatever it is that those gunloving bible clinging rednecks believe in.
(just trying to channel the no one but bho fanatic)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.