Monday, June 4, 2012

The Chicago Way? Leaking Intel to Win an Election . . .

Unbelievable. Even CNN, the biggest of the overtly pro-Obama news networks, has questioned the ability and willingness of the Obama administration to keep vital national secrets.

I find the cavalier attitude of this administration towards genuine national security secrets very troubling. This is the most leak-prone administration in my memory. Remember the phony brouhaha over the "leaking" of the name of Valerie Plame by a Bush Administration official, the despicable loud-mouth Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who allowed somebody else to take the blame? Remember all that angst? Remember the books, the movies, the money pouring in? I don't see any of that with this administration's far worse leaking, deliberate leaking, of highly sensitive details of ongoing operations against some of the world's deadliest terrorists.

It has to stop. Lives are being put at risk by the administration's cynical release of highly sensitive information as part of the re-elect Obama effort. Maybe that's the Chicago way, but it should not be the American way.


  1. Back during the Clinton Administration, several co-workers complained about White House staffers openly reading documents with orange cover sheets on the DC Metro and being told by various security officers that there was nothing that could be done about it -- no one had the balls to hold the White House accountable. So, the cavalier attitude is not new.

    With the current bunch, a question suggests itself: Are these leaks done merely for naked partisan political advantage (with a side of willful ignorance) or to actively undermine the intelligence capabilities of the nation? Exposing the asset of an ally (well, an ally to the nation, not the current had of the Executive Branch) as happened recently seems to suggest malice aforethought.

  2. Good blog. I'll be visiting often. Feel free to follow us!

  3. When Obama claimed it would be the most transparent administration ever, perhaps this is what he meant.

  4. Is there a connection here between the apparently lowered standards of the Secret Service and the apparent lack of understanding by White House staffers of the many non-obvious reasons why classified information MUST be protected. I thought everyone received a prety good explanation by example during the WikiLeaks disclosures.
    There is a lot of incompetence to go around. To add active, malicious disclosures to this mixture is toxic.

  5. Maybe the Obama team thinks intel is shorthand for integrated electronics.