Fallout from the White House "Leaks"

The fallout from the two New York Times articles citing the Obama Administration's recent handling of classified foreign policy procedures continues to swell---and rightly so.

 White House Photo by Pete Souza

In the first NYT article, specific and minute details emerge revealing the president's direct involvement with a secret "kill list" and how every Tuesday, he personally evaluates "baseball card-like" biographies of known terrorists and then selects who will become the next target of US drone attacks.  As the article stated, "It is the president who has reserved himself to the final moral calculation" of when and if someone should be killed.

The second NYT article reveals the explicit involvement of the US in cyber attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities.  Specific details about tense meetings and discussions surrounding the continued development of President Bush's program to develop a cyber weapon or "worm" named "Stuxnet" and how it has been planted to compromise Iran's nuclear capabilities.  The article cites that there were known hiccups with the code and how the US's involvement was nearly compromised.  The article continues, "it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code."

(Well, it is pretty safe to assume that Iran is no longer "unaware").

The articles are gripping and fascinating accounts of closed-door meetings and procedures that were put in place to ensure our national security.  The information is credible quoting interviews with "three dozen current and former advisors" as they describe the role of our president in the war on terror.

These NYT reporters clearly had access to extremely sensitive material and even greater access to the people who knew about it.

The articles unfold like a nail biting movie and ultimately portray our president as a forward-thinking leader, heroically defending our national security.

AP Photo

Controversy is now swirling around why these reporters were privy to this information and whether or not the White House actually encouraged the "leaks" for political advantage.  There is also growing concern over the fact that not only was the NYT privy to the details, but they actually chose to publish it.

Should those in the media be held accountable for divulging national secrets?

Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham have both voiced disgust and fury over the stories.  McCain went as far to say, "They (The White House) are intentionally leaking information to enhance President Obama's image as a tough guy for the elections."

Even more surprising?  Many Democrat senators and members of Congress are equally alarmed.  Senator Diane Feinstein (D), chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence fears that these leaks could "endanger American lives and undermine America's national security."

AP Photo

The White House is denying any involvement.  President Obama has said, "The notion that my White House would purposefully release classified information is offensive."

But does he have any credibility to deny it?

Direct quotes from multiple people who were "present" for the meetings make its difficult to believe that Administration officials were "unaware" that one of the largest and most credible newspaper publications in the world was documenting specific details of private White House meetings.

But let's assume for one minute that the president did not know.  Is it concerning to anyone that he never set parameters for his closest advisors on what they should divulge to the press?  Is he in charge?

Furthermore, should the president be concerned that he can't trust those closest to him to use good judgment on critical affairs?

Brendan Smialowski / AFP/Getty Image

If he really did not know, why isn't he outraged that his closest advisors have stabbed him in the back?  He only seems to be irritated that McCain wants to hold someone accountable for it.

I for one, am not buying it.  The amount of specific details in these articles makes it difficult to believe that these reporters were "leaked" the information.  These reporters had frequent access to high ranking officials.  Period.

I guess the only reason we can be confident that the president himself was never interviewed is that none of the quotes start with the words, "Let me be clear."

Two special prosecutors have now been assigned to look into the leaks.

***

Why is all of this a big deal?

Two huge reasons:

1) Our National Security is at Risk.
The NYT and these unnamed White House officials have brazenly divulged to the world and more specifically to Iran, the tactics we are willing to use in the War on Terror.  By exposing the specifics of our operations, it makes it much more difficult to remain stealth and covert.  How can we successfully keep the enemy guessing if we tell them exactly how we are going to sneak up on them?

MSNBC image

Also, it should horrify every American that according to the NYT report, the head of Iran's Passive Defense Organization, Brig. Gen. Gholamreza Jalali upon learning of the US's involvement in the cyber attacks has declared that the Iranian military is "prepared to fight our enemies" in "cyberspace and Internet warfare."

Do we have any reason to doubt that they will?

2) President Obama's Failure to Keep a Promise
Obama ran on the premise that President Bush's War on Terror was a black mark on America's relations with Arab Nations.  He frequently voiced disgust in Bush's handling of the war and on multiple occasions vowed to integrate stronger American values with fair trials for terror suspects.

But these articles show that Obama has not only embraced Bush's policies and tactics, but he clearly sees the War on Terror as a noble and worthy cause.  A fascinating article from foreignpolicy.com showed, over the last three years, this Administration has carried out over 239 covert drone strikes---more than five times the 44 approved by President Bush.

Furthermore, Obama's personal selection of targets for his "kill list" show that he no longer thinks that Miranda rights and fair trials are the way to handle terrorists.  Apparently he doesn't even want to follow Bush's lead and send them to Guantanamo.  He is perfectly fine to authorize a kill and with one strike, eradicate their existence from the world.

Problem?  He ran on the premise that he was different.  He voiced frequent disdain for Guantanamo Base and vowed to shut it down---he hasn't.  Obama ran on the promise that he would heal relations and restore dignity to America's international relations.  He pledged that America would not participate in policing the world.

These "leaks" simply show that his policies and "Obama Doctrine" are contrary to his campaign rhetoric.

***

Aside from the seriousness of America's National Security breeches and broken campaign promises, there is some blaring irony to all of this.  Although the president may not want to admit it, Obama is doing his part to make sure that history will be kind to his despised predecessor, President George W.Bush.  

Obama's strategies honor Bush's legacy and authenticate that President Bush was indeed a leader for the world in the War on Terror.

If the investigation reveals that these White House "leaks" were for political gain, who would have guessed that the fallout would also be a validation of the Bush Doctrine?