The 'I'm offended' part comes in at 2:30. Take careful notice of Obama's comment:
"The notion that my White House would purposely, release classified national security information, is offensive."Emphasis added to question why the word "purposely" was inserted. Is he saying that leaking such information mistakenly, even while talking to reporters, wouldn't be offensive? Is he trying to set up a future defense, ie, they leaked but they didn't know (aka Libby)? Or was it just an extra word thrown in for power and effect?
We may never know. By the time an independent counsel got selected and prepped Obama might already be gone, or reelected. But that shouldn't matter. This is a non-partisan matter of national security and somebody needs to conduct a real investigation. It's clear Obama via Holder will never allow an independent prosecutor so Congress must do one on their own, for what's it's worth. Maybe Obama should walk down the hall, gaze up at the portrait of 43, and ask him what he would do.
MORE 6/8/12
Have you ever ventured onto the official White House site to watch a video? Aside from the fact they try to cram cookies into your PC--which is probably against the rules for all other federal websites--the video was hardly worth the trouble. Did Obama take 4 or only 3 questions? I lost track amidst his windy filibustering replies generally designed to blame the Republicans, Bush, and Europe for all his ills. You know it's getting bad when even someone from the WaPo can't take it anymore.
HOLDER ACTS.. 6/9/12
...and appoints two US Attorneys to head parallel investigations into the leaks. One is an Obama appointee who donated heavily to the campaign; the other is a Bush appointee who worked under Ken Starr. So this is apparently the administration's version of an Independent Counsel-- two partisan counsels who will likely come to different conclusions. Whether they will be going over the same evidence or are investigating separate leaks is unclear. At any rate, the results will likely be called partisan if they find anything. Maybe not much different than say appointing an Independent Counsel, because their results would also be called partisan as well, but at least an IC would not be reporting directly to Eric Holder.
The interesting part of leak investigations is of course the journalist-to-source relationship and so-called shield protections of the press. Times reporter Judy Miller went to jail to prevent giving up her source in the Libby case; will Times reporters do likewise in this one? Clearly the Times and the AP know who leaked, so we'll see how tough and ideological these guys are. If the sources were higher-ups in the administration it's possible they'll fight; if they were lower level flunkies then no way. The question then will be whether the lower level flunkies were being told to leak by the high level flunkies, ala Libby, which will be hard to prove.
Another twist is if such low level flunkies are still with the government. Obama hinted that some may not be. If so they may no longer have security clearances. My WAG is that the administration has their t's crossed and i's dotted on the Stuxnet and the drone stories, with an ironclad method to run the leaks, but the leak to the AP over underbomber 2.0 maybe not. Too sloppy. Wonder which USA is investigating that one?
THE TIMES... 6/10/12
..weighs in and points out a thousand reasons why it's utterly fruitless to go after leakers. Of course they are saying this with the knowledge of who leaked to them. It's simply hilarious to compare this to coverage of the Libby-Plame case.
No comments:
Post a Comment