The White House may have gotten some flattering New York Times scribbles about Obama’s unparalleled machismo on national security, but it sounds like it could soon face an independent investigation into its intelligence leaks as a result. House and Senate intelligence committees from both parties held a press conference this afternoon excoriating the Obama administration for leaking sensitive intelligence to the media and calling for a major crackdown. HuffPo reports:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said she and her fellow lawmakers are not voicing concerns as a way of “finger-pointing at anybody,” including the White House. “What we’re trying to do is say we have a problem and we want to stop that problem,” she said. “We’re not finger-pointing.”
Feinstein, joined by Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), promised new legislation to crack down on leaks of classified information, The issue has gained traction since the publication of two front-page New York Times stories last week providing new details about President Barack Obama’s secret terrorist “kill list” and the U.S. government’s cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
For now they’re focused on getting through some legislation to combat administration leaks, whatever good that will do. If they really want to prevent future blabbing from the White House, a credible investigation is the best way to start. The FBI has already launched a probe, but there are concerns about its legitimacy, according to Rep. Rogers (via Politico):
Rogers said the bipartisan presence spoke to the seriousness of the issue. Of the leaks, he said: “It seems to be a pattern that is growing worse and more frequent. … Their inability to keep a secret, this has been as serious a problem as I have seen.”
Rogers also raised the possibility some of the leaks could be coming from the Justice Department or FBI. The Justice Department’s national security division has recused itself from part of the leak investigation, Rogers said.
“It appears the sources of these leaks could be in a position to influence the investigations,” he said.
Republicans are already calling for a special counsel to be appointed to the case, an idea that was oddly supported by David Axelrod on CNN today. He may have to eat those words, as The Hill reports the White House has since rejected the idea of a special counsel investigation:
In response to a direct question, Carney said “no,” the president would not agree to an independent counsel. But Carney said the president took the issue of the leaks “very seriously.”
“This is something that the president insists that his administration take all appropriate and necessary steps to prevent leaks of classified information or sensitive information that could risk our counterterrorism operations,” Carney told reporters on Air Force One, according to a transcript.
An investigation like that could turn into a public relations nightmare for the administration — and is it all really worth the two-minute PR glow that has already faded?
The president needs to take this a little more serious than he appears to be taking it. Carney's answer about being serious about preventing future leaks does not answer the question of who is responsible for these ones. n nMitt Romney should not only run against a bad economy, he should also run against national security leaks, and an over politicized DOJ.
Clearly, a few things are already known, even before any investigation. One, sensitive intelligence and counter-intelligence information are, by law, under the watertight custody of special individuals in specialised departments of government. The President and his national security team, individuals in the Pentagon, the State Department and the House and Senate Intelligence Committes with top security clearence. n nTwo, this sensitive information unquestionably found its way, time and time again, in recent weeks and months, into the hands of non-cleared reporters in a non-cleared liberal torch-bearing media outlet. n nThe clear task is to find out how this seeped out of the government's custody. The task was initiated by Senator McCain. And, for his clear Constitutional duty, he was accused by a flunkey like Carney of "gross irresponsibility. Now that Senator Feinstein has joined McCain, our intrepid WH Press Corpsemen and women should ask Carney if she too is grossly irresponsible. n nFurther, Obama is clearly not interested in investigating what is clearly a serious breach of national security. n
Exactly, because he is well aware where the fault lies!
"Maverick" John MCCain. And Diane Feinstein from San Fran Sicko. I am actually surprised that Olympia Snowe isn't also jumping aboard this and she well might. n nAbsolutely no one can say that this is the hard core of the GOP behind this — or even the Tea Party, or even the GOP leadership. This is where the Boy President has gone, how far he has gone, that people on his own side are starting to get worried and even (I believe) starting to think that having Romney & the Republicans in charge of things is a lesser evil than what they have right now. n nDo not forget the "LightSquared" matter and Obama trying to bully the USAF Brass into saying things they knew not to be true. That's national security and an Obama donor and in some ways the most serious offense of all.
The fact that Obama is claiming credit for the Stuxnet virus does not necessarily mean that this is actually the case. Strange as it may seem, I would not be surprised if this claim turns out to be another Obama lie. Assuming Israel is the source of the virus, Obama would have no concern that Israel would claim ownership of the virus. At least the Israeli Government knows how to keep from leaking classified information. The timing of the report is suspicious; the virus was first let loose in 2010. Why leak the story now? Because Obama needs a positive issue to bolster his flagging re-election campaign. Obama is surely not above lying if he thinks it will help his re-election chances.
why can't there be more Democrats like Dianne Feinstein? she may be a lefty on social policies, but she at least understands the need for national security. n none hates to say this as often as one could, but–just imagine if this was the Bush administration. well, you don't have to imagine: look at how crazy the left went over Valerie Plame. this? not so much.