Though the press largely dropped the story weeks ago, no controversy has the potential to do as much long-term damage to the Obama presidency as the White House leaks investigation. That’s why Mitt Romney’s ringing denunciation of the administration’s fast and loose approach to classified information in his address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars yesterday had to scare the administration silly. In response, they not only prompted Senator Dianne Feinstein, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to try to walk back her accusation that the White House was the source of the leaks about cyber warfare, targeted assassinations of terrorists, Iran and other national security topics that Romney cited in his speech. They also sent out campaign honcho David Axelrod to make the rounds of the morning news shows today to reassure the American people that President Obama played no role in the flow of secrets to the front page of the New York Times and other media outlets friendly to the president.
But Axelrod’s assurances ring false. Obama’s problem here is that the White House’s fingerprints were all over these stories. It’s not just that secrets were spilled, but that they were leaked in a manner intended to make the president look like he was actively involved in the details of national security matters. The Times stories in particular — served up as they were to fill the front page of a number of Sunday editions of the paper — were more than background material about the nuts and bolts of how the nation is pursuing terrorists and attempting to stop Iran’s nuclear program but crafted so as to make the president look good. Moreover, they were sourced in such a way as to make it obvious it came from the White House. That is why Romney’s call for a special prosecutor had to make the president and his senior advisers squirm.
Feinstein’s backtracking was so unconvincing, especially after her frank admission on Monday that the White House was the obvious culprit. She may regret that her remarks “are being used to impugn President Obama or his commitment to protecting national security secrets,” but that was the obvious implication of the facts as she originally laid them out.
The problem here is not merely a bad news cycle in which Romney got the better of the president. The leaks investigation is the sort of thing that can and will haunt the president and his senior staff long after the election. The current investigations being conducted by two prosecutors appointed by President Obama have the potential to drag a second term — if he is lucky enough to have one — down in scandal. That should make their anxiety about the outcome in November even greater. Should, as Romney rightly suggests, a special prosecutor be appointed, there’s little doubt that some of Obama’s senior staffers are going to spend the next few years defending their reputations in a scandal that will tarnish the president’s historic legacy. Re-electing the president and keeping Attorney General Eric Holder in office so as to keep the Justice Department from pursuing these charges too zealously is their only hope.
"Take care of your pennies and your dollars will take care of themselves." nOr, "take care of the country and your reelection will take care of itself." nThe wisdom of this was missed by the President's handlers, who also misjudged the savvy of the independent voters. Why else would they have bombarded them with dumbed down TV ads? nSomebody should have told them that these folks are sitting on the fence for a reason, and it is not a lack of foresight. nIndeed, it takes more foresight to figure out things yourself than to merely follow one herd or the other. And deciding the things you care about does take time. nYet, independent voters also need help. Though they do not blame the President for all of the country's problems, or expect him to solve them overnight, they do expect him to stay on the task day by day. nYes, honest effort is what they want, but they are not seeing it lately. Perhaps this is because the President's handlers are too worried about losing their jobs to let him do his. But he is the President and he should get them all out of his way to focus on running our country. nBesides, keeping his nose on the grindstone might be the best way to convince the independents that he should get more time to finish out the job. n
Are you a comedy writer? This Obama, or whoever he is, fellow hasn't worked a day in his life. He is and always has been mister fascination. His only contribution to our culture is to be fascinated with himself and mesmerize those around him. "nose to the grindstone"? He makes APPEARANCES for appearance sake. That is all he does. If mister "you didn't build that" gets another four years he will finish the job alright. He will finish destroying our country.
I intended this as a reply to anadessma n n++++ n nSo what you seem to be implying is that these intelligence leaks gladly printed by the NYT were scarcely repeated at all, thereby escaping the notice of the vast “ass”, but nonetheless succeeded in betraying the our country’s security, concerning which we should all know by now the New York Times does not give a da*n. n nWhen, I ask when, will the NYT be put on trial for treason? This is most certainly not the first time the NYT has done this. n n+++++++++++++++ n n“ Re-electing the president and keeping Attorney General Eric Holder in office so as to keep the Justice Department from pursuing these charges too zealously is their only hope.” n nAnd kicking Obama and his corrupt AG out of office is the nation’s only hope. Yeah, hope for change, …has a familiar ring. But of course, if this is accomplished, it will be in spite of the New York Times and the rest of the DNC media.
I have an idea, I hope I'm mistaken, that you're being sarcastic and are praising the Times with faint and ludicrous damns. The problem with those leaks, the ones in the Times' story, is not that the public did not read them. That is a separate matter. Let me stipulate that, as with the vast majority of political stories, they were NOT widely read and circulated — by Americans. The problem is that they were UNDOUBTEDLY read — no, strike that — they were devoured by certain non-American parties with an eye toward using the information in them to kill as many Americans as possible, whether they read the NY Times or not. So you're somewhat confused as to what the impact of the leaks will be in the not so long run. That is why former Secretary Gates told the kids in the White House to "shut the f**k up!" To the extent that the stories WERE read by American voters, the Times' intention was to assist in the re-election of the President. They were conniving with reptiles like Donilon et al toward that end and CARED NOT what or whose murderous ends were likely to be served as well. n nNow, as to the matter of the public's knowledge of such malfeasance, clearly that is a matter of whether the fact of the leaks — as opposed to the facts of the leaks, as it were — is going to get much covered. The answer is absolutely not if the Times has its way.
Axelrod round confirms that Pr. O was not against it, therefore he approved it. What is not illegal is by definition LEGAL!
In the democratic world, the left can do no wrong. The communists had the same modus operandi.
Our President has NOTHING in common with the American background and education. He really is a foreigner or an alien. The left is covering up. The rich of the left are feeling their pockets with exultation.
"These folks" "lack of foresight" is what's to blame for Obama being elected in the first place.