NEW CASTLE —
I am shocked, shocked to learn that an American administration may have leaked secret information that makes itself look good.
Actually, the previous sentence is sarcasm. Leaks from the White House happen all the time. Sometimes it’s done to boost a sitting president; sometimes its done to undercut critics.
But if there is a difference lately, it may be the parade of national security leaks that appear to create an aura of tough decisiveness around President Barack Obama.
These leaks tend to portray the president as heavily involved in key military and national security decisions, even going so far as to indicate he is giving the final word on drone strikes and other attacks designed to kill specific individuals.
This sort of revelation is unusual, in that presidents usually practice the fine art of plausible deniability. When bad things happen to America’s enemies, it’s just a big mystery how they occur.
So what’s going on with these leaks? Well, from a political standpoint, they appear to be designed to counter long-standing claims from the right that Republicans are resolute when dealing with overseas foes, while liberal Democrats are wishy-washy.
As the body count rises among al-Qaida’s leadership, it’s tough to make that scenario stick to Obama.
But whether the Ramboization of Barack Obama will make a difference in the general election is unclear. Some voters may see his actions as bold; others may dismiss the leaks as showboating.
Politics aside, however, there is the matter of how these leaks impact national security. Republicans charge they amount to serious damage to our capabilities in a dangerous world.
But do they?
Does confirmation that America is using drone strikes to take out al-Qaida in Pakistan and elsewhere really surprise anyone? Does it come as an astonishing revelation that a long-reported cyber attack on Iran’s nuclear program was launched by America?
Of course America can officially deny involvement in these matters. But such protestations of innocence fool no one who matters.
Perhaps the biggest secret given away by such leaks is that government keeps quiet far too often in the name of national security. Protect the real secrets and let common sense handle the rest.
One leak that may have damaging consequences involves reports that American and Saudi intelligence were able to infiltrate al-Qaida in Yemen with a double agent.
Obviously, that agent’s cover is blown and anyone associated with him may have been put in danger. That could hurt future espionage endeavors.
Federal prosecutors are now investigating these assorted leaks, but Republicans in Congress say an independent probe is needed.
Perhaps, but the Obama administration is notorious for its zealous prosecution of suspected leakers, at least when the information puts the White House in less-than-flattering light.
Just ask New Castle native and ex-CIA operative John Kiriakou, who faces federal charges of identifying an undercover agent involved in the interrogation (some would call it torture) of a key al-Qaida figure.
So will Obama go after the leakers who just happened to make him look good? Or will his administration give these leakers a pass?
And if that happens, what would that say about this president’s reputed toughness?
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak: Washington has always been a land of leaks
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Snooping threat to the free press
In “All the President’s Men,” reporter Bob Woodward conducts late-night meetings with a source in a parking garage. That source, Deep Throat (later revealed to be high-ranking FBI official Mark Felt), was worried that he would be exposed as a tipster in the Watergate scandal.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
-
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
-
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
-
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
