President Obama finds it offensive that anyone would accuse him of leaking classified information for personal political gain.
The notion that my White House would purposely release national security information is offensive[.]
Of course it is. And President Nixon had some remarks along these lines, too.
Yet here is a partial list of the White House’s leaks:
- A terrorist kill list, identifying persons whom Obama personally approves for remote control execution (and so leaves no terrorist to be inconveniently captured and questioned
- reports of US spies infiltrating Al Qaeda in Yemen
- stories about Osama bin Laden’s DNA and how the US got it
- US involvement in the Stuxnet (and Flame) computer virus development and employment against Iranian nuclear facilities, including identification of the government lab that designed it
- revealed a British asset who penetrated al Qaeda and stopped another bombing of a US-bound airliner
These leaks, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) correctly says, put “American lives in jeopardy,” put “our nation’s security in jeopardy.” And every one of those leaks push an Obama agenda, or purport to paint Obama in a favorable light.
Oh, and the White House’s leaks about a supposed Israeli plan to use Azerbaijani bases to launch an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities—which plan, if it existed, became impossible for an Obama-disliked Israel to execute.
Yet Obama refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leaks; although Attorney General Eric Holder has named two DoJ attorneys to investigate. While it’s true that the leaking that’s coming out of the White House is a present and clear danger and a special prosecutor investigation would take time—possibly years—such an appointment at least would move toward defusing the personal gain question.
Moreover, his CIA and his Department of Justice have announced they will not cooperate with Congressional investigations into the leaks.
I have to ask: why is Obama so bent on hindering investigations into these leaks?
Obama’s offended? He’s not as offended as are honest Americans over them.
Here’s an example of falsifying “green” jobs data (as part of a larger investigation into the Labor Department’s “trouble” producing reliable labor data generally. Select Part 2 from the tabs below the video and either listen to the whole thing, or skip ahead to 49:45 to hear the money part of the duplicity.