Breaking: NSA exec charged with leaking classified info in 2006, 2007

posted at 12:08 pm on April 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

When the New York Times published a series of articles on top-secret counterterrorism efforts at the National Security Agency in 2006 and 2007, supporters of the Bush administration reacted with outrage.  Oddly, though, the same people who expressed outrage over the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA analyst never got terribly exercised over these breaches of national security (and to be fair, the same holds true in reverse).  The Bush administration complained loudly about the Times’ decision to expose these programs but never made a public show of a probe to discover the source of the leaks.

Ironically, that effort apparently succeeded in uncovering at least one leaker — and the Obama administration gets the credit for it:

A former senior executive with the National Security Agency has been indicted on 10 felony charges related to the leaking of classified information to a national newspaper in 2006 and 2007, the Justice Department announced Thursday morning.

Thomas A. Drake, 52, headed an office in the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Directorate at Fort Meade between 2001 and 2005, and continued to work with the agency as a high-ranking contractor through 2008, U.S. officials said. The indictment alleges that Drake allegedly exchanged hundreds of e-mails with an unidentified reporter for a national newspaper and served as a source for its articles about Bush administration intelligence policies between February 2006 and November 2007, U.S. officials said.

Drake was indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland, the Justice Department said.

The indictment doesn’t name the paper or identify the subject matter, but it also doesn’t appear too difficult to connect dots in this case.  The Times produced most of the original reporting on these secret programs, including the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) that eventually got retroactive cover in a rewriting of FISA laws.  They also exposed the secret bank-tracking program Swift that turned out to be both completely legal and extraordinarily effective — before the Times blew its cover.

Kudos to the DoJ for pursuing the leaker.  Having the Obama administration press this case makes it even stronger, I believe.  It eliminates any hint of retribution and puts it firmly in the frame of violating our national security.  If Drake is guilty, he had other options than leaking to the Times if he disagreed with the operations at the NSA.   He could have gone to the White House, or failing that, to the leadership of the intelligence committees in Congress, which certainly would have provided him with an audience.  Instead, the leaker (whoever he is) kneecapped our ability to track terrorists and politicized national security unnecessarily.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Good for them for going after the leaker. This was far more serious than the Plame nonsense and it is good to see that it was followed.

ORconservative on April 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM

Good

blatantblue on April 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

10 felonies? :0

Joe Caps on April 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

NO LAW WAS BROKEN WITH VALERIE PLAME!!!!

How on earth could you possibly compare the two??? This is how Democrat lies become part of conventional wisdom and history eventually.

jp on April 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

I wish I could trust the current administration to actually punish this guy. More likely they’ll have him over for martinis and wagyu.

fiatboomer on April 15, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Now, can we go after the other people who are deliberately compromising our national security? Like Obama, Holder… etc…

Daggett on April 15, 2010 at 12:13 PM

All of this news swirling around our intelligence community in the last few days makes you go hmmm.

Brad Thor posting over at Big Government had just issued a warning about the NY Times plans to publish a list of operatives in Afghanistan, and like him I don’t believe in coincidence. The deputy head of the CIA steps down, rumors of yet another damaging leak and now an announcement of an arrest and prosecution of a leaker.

Who is sending a message?

Just A Grunt on April 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM

The NYT is a subversive organization….they should be held accountable as well.

d1carter on April 15, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Oh. How funny.

Elektra on April 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM

This guy leaked to benefit anti-Bush forces such as Obama and Holder. And folks want to give credit to BarryCorp for cleaning up loose ends?

Really?

Christien on April 15, 2010 at 12:16 PM

jp on April 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

+100

Remember, its the new HOTAIR

dmann on April 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM

How much you wanna bet BarryOH! and “Nation Of Cowards” Holder were forced, kicking and screaming, to let the Justice Department persue this?

JamesLee on April 15, 2010 at 12:19 PM

This is treason – he’s going to jail for the rest of his life.

I don’t understand why the reporters don’t get charged too.

Stephanie on April 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM

and to be fair, the same holds true in reverse

I don’t remember any Democrats interested in prosecuting Armitage.

Buddahpundit on April 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Good. I hope he gets what’s coming to him

The New York Slimes shouldn’t even be printing this. They should be reporting it to the DOJ.

Brat4life on April 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM

“(and to be fair, the same holds true in reverse)”

To be fair, the proper comparison to the outing Valerie Plame is more closely the outing of Thomas Drake by the DOJ:

– Valerie Plame /Joe Wilson leak secret info to papers > they get outed

– Thomas Drake leaks secret info to papers > he gets outed.

Dusty on April 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM

John Adams anyway would’ve definitely gone after the NYT’s as well.

jp on April 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM

If he’s found (or pleads) guilty, I hope he gets to spend the rest of his life in prison. Lowlife traitors who put their politics ahead of the safety of their country deserve no less.

AZCoyote on April 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM

I love how the NSA guy thinks it won’t be noticed that he’s emailing a reporter “hundreds of times”, although I guess in his defense it took 3-4 years to fully uncover.

strictnein on April 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM

I don’t remember any Democrats interested in prosecuting Armitage.

Buddahpundit on April 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM

amen

cmsinaz on April 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Passing NSA secrets to the press VIA EMAIL?! HAHAHAHAHA! whatadumbass.

Cuffy Meigs on April 15, 2010 at 12:24 PM

agree with above, NYT should be held accountable as well…

cmsinaz on April 15, 2010 at 12:24 PM

to be fair, the same holds true in reverse

They are not in the least bit comparable. One was not even against the law.

burt on April 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Exit question: Percentage chance these investigations started before January, 2009.

I’d put it at 95%.

strictnein on April 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Everyone complict in this should see jail time.

Mirimichi on April 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM

To be fair, secret intelligence info is just that, Plame was just a clown in a woman’s business suit married to a bigger clown, who put her in Who’s Who. The only danger her exposure caused the US was making us look like amateurs with poor hiring skills in the Federal Government.

gbear on April 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM

I don’t remember any Democrats interested in prosecuting Armitage.

Buddahpundit on April 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM

the new hotair perpetrates the myth that it was Cheney/Rove/Haliburton that outed poor Valerie Plame.

Plus, Armitage didn’t break any laws

jp on April 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Exit question: Percentage chance these investigations started before January, 2009.

I’d put it at 95%.

strictnein on April 15, 2010 at 12:25 PM

yep, Bush couldn’t have them charge them while he was in power though

jp on April 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Get the noose ready.

Wade on April 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM

This is the right outcome. It’s hard to get to the reporters and news outlets, but this guy signed an oath at least a dozen times during his career to NOT do exactly what he did. These leakers with government clearances — and oath-bound obligations — are the people who have to be prosecuted.

Millions of us have kept fealty to the same oaths for decades. Guys like this make it harder on the people still serving and undermine the faithfulness of their shipmates — not to mention jeopardizing national security.

J.E. Dyer on April 15, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Why am I so distrustful? Who will be on trial the leaker or the Bush Administration?

Cindy Munford on April 15, 2010 at 12:31 PM

Maybe Echelon should include the staff of the NYT to their list of watched words and phrases, then those who would be giving up secrets would be caught sooner.

fourdeucer on April 15, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Having the Obama administration press this case makes it even stronger, I believe.

I’ll believe it when I hear of him being sentenced. Until then, I won’t be holding my breath.

moonsbreath on April 15, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Deep throat in reverse—-revisited.

Legal question; if a reporter was receiving classified information from a government agency representative, AND NEW FULL WELL LAWS WERE BEING BROKEN, that may very well have jeopordized our national security, is it the reporters moral and legal obligation to notify authorities, or does said reporter (in choosing not to report the crime), become also complicit and a co-conspiritor in the alleged crime?

Rovin on April 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Will the NYT cover this story?

d1carter on April 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM

NO LAW WAS BROKEN WITH VALERIE PLAME!!!!

How on earth could you possibly compare the two??? This is how Democrat lies become part of conventional wisdom and history eventually.

jp on April 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

–Didn’t Scooter go to jail for giving false testimony in connection with the Plame thing?

Jimbo3 on April 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM

This is much more serious than Plume.

I hope the leaker gets to think about what he did . . . in prison.

WannabeAnglican on April 15, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Jimbo3, the prosecution of Scooter Libby was a travesty.

WannabeAnglican on April 15, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Are you sure President Toonces even knew about any ongoing (?) investigation? I’m not so sure. Look for Holder to drop the case.

MNHawk on April 15, 2010 at 12:37 PM

waterboard him…

max1 on April 15, 2010 at 12:37 PM

I don’t understand why the reporters don’t get charged too.

Stephanie on April 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Receiving and then publicizing classified information is not a crime — we have no Official Secrets Law like Great Britain, which obligates every citizen to maintain secrets.

But we do have laws covering the custodians of classified material and their obligation to protect that information and not to disclose it to anyone who has not been cleared to access the materials and who does not have a valid need to know the content of the materials.

Mr. Drake will be hard put to justify giving materials to an uncleared reporter for the Times, but the reporters themselves are in the clear on this. All this law was decided as a result of the Pentagon Papers.

unclesmrgol on April 15, 2010 at 12:38 PM

NO LAW WAS BROKEN WITH VALERIE PLAME!!!!

How on earth could you possibly compare the two??? This is how Democrat lies become part of conventional wisdom and history eventually.

jp on April 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

The saddest facet of the whole Plame non-story was that the Left for decades had absolutely no problems with the outing of CIA folks. See “Phillip Agee”.

But when an attractive female who just happened to hate Bush came along, they all fell in lovey.

Del Dolemonte on April 15, 2010 at 12:38 PM

and the Obama administration gets the credit for it:

An anti-Bush administration gets “credit” for catching an anti-Bush secret leaker?

katiejane on April 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM

–Didn’t Scooter go to jail for giving false testimony in connection with the Plame thing?

Jimbo3 on April 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM

No, his jail sentence was commuted by the evil Bush.

Del Dolemonte on April 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Holder will blow the case and Obama will give the guy a medal.

GarandFan on April 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Who will be on trial the leaker or the Bush Administration?

Cindy Munford on April 15, 2010 at 12:31 PM

I had that same nagging feeling when I first read this.

Johnnyreb on April 15, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Holder will blow the case and Obama will give the guy a medal.

GarandFan on April 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM

Speaking of which, Holder testified to Congress yesterday-and said he still has not ruled out trying KSM in NY City

Del Dolemonte on April 15, 2010 at 12:43 PM

– Valerie Plame /Joe Wilson leak secret info to papers > they get outed

Dusty on April 15, 2010 at 12:22 PM

What secret info? Wilson’s op ed was total nonsense that only strengthened Bush’s case, as he admitted that Iraq was seeking uranium.

Esthier on April 15, 2010 at 12:43 PM

“Whistleblower”

There’s a Nobel for that.

cntrlfrk on April 15, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Wow – I think at least part of the HA team has finally jumped the shark. While long somewhat unreadable in general (colorless, odorless, tasteless), Ed here goes vapid, big-time.

There isn’t the faintest resemblance between the two NYT leaks and the Plame non-event (which still stands as the unsurpassed example of surreal behavior by all parties: despicable criminality by Beltway-mentality public servants, contemptible reactions by most Dems, and astonishingly incompetent handling by the Bush team, which should have had the silly Wilson op-ed non-event wrapped up in time to get in 9 holes at Haines Point that Saturday in July.)

Armitage, the biggest national security disappointment of all time, mentions something irrelevant to the (non) story, which then somehow becomes a huge deal in the surreal Washington of the time, even leading to an absurd perjury trial with a jury and judge histrionically unfit for their role – the final piece in a literally unbelievable train of events. This is comparable to the NSA felonies, uh, how??

And to “give credit” for prosecution of a hugely significant national security felony?? WTF? Before this time in history there was any perceived leeway in whether to pursue those who compromised effective surveillance programs in war-time? WTF? There was any chance it would be seen as “retribution” for the Bush administration to have done its job in enforcing the law in the most important area of national governance, one that (gasp) even is prominently featured in that historical curio the Constitution?

Even if this NSA scum is the guy behind both blown programs, his prosecution will hardly redeem the mentality, so widespread inside the Beltway among “public servants”, that combines intellectual mediocrity with astonishing arrogance. And extensive direct personal experience with many such examples in the intel community, including the most senior levels, is the basis for this assertion.

IceCold on April 15, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Pro-Obama forces trying to turn GWOT/Iraq/Afghanistan into another Vietnam on Bush’s watch helped this guy and now they get an attaboy for throwing him under the bus to tie up loose ends now that they are in power?

Please.

Christien on April 15, 2010 at 12:44 PM

The Bush administration complained loudly about the Times’ decision to expose these programs but never made a public show of a probe to discover the source of the leaks.

And your point? Because they didn’t make a public show you assume they didn’t pursue it? Or do you think everything should be handled through the NYT? Sad day at HA….again.

Deanna on April 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Good! Hang ‘em high. None dare call it treason. Sad.

BetseyRoss on April 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM


Didn’t Scooter go to jail for giving false testimony in connection with the Plame thing?

Jimbo3 on April 15, 2010 at 12:34 PM
No, his jail sentence was commuted by the evil Bush.

Del Dolemonte on April 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM

-You’re right. W commuted the prison time but left the rest of the sentence in place. Thanks for reminding me.

Jimbo3 on April 15, 2010 at 12:46 PM

This is treason – he’s going to jail for the rest of his life.

I don’t understand why the reporters don’t get charged too.

Stephanie on April 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM

It’s a crime against our nation for sure. But treason may overstate the case.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

What crime has the reporter committed? What are your criteria for ignoring the First Amendment?

The Race Card on April 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM

And your point? Because they didn’t make a public show you assume they didn’t pursue it? Or do you think everything should be handled through the NYT? Sad day at HA….again.

Deanna on April 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM

I think you’re reading too much into Ed’s post. The Bush Administration didn’t make a big public show of it. That much is true. That’s why people remember Plame but know very little about this leak, which is unfortunate, but Bush wasn’t very big about defending himself from attacks, even when he should have.

It’s not a bad thing to point that out.

Esthier on April 15, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Johnnyreb on April 15, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Good, maybe it’s a Southern thing!

Cindy Munford on April 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM

the new hotair perpetrates the myth that it was Cheney/Rove/Haliburton that outed poor Valerie Plame.

[jp on April 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM]

I don’t think that was what was intended. Ed, often does this knee-jerk “to be fair” spiel and sometimes does it without thinking the “to be fair” through.

Dusty on April 15, 2010 at 12:50 PM

He was charged with giving false testimony regarding a set of conversations he had with Matt Cooper at TIME Magazine and couldn’t recall the exact details of which conversation he had when.

Process crime. The leaker, which was the “real crime,” according to the mainstream media, was Richard Armitage, who inadvertently leaked the information in a conversation he was having with Bob Novak for a column he was writing. His identity was discovered early on in the process and he was not charged with a crime.

So what was the Bush Administration’s ‘crime’ in all of this again? Scooter Libby may or may not have had a conversation with a reporter and didn’t recall each and every detail of every conversation with said reporter several years after the fact.

END OF THE REPUBLIC, IT WAS!@!!!11!!

Good Lt on April 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM

Get the noose comfy chair ready.

Wade on April 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Fixed that for ya.

He’ll get a slap on the wrist, at least compared to what he could (and should) get.

Though if fellow leakers (looking at you, CIA) were to start seeing their comrades spend the rest of their living days behind bars, perhaps they’d think twice before furthering a political agenda by running to the media with state secrets.

Hollowpoint on April 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM

I think giving Obama admin credit for this is a bit premature as the leak investigation probably started when Bush was still president.

If the leaker is being prosecuted, how about the leakee, NYT, who had to know that they were publishing classified info? If Obama was doing his job, they would be indicted too.

docdave on April 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM

So, who’s going to be first media deep thinker to try to turn this guy into Daniel Ellsberg?

Mr. D on April 15, 2010 at 12:55 PM

This is espionage. Plain and simle. Drake, if found guilty, should spend the rest of his days behind bars along with his fellow spies Aldrich Ames, John Walker, and Robert Hanson. Actually, I would prefer he take his place with the Rosenbergs, but, sadly, execution doesn’t seem to be SOP for espionage convictions anymore.

WarEagle01 on April 15, 2010 at 12:56 PM

jp on April 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM

That was not what was intended. There was no crime unless it was on the part of Joe Wilson.
The parallel is the huge story that non story became and the relatively little attention this will get, including little or no punishment………..my guess.
The knee jerk is yours.

ORconservative on April 15, 2010 at 12:57 PM

I bet Barry didn’t even know about this and had he it would have been dropped. Ed you give Barry way too much credit.

I too agree that this is not even remotely close to the Plame manufactured outrage stories the Hatefilled Left ginned up… Like so many other things the Hatefilled Left did and still does to sabotage this great country…

CCRWM on April 15, 2010 at 12:59 PM

Having the Obama administration press this case makes it even stronger, I believe. It eliminates any hint of retribution and puts it firmly in the frame of violating our national security.

Yes. Honest folks will admit the truth about the GWB admin as well.

Bob's Kid on April 15, 2010 at 1:00 PM

What secret info? Wilson’s op ed was total nonsense that only strengthened Bush’s case, as he admitted that Iraq was seeking uranium.

[Esthier on April 15, 2010 at 12:43 PM]

Joe Wilson’s errand to (what was it, Chad) for the CIA, which if you remember correctly, wasn’t sold as bolstering Bush’s case, but undermined his “16 words”. You may see it as having bolstered the case, since you are well informed on issue, but that is neither the widespread or general public perception, Esthier, for for Bush’s entire tenure.

You may also recall, though, that, conveniently, someone at the CIA forgot to get Joe Wilson’s signature on standard “no disclosure” form, which is the only reason you have for being technically correct in implying that it wasn’t an illegal disclosure by Wilson.

Dusty on April 15, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Good! Hang ‘em high. None dare call it treason. Sad.

BetseyRoss on April 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM

The ACLU is probably lined up a-hole to belly button to give Mr. Drake the best defense possible.

fourdeucer on April 15, 2010 at 1:02 PM

Instead, the leaker (whoever he is)

Drake?

Christien on April 15, 2010 at 1:03 PM

The knee jerk is yours.

ORconservative on April 15, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Lot of knee jerking at HA

blatantblue on April 15, 2010 at 1:03 PM

The reporters and editors at the Slimes should got to prison as well.

Ward Cleaver on April 15, 2010 at 1:03 PM

Or go to prison.

Ward Cleaver on April 15, 2010 at 1:04 PM

That’s why people remember Plame but know very little about this leak, which is unfortunate, but Bush wasn’t very big about defending himself from attacks, even when he should have.

It’s not a bad thing to point that out.

Esthier on April 15, 2010 at 12:48 PM

So what? Why should Bush have defended himself in this instance? Ed didn’t just “point that out,” there is, at the least, an implication of criticism. Again, shouldn’t such investigations be carried on without the “assistance” of the NYT? And the whole comparison to Plame is ridiculous in and of itself. I have read Ed and HA forever and I have seen a change since MM left the helm. JMO

Deanna on April 15, 2010 at 1:04 PM

“To be fair…” Um, apples and oranges between the two, maybe?

changer1701 on April 15, 2010 at 1:05 PM

Lowlife traitors who put their politics ahead of the safety of their country deserve no less.

AZCoyote on April 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM

An excellent reminder – thanks AZCoyote

Otis B on April 15, 2010 at 1:05 PM

This is espionage.

WarEagle01 on April 15, 2010 at 12:56 PM

I despise the NYT, but it isn’t a foreign state.

ProfessorMiao on April 15, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Millions of us … faithfulness of their shipmates

J.E. Dyer on April 15, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Are you CDR (retired) Jen Dyer?

Otis B on April 15, 2010 at 1:07 PM

I have read Ed and HA forever and I have seen a change since MM left the helm. JMO

Deanna on April 15, 2010 at 1:04 PM

I think what you have seen is largely a concoction of your imagination

blatantblue on April 15, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Otis B on April 15, 2010 at 1:07 PM

I am, Otis B. Your handle doesn’t immediately suggest to me who you might be?

J.E. Dyer on April 15, 2010 at 1:11 PM

I am, Otis B. Your handle doesn’t immediately suggest to me who you might be?

J.E. Dyer on April 15, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Holy cow are you kidding me? We served together on the Nimitz in I think it was 2003.

Otis B on April 15, 2010 at 1:12 PM

Instead, the leaker (whoever he is)

Who is the leaker?

Christien on April 15, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Oddly, though, the same people who expressed outrage over the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA analyst never got terribly exercised over these breaches of national security (and to be fair, the same holds true in reverse).

But to be truly fair, you’ll have to note that Valerie Plame’s name was not leaked to a newspaper, but was apparently fairly common knowledge, or at least gossip. And to be truly fair, you would have to note that the gossiper apparently was not a partisan at all, but just someone who liked to gossip. And you would also have to note that the “leak” of Plame’s status was not a crime, because she had not been covert for some time. And you would also have to note that Plame had no problem posing for Vanity Fair, which is a bit odd for a supposedly secret agent. And you’d have to note that national security was in no way, shape, or form compromised by Plame’s status being known, as opposed to real harm to national security caused by the leak to the NYT.

In fact, I can’t see anything fair about drawing a comparison between the two at all. The only “fair” mention of the two is to contrast how much more serious this case is than the ridiculously over-hyped pseudo-scandal surrounding Plame.

Maybe I care a little too much about being truly fair, rather than just the appearance of being fair.

tom on April 15, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Captain, it could be Sidney Blumenthal at Salon.

http://tinyurl.com/y6qlvwq

David in San Diego on April 15, 2010 at 1:16 PM

To truly understand the Left, you need to know that they will see this indictment as a bad thing. As an injustice.

To them, any law broken while pursuing the “greater good” of going after Bush and his administration is a bad law.

In fact, Pulitzer’s are given out by the Left for this type of action as a reward.

When Olbermann said “Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda”, he was simply mirroring the Left’s mindset. In their mind, Conservatives, Republicans, etc., are indeed the true enemy and if a law has to be broken to thwart them….so be it.

This leaker is a hero to the left and they will rise to his defense and rationalize what he did by stating it was “the greater good”

Opposite Day on April 15, 2010 at 1:17 PM

J.E. Dyer on April 15, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Jen, if you send me an email at otis_butler@yahoo.com I’ll give you some info and we can catch up.

Otis B on April 15, 2010 at 1:17 PM

And another thing…..just witness how the Left will describe this leaker versus the way they describe say…..Sarah Palin.

That is what you need to know about the Left. They are like serial killers. They exhibit the pathology of a sociopath. To them, Palin is a “thing” to defeat. No a human. Not a person.

And they see this leaker as someone in much higher regard than Palin. He is superior to her even if he breaks laws.

The Left will stop at nothing in terms of rationale for their cause. When you “get” this you see the Left more clearly.

Opposite Day on April 15, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Somewhat related, but about CIA agents, as related by a DIA person:

The American Prospect, November 10, 2005:

The fact that the agency was leaking isn’t denied by some. “Of course they were leaking,” says [former DIA official] Pat Lang. “They told me about it at the time. They thought it was funny. They’d say things like, ‘This last thing that came out, surely people will pay attention to that. They won’t re-elect this man.’”

Del Dolemonte on April 15, 2010 at 1:26 PM

You may also recall, though, that, conveniently, someone at the CIA forgot to get Joe Wilson’s signature on standard “no disclosure” form, which is the only reason you have for being technically correct in implying that it wasn’t an illegal disclosure by Wilson.

Dusty on April 15, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Maybe so, but I still don’t recall anything he wrote that was all that secretive. It was the lamest op ed on the subject that year by far. He spoke of having tea and believing that Iraq didn’t have any nukes (though the man also wrote a different op ed saying that he feared the US going to war precisely because he believed Saddam had nukes and would use them), but I don’t recall him writing anything at all specific except for the fact that Iraq had tried to buy materials needed for a nuke.

So what? Why should Bush have defended himself in this instance? Ed didn’t just “point that out,” there is, at the least, an implication of criticism. Again, shouldn’t such investigations be carried on without the “assistance” of the NYT? And the whole comparison to Plame is ridiculous in and of itself. I have read Ed and HA forever and I have seen a change since MM left the helm. JMO

Deanna on April 15, 2010 at 1:04 PM

All I know is that Bush’s reluctance to defend himself badly hurt him politically. If he’d fought back against the charges against him, they would have had a better chance of changing the narrative about him.

I do mean to criticize Bush by saying this. As far as I’m concerned, it was one of his bigger failings as president. I respect what he was trying to do, but it didn’t work.

You believe things have changed, and I get that, but I personally believe it’s mostly the perception of Hot Air that has changed so much.

Esthier on April 15, 2010 at 1:26 PM

J.E. Dyer on April 15, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Better yet, just for fun, if you are still in the business I’ll look you up on the global and send you and email on the high side.

Otis B on April 15, 2010 at 1:26 PM

To truly understand the Left, you need to know that they will see this indictment as a bad thing. As an injustice.

To them, any law broken while pursuing the “greater good” of going after Bush and his administration is a bad law.

In fact, Pulitzer’s are given out by the Left for this type of action as a reward.

When Olbermann said “Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda”, he was simply mirroring the Left’s mindset. In their mind, Conservatives, Republicans, etc., are indeed the true enemy and if a law has to be broken to thwart them….so be it.

This leaker is a hero to the left and they will rise to his defense and rationalize what he did by stating it was “the greater good”

Opposite Day on April 15, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Danny Rather was honored by his peers after he resigned in disgrace from C-BS “News”.

This leaker will be the Left’s new Dan Ellsberg or Phillip Agee.

Del Dolemonte on April 15, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Oddly, though, the same people who expressed outrage over the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA analyst never got terribly exercised over these breaches of national security (and to be fair, the same holds true in reverse).

Valerie Plame was probable outed at least twice before she ever married Joe Wilson, and long before Novak wrote about her. CIA OUTS PLAME TO FIDEL CASTRO. America hasn’t had an embassy in Havana for decades, so it used the Swiss embassy which had lots of Cuban secretaries, janitors, etc.

Gertz elaborates that “the documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them.”

Karmi on April 15, 2010 at 1:31 PM

This is treason – he’s going to jail for the rest of his life.

I don’t understand why the reporters don’t get charged too.

Stephanie on April 15, 2010 at 12:20 PM

It’s a crime against our nation for sure. But treason may overstate the case.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

What crime has the reporter committed? What are your criteria for ignoring the First Amendment?

The Race Card on April 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Unquestionably treason, since leaking this story to the media unquestionably aided terrorists. No sympathy for the NSA guy.

As for the NYT, we do have a tradition of giving great leeway to the press in order to be sure we don’t trample First Amendment rights, and the NYT took full advantage of it. Objectively, it’s fairly clear they were complicit in this treason by the NSA leaker. But even though they in fact acted treasonously, they can’t be prosecuted legally because of their greater leeway due to First Amendment concerns.

I think this is a case where the press is given too much leeway, but I at least appreciate why it is so.

tom on April 15, 2010 at 1:33 PM

We don’t need no stinkin’ trial.

Put the leak’s photos out. Hugging Dick Cheney. Operating a waterboard. Urinating on a Koran.

Then give him to AQ if they promise to send back a video.

Show the video to all federal employeses.

IlikedAUH2O on April 15, 2010 at 1:44 PM

[Esthier on April 15, 2010 at 1:26 PM]

You keep concentrating on the good or bad value of the information vis-a-vis Bush’s intended policy direction, and it seems to me that that is irrelevant, particularly wrt the comparison I made relative to Ed’s “to be fair” comparison. A leak, by definition being “not authorized”, is a leak whether it has supportive or deleterious affect on policy.

As to the actual op-ed Wilson wrote, IIRC, there was a long run up to it with Joe Wilson feeding reporters information about his trip to discredit the Bush’s “16 words” long before his actual op-ed. By the time of the op-ed the meme was already established and narrative set in stone, all based on Wilson’s leaking of ‘not authorized to disclose’ information which Wilson was hired to get via Plame’s offer of Wilson’s services.

Dusty on April 15, 2010 at 1:49 PM

good.

wouldn’t it be great if obama fired holder for this?

reliapundit on April 15, 2010 at 1:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2