Archived Story
Designated leaker in Washington
Published 9:09am Tuesday, June 19, 2012Glory be to the commander in chief. Everyone in the Washington-New York Axis of Evil knows that’s why there has been a string of White House national security leaks.
Each of the leaks has been a transparent attempt to pump up President Obama as a tough warrior who deserves re-election because he’s been intimately involved in the killing of Osama bin Laden, the cyber-sabotage of Iran’s nuclear program, and choosing which specific terrorist gets blasted to heaven by a U.S. drone.
Everyone also knows the leaks have damaged our ability to operate our future military and counter-terror operations, and they put our intelligence agents and commandos at risk. And everyone but Obama press spokesman Jay Carney knows exactly where the leaks were authorized — the White House.
The only big mystery left to solve is who the happy leaker is.
The Re-Elect Obama team has two Justice Department lawyers looking into the leaks, which is a joke. Republicans in the Senate including Lindsey Graham want a special prosecutor to mount a much wider and deeper investigation, which if it happens would bring the president deserved political troubles but would most likely only catch a few little fish who work for the big fish.
The list of White House leak suspects is long. The media accounts of the president’s brave foreign-policy exploits in The New York Times and elsewhere have included quotes from Leon Panetta, Jim Jones, Gen. Doug Lute and Gen. David Petraeus.
But I don’t think those gents are up to doing such partisan press work. I have a hunch the Obama administration’s leaker is someone else. Before I say who I think he or she is, I have a little story about my father Ronald Reagan and his problem with a leaker.
When my father would hold discussions with his security advisers about possible covert military operations against the Soviet Union or Libya, there was always a certain U.S. senator in the room representing the Senate leadership. Even if everyone else agreed with a decision except the senator, the senator would often threaten to leak the plans to the press if the president authorized the operation.
It got so bad that when my father was planning to invade Grenada, he told no one in advance because he feared that the senator would blab to the media and cost American lives. That senator who caused my father so much trouble was none other than Joe Biden.
I have no proof, of course, but I think the Obama administration’s leaker is Joe Biden.
Every White House has a designated leaker who tells their friends in the media what the administration wants it to know in hopes of getting politically favorable coverage. My father’s was David Gergen.
Biden is perfect for the job of designated leaker. He works in an administration that spends half its time patting itself on the back and the other half trying to get the media to do it. Plus Biden, unlike the other suspects, has a vested interest in pumping up Obama’s reputation as a strong leader because it’ll keep him in the vice president’s mansion for another four years.
One more thing. Remember when spokesman Jay Carney misspoke the other day? First he said “the Obama administration” wasn’t responsible for the leak. Then he caught himself and said “the White House” wasn’t responsible.
Though it’s only my opinion, I bet Jay was actually telling the truth. It’s not the White House that’s been leaking.
But if I were doing the investigating, I’d have someone take a very strong look at the plumbing in the vice president’s house.
Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan, a political consultant, and the author of “The New Reagan Revolution.” Visit his website at www.reagan.com, or e-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com.
“Romney would have to play along, and he won’t.”
If you’re suggesting that some of us are underestimating Romney, I’ll admit that could be right.
If Romney can con so many fundamentalists into kinda-sorta supporting him as a Mormon for president, who knows?
(Report comment)
People are lying to pollsters. Once they get into the voting booth, it will be bye-bye Obama. I look for a Reagan type win over Carter in 1980. Not as bad but it will not be good for Obama. Remember, Carter was ahead in most of the polls leading up to the election.
(Report comment)
Indie, only one problem with your idea… Romney would have to play along, and he won’t. The only thing Romney is going to be talking about is the economy and jobs. Expect to see commercials of Obama stating: If I don’t get the econonomy fixed, I deserve to be a one term President.
(Report comment)
And lest we forget, Obama’s trampling of religious freedom.
(Report comment)
indieVoter; As cause for thought, I would like to refer you to Michael Reagan’s column; Looking At Great Obama Blunder, of Tuesday, June 5, 2012. I think this is a most perceptive article.
(Report comment)
Here are a couple of examples Noesis. These are things Obama will run on and Romney will have a hard time winning on.
1. If you allow say 60 days from the inauguration for Obama’s initial policies to start having any effect, the economy has gotten a lot better. Forget the “bailout” buzzword frenzy. I know they’ve tried to demonize it but Obama’s bailout of the Detroit auto-makers worked and it was Bush who bailed out the Wall St. banks. The fact is that when the economy is bad, government spending is what helps turn it around. Who knows how much worse the Great Depression would have been if it were not for the spending programs of FDR?
2. Obamacare? Obama will be happy to debate that one. First he’ll point out that Romney was for it first when HE implemented it in Massachusetts when he was governor there (so how seriously can you take him when he criticizes Obamacare, anyway?). Beyond that, Obama will elevate this topic to the bigger idea that in a country like America no person should go without health care. He will not let Romney drag this down to a quibble over obscure line items in the Affordable Care Act.
3. Don’t forget Bin Laden. After George Bush gave up and said on camera that he didn’t even think about Bin Laden that much anymore (that he had been marginalized) our current Commander-in-Chief called the shot that put our special forces in Pakistan that took out Osama Bin Laden. I’m sorry, but if “leaks” is the best rebuttal the other side has they will lose this one too. Obama got the bad guy.
4. Every single thing that Obama has gotten done has been over the dead, cold bodies of his republican opposition who’ve laid down in his path on every opportunity. Obama will make the case that they need to be voted out so that the next four years can be spent getting America back on track and not in gridlock.
That’s just a sample and, of course, I’m no Obama. He will do these topics a lot more justice than I just did. I look for him to win big this fall.
(Report comment)
I see that some still believe what they hear from the left wing media.
1.GM was the biggest fiasco and waste of tax dollars starting out. Obambi just wiped the slate clean for GM on the backs of it’s investors and turned it into a state owned business. He blew millions on green energy,sicked EPA on coal, gas and oil developement which put a stop to thousands of jobs. Shut down the pipeline and filled Washington with non-productive goverment jobs.
2. See Homer’s article.
3.Obabby didn’t find Osama, our intelligence people did, and then he betrayed the very man that helped make it happen;for political gain. Then the Navy Seals finished him off.
4. And lay in the way till november and then go back to don’t ask don’t tell in the military, turn traditional marriage laws over to the states, drop planned parenthood funding, repeal Roe vs Wade, get off the backs of small business and encourage exploration and drilling, lock down the borders and quit sending guns to the drug lords in Mexico. Believe in free enterprise that built our country and downsize the federal gov’t.
In other words, reverse the trend of an athiestic socialist state that the dems and Obama has shoved in our face. And find out who sent the voter registration to the dead dog and throw him in jail!
(Report comment)
Romneycare was a state program. It is what the people and the democrat legislature wanted. He only signed the bill. Far different than Obamacare which is clearly unconstitutional. Even you should know that difference.
(Report comment)
It’s not panic time. There will be two conventions, three debates and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of commercial advertising from both sides to come yet.
You will have a better idea of where Obama’s at after his speech at the Democratic convention. See where he’s at in the polls that following weekend.
After that, look for how the first debate turns out and where the polls are after that.
I still think you’re underestimating Obama, his accomplishments and his ability to run on them. We’ll see, though.
I know Obama probably won’t carry Lawrence county but he’s probably going to be re-elected this November anyway.
(Report comment)
One should never under estimate the abilities of a con man.
(Report comment)
It’s panic time Indie:
Democratic pollster Peter Hart gathered a group (sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center) in Denver last week. Nine of the 12 people voted for Obama four years ago. Today, only three lean toward him. Among the findings: (a) independents “aren’t biting” when it comes to the attacks on Mitt Romney on Bain Capital; (b) to the degree the public believes the economy is improving, the president doesn’t get the credit for it; (c) the president simply is not connecting with the voters he needs to win; and (d) there’s “no sense of leadership” emanating from the president.
“Whether it’s a failure of policy or of communications is debatable,” according to Clift, “but the sense of disillusionment with Obama’s performance is real.”
“He set up expectations that began 46 months ago, and they only grew over time,” according to Hart.
One man, a 31-year-old Web designer and home remodeler who voted for Obama in 2008, said, “The whole platform was hope—I don’t feel any more hope today.”
Pressed by Hart as to which candidate he was leaning toward, this person admitted, “I don’t even know if I’m going to vote this time.” In Hart’s view, the young Web designer should be in Obama’s corner, and the fact that he isn’t is emblematic of the president’s problems.
(Report comment)
I think they should investigate the leaks just like they did with Plame. Call back Fitzgerald and make him the Special Investigator.
With Plame, nobody was hurt. With this incompetent administration we already have one CIA assets thrown in prison probably to die after being outed.
(Report comment)
Joe Biden I could believe, but does he know it yet?
(Report comment)
Speaking of Iran-contra, you should watch this clip of Reagan giving a statement to reporters..
www(.)youtube(.)com/watch?v=I6vIyCkEX14
Just remove the ( )’s
And you can see reporters interrupting Reagan before he’s done giving his statement.
(Report comment)
“I have no proof, of course”
- Yes, of course. 100% conjecture is right down Mike Reagan’s alley.
“The list of White House leak suspects is long”
- As is the case with any good fiction. Keep writing Michael.
“When my father would hold discussions with his security advisers about possible covert military operations against the Soviet Union or Libya, there was always a certain U.S. senator in the room representing the Senate leadership”
- Who was in the room when they talked Iran-Contra? I’m guessing it was Ollie North and not someone from the Senate leadership since the Reagan administration was circumventing the express wishes of Congress.
“But if I were doing the investigating, I’d have someone take a very strong look at the plumbing in the vice president’s house.”
- The plumbing? Why don’t you guys hire some of those Watergate plumbers for another job? What about Darrell Issa? I thought he was supposed to be the investigative thorn-in-the-side of the Obama administration after the mid-terms made him Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Since Michael Reagan gets to rant when even he admits he has no proof at all, I’ll take a turn at this. At least I have some evidence.
Everyone on the right was expecting Issa to play a big role in taking down Obama. Since he has been Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, he hasn’t brought one “smoking gun” case against Obama. Why? The painfully obvious reason is this…there IS NO smoking gun.
That is EXACTLY WHY syndicated articles like this and lamebrain pieces on Fox News is the best they can do.
It’s all they’ve got.
(Report comment)
That’s not all we have… we have the lead
(Report comment)