The LA Times reports on the defense that David Sanger, chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, spoke about on CNN yesterday of the leaks that the Obama Administration supplied him with;
“Did I talk to a lot of people in the administration? Of course,” [Sanger] said, as would be expected when writing a book about national security.
Sanger contended that how Obama conducts himself in the theater of international military action is key for the public to know, and is a necessary story for the media to report on, regardless of the secrecy associated with national security issues.
What? Want to spend a moment thinking about that statement, Dave? There’s a reason that we call them “secrets” and “national security” and the use of neither rhyme with the New York Times nor does anyone usually equate publishing secrets in the New York Times as part of our national security. And, “he doubted that any politically motivated leaks were involved.” Why else would the Obama Administration leak secrets to the New York Times, if it’s not politically motivated? Otherwise we could still call them secrets. Are they leaking any failed operations to the New York Times?
“Can we debate them out in the open? Of course,” he said.
Then they’re not secrets, are they? The Roosevelt Administration saw no need to debate our secrets during World War II and I’m pretty sure that the editors of the New York Times of that era would agree. How about we let our secrets remain that way until whichever war we’re fighting ends, so we don’t intentionally get mired in the morass that the media made of this last war with their “open debate”.
And how about someone put a muzzle on the leaks out of the Obama Administration and let them debate the issues instead of smokescreening their failures.