Sanger defends Administration leaks

| June 11, 2012 | 8 Comments

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.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Media

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. CI says:

    The hallmark of today’s media: sensationalism and the scoop.

    Actual investigative reporting isn’t even an afterthought anymore.

  2. NHSparky says:

    The NY Times betraying American national security? Sorry, nothing new. Google USS Lapon and New York Times.

    Remove all sharp or heavy objects from reach.

  3. Steadfast&Loyal says:

    and this is the same office that would court martial or revoke security clearences if many of us here would do the same thing.

  4. Claymore says:

    Let’s see…what did they used to do to people who leaked national secrets? I know that they did something…blocked their Twitter page for 30 days? Canceled their Facebook account? I’m sure it was something bad like that.

  5. Doc Bailey says:

    I’m sure the fact that people are dying over these leaks is no never mind

  6. DR_BRETT says:

    PINKY Sulzberger —
    is aptly named .

  7. SomePeoplesKids says:

    wow, that we live in a day and age where this guy can just outright do this kind of thing without immediately being arrested/imprisoned makes me fear for the future.

  8. DaveO says:

    The NYT article was detailed enough that anyone with access to the WH visitors log (available with a FOIA request), can look at the dates and times and know, reasonably well, who was with the POTUS.

    Larger issue:

    Either the POTUS did everything that is described in the NYT expose’, and so we’ll know who leaked what (probably already known) in short order.

    Or, the POTUS delegated all of the tasks ascribed to him to someone else, and then claimed credit and authorized the leaks to show how tough he is (out Cheneying Cheney).

    Obama’s too incompetent, and too narcissistic, for him to select people to die, and keep it to himself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *