Leaks for votes

It's a campaign stratagem. The Foundry:

The New York Times revealed today in a major news article that the well-known Stuxnet malware attack on the Iranian nuclear program was, in fact, an American operation. Most experts had felt that was the most logical conclusion, but it had never been confirmed. The Times report is based on interviews with anonymous sources “because the effort remains highly classified, and parts of it continue to this day,” reporter David Sanger wrote. While this is an acknowledgement of U.S. prowess in cyberwarfare, the revelation is an inexcusable breach of security that seems to be a part of a disturbing trend.

One has to ask: Why is the Obama Administration choosing to continue revealing operational information that is normally not released? This includes the specific units that conducted the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, information from the bin Laden compound, classified information on the bin Laden raid, details of drone operations, and now secrets about cyberwarfare. There is NO good operational reason for doing this. The only “logical” reason is a tight race for presidency. Does this mean that the closer that we get to the election, the more operational secrets will be given away?

The larger reality is that these leaks, designed to highlight the President’s credentials as a tough leader, are trying to mask the fact that Obama has virtually nothing to show on key national security issues. Progress in the big and important issues, such as relations with China and Russia, broadly fending off Iranian nuclear development, and keeping the rogue regime in North Korea inside its box, have all proven elusive for this Administration.

When progress is absent, a desperate Administration may use leaks, even if it harms national security.

Peggy Noonan gets it right this time (emphasis is mine):

Most ominously, there are the national-security leaks that are becoming a national scandal—the "avalanche of leaks," according to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that are somehow and for some reason coming out of the administration. A terrorist "kill list," reports of U.S. spies infiltrating Al Qaeda in Yemen, stories about Osama bin Laden's DNA and how America got it, and U.S. involvement in the Stuxnet computer virus, used against Iranian nuclear facilities. These leaks, say the California Democrat, put "American lives in jeopardy," put "our nation's security in jeopardy."

This isn't the usual—this is something different. A special counsel may be appointed.

And where is the president in all this? On his way to Anna Wintour's house. He's busy. He's running for president.

But why? He could be president now if he wanted to be.

I think the word that goes here is BOOM.

But apparently he can't be president. He doesn't know how and he's not willing to learn. A little more from Peggy:

President Obama's problem now isn't what Wisconsin did, it's how he looks each day—careening around, always in flight, a superfluous figure. No one even looks to him for leadership now. He doesn't go to Wisconsin, where the fight is. He goes to Sarah Jessica Parker's place, where the money is.

There is, now, a house-of-cards feel about this administration.

It became apparent some weeks ago when the president talked on the stump—where else? . . . .

Where else, indeed? Read the rest. Then see Charlie Spiering's list of Obama's 28 "Star-studded" fundraisers (so far). Poor Barack is so busy preening among the "stars" he doesn't know whether he's coming or going:

“I just came from a wonderful event over at the Wilshire or the Hilton -- I'm not sure which,” Obama said in his remarks at the Beverly Hills, California home of Glee co-creator Ryan Murphy and his fiancé David Miller, admitting a confusing schedule. “Here's what happens -- because you go through the kitchens of all these places and so you never are quite sure where you are."

But we know where he isn't. No wonder he's too tired to get up in the morning. Celebrity-in-Chief is a sweet gig, worth doing anything to hang on to. Which brings us back to the avalanche of Obama White House security leaks:

Power Line: The White House feels bipartisan heat over leaks:

Moreover, Senators Feinstein and Levin must strongly suspect high-level involvement in the leaks. I wouldn’t think that you hold hearings or contemplate a special counsel to investigate leaks by mid-level bureaucrats.

If the White House isn’t behind the leaks, then surely it will want to find out who is. The more it resists a thorough, independent investigation, the easier it will be to infer White House culpability.

Ed Rogers: Stuxnet, a worm infecting the Obama campaign:

The scandal is fast approaching a tipping point. The FBI and Congress are now involved. If the FBI investigation were to end quickly, without finding any suspects, then that would be a major scandal itself. If it looks as if the matter is being slow-walked to get beyond the election, that would also be a scandal; and if a guilty party is offered up, that person may begin to defend himself or herself by implicating others. This will lead to the inevitable questions of, "What did the White House know, and when did it know it?"

The outrage over the leaks is already a bipartisan affair. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who is not a partisan bomb-thrower, is looking and sounding a little like former senator Howard Baker these days. See her chilling interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer from yesterday.

Mitt Romney must handle this matter carefully. Anything he says will be used by some Democrats to dismiss the matter as an election-year ploy by Republicans, and Obama media allies will declare that there is nothing to see and everyone should move on. But the charge is too serious, the violations are too blatant, and the leaks appear to be so self-serving. This latest chapter is only getting started — a summer scandal may be settling in.

Stay tuned.

Many thanks to Michelle Malkin for linking.

Most recent posts here. Follow us on Twitter here. Amazon store here.