To hear the White House tell it, this was absolutely necessary in defense of national security.
A leak, they say, must be stopped at all costs.
Okay – then we have to wonder where’s the investigation of the leaks surrounding, let’s say, the killing of Osama bin Laden?
There’s no question that was a good thing and the right call was made.
But then the administration permitted the release of enough classified information about the raid to make a movie.
And they didn’t seem the least bit concerned.
There’s something of a double standard here.
In other situations — when the Obama administration didn’t stand to gain as much good press — they went to great lengths to find the source of a leak.
So, this thought nags at our mind –
Is it possible that the administration isn’t against leaking information — just the information they don’t find positive?
When leaking information fits conveniently into the version of events they want to tell, are they happy to help open the floodgates?
We’ve seen this a lot – when information leaks out that benefits the White House, the administration seems to shrug and say, “oh well.”
At other times, they launch a full-on anti-leak crusade.
Releasing classified information is, of course, a serious matter.
But if preventing leaks is the administration’s chief priority, why do they operate with two different sets of rules?
Why do they act differently when leaks are convenient for them or push a desired outcome or shine their public image?
We may be reading this wrong, but sometimes that’s how it looks to us.