Donate to NRO Today


NRO BLOG ROW | THE CORNER |  ARCHIVES    SEARCH    E-MAIL    PRINT    RSS




Tuesday, September 26, 2006


re: CIA Leaking   [Michael Rubin]

When it comes to CIA leaking, this passage from the November 10, 2005, American Prospect is interesting:

“The fact that the agency was leaking isn’t denied by some. ‘Of course they were leaking,’ says Pat Lang. ‘They told me about it at the time. They thought it was funny. They’d say things like, ‘This last thing that came out, surely people will pay attention to that. They won’t re-elect this man.’”

There are other smoking guns out there.  Take NPR, more recently, on Iran.  “The Pentagon has created a new desk to work on Iran policy. That worries some at the CIA, who point out that many of the new Iran-desk staffers are the same people who staffed the now-notorious Office of Special Plans in the run-up to the Iraq war.”

Forget for the fact that the “notorious” is nothing but blatant reporter bias and perhaps a fondness for conspiracy theory (disproved in July 2004, see pages 282-283 on this .pdf).  The fact of the matter is that some in the CIA, rather than limit themselves to intelligence development and analysis, seek to involve themselves in the policy debate by leaking.  A similar hit job was published by Warren Strobel at McClatchy—relying entirely on unnamed intelligence sources.  Many reporters will publish CIA leaks without qualification or caring how they are simply viewed as dupes.  To question sources or follow-up when claims prove false would mean that their contacts on their beats would dry up. 

Regardless, often times the reporters’ political views coincide If John Negroponte and Pat Kennedy wanted to put an end to it, they could launch an investigation or shut-it-down.  There are only two conclusions that can be drawn by the fact that they do not: 1)       Either, they support the leaks to win policy battles, the so-called Armitage strategy; or,2)       They cannot control the leaks.  This suggests that the bureaucracy leads them, rather than they lead the bureaucracy.  In which case it is time for the White House to question their management competence.  




 





 

© National Review Online 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Home | Search | NR / Digital | Donate | Media Kit | Contact Us