By Linda Chavez
Friday, May 17, 2013
In my experience, many who plead most passionately for
bipartisanship do so because they hope to persuade those on the other side of
the aisle to cave in on their principles. But there are times when
bipartisanship is not only desirable, but also absolutely necessary. Partisan
bickering and finger pointing have no place when national security is at stake.
Unfortunately, both parties seem to ignore this rule when
it suits them. Democrats did so routinely during the Bush years; now
Republicans seem to be playing the same game over the Obama administration's investigation
into national security leaks last May.
Republicans have gone into high dudgeon over the
revelation that the Justice Department obtained the telephone records of news
reporters in its criminal investigation of extremely damaging national security
leaks in 2012. The investigation involves stories that appeared last May about
a plot to blow up an airplane headed for the U.S.
On May 7, 2012, AP reporters revealed details of the
plot, which included information that the U.S. had infiltrated al-Qaida in
Yemen. I and other conservatives decried the leaks at the time. Chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee Rep. Mike Rogers described the leak as "a
catastrophe" and "a crime," which it certainly was. The leak not
only jeopardized the life of the double agent who handed over the bomb to the
CIA, but it also gave valuable insight into the sources and methods that are
the intelligence community's crown jewels.
So why are Republicans now so eager to charge the
administration with trampling the First Amendment in the investigation into
these leaks? If investigators are serious about uncovering who leaked the
information to the AP, it seems highly reasonable that searching phone records
is a good way to go about it.
Investigators didn't eavesdrop on conversations; they
simply checked call records -- not to prosecute journalists but to find out who
passed on classified information that posed damaging threats to national
security.
Attorney General Eric Holder, who rightly found himself
in the congressional hot seat this week on other matters, was correct when he
said: "This was a very serious leak. A very, very serious leak. I've been
a prosecutor since 1976, and I have to say that this is among, if not the most
serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks I've ever seen.
It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the
American people at risk."
Ironically, if the investigation unearths the culprit or
culprits, it is likely to be the administration that suffers embarrassment.
Last year, Republicans were quick to assume the leaks occurred because someone
in the administration wanted to portray the president as keeping America safe
by killing terrorists and interrupting bomb plots, especially during the middle
of the president's re-election campaign. They demanded that a special
prosecutor be appointed, which the AG declined to do. Are Republicans now
suggesting the administration was too aggressive in its investigation of these
leaks?
Holder and others in the administration all the way up to
the president have done plenty of things that deserve criticism. Republicans
are right to investigate what went wrong in Benghazi and the later political
manipulation of facts, why the IRS targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt
status, how the administration has squandered billions of dollars in
alternative energy grants -- the list could go on for several more lines. But
they should exercise better judgment when blaming the administration for doing
all it can to find out who leaked information on the bomb plot last May.
If investigators discover who leaked information on the
Yemen operation, the guilty should be punished to the fullest extent of the
law. And Republicans should commend -- not condemn -- the administration for a
job well done. It goes beyond bipartisanship. It's simply the right thing to
do.
No comments:
Post a Comment