Who's the Source? -- NY Times National Security Articles

"The notion that my White House would purposefully release classified national security information is offensive, it's wrong"

And, the Times puts out this weird denial that their stories are a result of "leaks":

But, by definition, classified information either comes out as a result of a leak, or by accident. Unless they found the transcripts of private conversations left behind on the bus, aren't these leaks?

The Times own story says they got the info from folks who were in the room:

 

Offensive?

 

Those meetings took place in the Oval Office so you would have to assume that it came from someone in the meeting.

I think The Times sent a shot over the bough this afternoon ( after Obama press conference) when they released a story about Obama caving to the drug lobby in return for support of Health Care bill. Story complete with e-mails BTW.

 

Chris Matthews: "I think he was really hurt," by accusations his White House had leaked these stories.

 

This passage has a Saturday Night Live quality to it:

But the good luck did not last. In the summer of 2010, shortly after a new variant of the worm had been sent into Natanz, it became clear that the worm, which was never supposed to leave the Natanz machines, had broken free, like a zoo animal that found the keys to the cage. It fell to Mr. Panetta and two other crucial players in Olympic Games — General Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Michael J. Morell, the deputy director of the C.I.A. — to break the news to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden.

An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users.

“We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.”

Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.”

 

according to officials in the room

 

Leaks happen on purpose. It would appear the purpose of the article cited here was to make public differences with Israel, since of course no American politician of any party has the guts to go on the record with differences with Israel. Another rule of thumb, which we all know as journalists, is that the quoted sources in a story are also the leakers. Whoever comes off looking good in one of these Washington now-it-can-be-told stories is almost always the stool pigeon.

 

Who could be from State, NSA, CIA, Army Intelligence, or any one of a hundred other agencies not the White House.

A 'leak' would imply someone slipping the Times documents or transcripts or classified materials.

"I heard the president say ______" in the course of an on-the-record interview, however anonymous, is not a 'leak' per se.

 

Yep. I always laughed when folks in the Giuliani administration would "search" for leakers. It was always the top people, the ones closest to the Mayor.

Hell, they're the ones comfortable talking to the press. Lower level aides are terrified of the press. They don't know how the game works, and are worried they'll get "caught".

And, yeah, look for who is quoted, and who gets glowing profiles.

 

Sure it is, if it's classified.

And, the Times can't be sure who the "source" of a leak is, either. They might get info from State, but they don't know if it's on orders from the WH.

 

Of course not, but the White House can plausibly deny it.

Just as the Times can plausibly deny receiving "leaked" information if it's something gleaned in the course of an interview - which is how they're parsing their denial here.

 

My theory on these leaks is that anything that deflects away from the economy is a good thing for The White House.

Sometimes leaks to The Times backfire though. See Libby, Scooter.