1. Good for Chambliss. The leaks have gotten out of hand. I keep up with national security news on a daily basis. Lately, it seems at least once a month for the last couple months I’m startled by the level of detail divulged in an ordinary wire service news report.

    And whereas the leaks during the Bush administration tended to cast Bush in an unfavorable light (warrantless eavesdropping, “black site” prisons, details about enhanced interrogation techniques, etc), the leaks from the Obama administration seem intended give the public a positive impression of Obama’s national security credentials (details about the bin Laden raid, details about the killing of al Qaeda’s #2 yesterday, etc).

    • elfiii says:

      @ American Delight “the leaks from the Obama administration seem intended give the public a positive impression of Obama’s national security credentials (details about the bin Laden raid, details about the killing of al Qaeda’s #2 yesterday, etc).”

      It’s funny how you aren’t the only one who sees it that way.

      “In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” – Churchill, W.S.

  2. Lawton Sack says:

    National security is one of the Constitutional responsibilities of Congress, so I am glad that Senator Chambliss is taking it seriously. National security should never be a partisan issue.

    Now, if they could only keep their hands out of creating more regulations… 🙂

  3. Jackster says:

    I’m skeptical of any politician running for re-election. Especially one so keen at staying out of the news, until it’s time to get re-elected.

    Where was your “testicular fortitude” before you realized you would have opposition?

    • Charlie says:

      1) He’s not up for re-election.

      2) His continued efforts to work on a Simpson-Bowles type budget compromise against the wishes of more ….vocal elements of his own party suggest a bit of intestinal fortitude and/or someone that isn’t totally pre-occupied with an easy re-election when that time does roll around, does it not?

      • Lawton Sack says:

        I have called out Sen. Chambliss on some things, but I agree that his non-partisan approach to our financial fiasco is the right way to go. We are well past the point that a single Party is going to fix things on the national level in regards to financial spending. I thought Gingrich was the best man for the job, as Gingrich has worked with Democrats and Independents in the past. I think he would have been willing to fix things in a non-partisan fashion. Some of the other candidates were too polarizing, though I think that Romney would be willing to work with both sides to accomplish some financial reform.

  4. Jackster says:

    Oh wait, it’s Isakson up for re-election. I do apologize.

    I had the two senators confused.

    I would agree to your point there.

    • Lawton Sack says:

      Isakson’s not up, either. He just got re-elected in 2010. Saxby runs in 2014. Senators serve six year terms, so Isakson will not have to run until 2016. 2012 is our “off” year for the Senate.

      • Calypso says:

        Lawton, it could be argued that we have more than our share of ‘off’ years for the Senate.

  5. Charlie says:

    Additional statement from Senator Chambliss’ office:

    Feinstein, Chambliss, Rogers, Ruppersberger Deplore Leaks of Classified National Security Information

    “In recent weeks, we have become increasingly concerned at the continued leaks regarding sensitive intelligence programs and activities, including specific details of sources and methods. The accelerating pace of such disclosures, the sensitivity of the matters in question, and the harm caused to our national security interests is alarming and unacceptable.

    “These disclosures have seriously interfered with ongoing intelligence programs and have put at jeopardy our intelligence capability to act in the future. Each disclosure puts American lives at risk, makes it more difficult to recruit assets, strains the trust of our partners, and threatens imminent and irreparable damage to our national security in the face of urgent and rapidly adapting threats worldwide.

    “As leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, we are jointly committed to act immediately to address this matter. Our Committees each intend to review potential legislation to strengthen authorities and procedures with respect to access to classified information and disclosure of it, as well as to ensure that criminal and administrative measures are taken each time sensitive information is improperly disclosed. We also intend to press for the Executive branch to take tangible and demonstrable steps to detect and deter intelligence leaks, and to fully, fairly, and impartially investigate the disclosures that have already taken place. We plan to move legislation quickly, to include possible action in this year’s intelligence authorization act.

    “The problem of leaks of classified information is not new, and efforts in the past to address it have not worked. We believe that significant changes are needed, in legislation, in the culture of the agencies that deal with classified information, in punishing leaks, and in the level of leadership across the government to make clear that these types of disclosures will not stand.”

Comments are closed.