Source of White House intelligence leaks named

The New York Times has always supported Democrats, even if publishing a story would unquestionably harm U.S. interests as a whole. (For example, publishing needlessly inflammatory photos of a female Army soldier holding a leash tied to the neck of an Iraqi prisoner at the Abu Ghraib prison. Hardly "abuse" but the photos outraged Muslims around the world.)

In the last few months the Times has published stories revealing details of top-secret U.S. national security operations. A consistent theme of these stories was how Obama was a tough, gutsy commander-in-chief, willing to make tough decisions to safeguard the U.S. In other words, the articles were designed to help Obama win re-election in November.

The leaks involved details of Seal Team Six; the identity of a Pakistani doctor who was crucial in confirming the location of Osama bin Laden; and the origins of two astonishingly successful computer viruses that have sabotaged Iran's nuclear program.

The Pakistani doctor has now been sentenced by a Pakistani court to 33 years in prison for helping the U.S. Details of the viruses will make it far more difficult (if not impossible) to introduce similar software into opponents' computers in the future.

Because the stories contained information known only at the highest levels of government, conservatives charged that the leaks had to have come from someone in the White House. And because all high-level staffers in the White House presumably support Obama and most assuredly wouldn't want to hurt his re-election chances, the natural conclusion is that the leaks weren't sabotage, but were approved by Obama himself.

Of course leaking harmful national secrets to the press doesn't bother the top Democratic leaders and strategists a bit, since as far as they're concerned the U.S. shouldn't have a military or secrets or a strong defense. They consistently push policies that would weaken the U.S. So Team Obama knew the leaks wouldn't damage their standing with their Democrat base.

However, the White House knew that if the leaks could be pinned on them, it would alienate the crucial independent voter, so they denied that anyone in the White House was the source.

But now a long-time Democrat pollster, Pat Caddell, has said on national television that the source of the leaks is Obama's National Security Advisor (and long-time Democrat political operative) Thomas Donilon. Click here to read about Donilon's "qualifications" for this vital position. Short answer: he's politically connected. For example, from 1999-2005 he was "executive vice-president for law and policy" at Fannie Mae, the corrupt and mismanaged federally-chartered mortgage finance company.

Obama's selection of Donilon as NSA surprised most of the intel community since Donilon has virtually no experience in Intelligence and is reportedly widely regarded as a person who has always gotten posts by virtue of his political connections. To say he's unqualified for his current post would be a gross understatement.

Caddell's willingness to name Donilon as the source of the leaks on national television suggests Caddell is sure of his ground, since if he were wrong the legal liability could be substantial.

The crucial link here is to remember that Donilon is a political animal with years of experience in political maneuvering, so it's highly unlikely that he'd leak these details to the Times unless his boss directed him to do so. Thus these leaks lead right to Obama--and Jay Carney's denials are flat-out lies.

Of course, given the adoration for Obama by all members of the Lying Media we can expect this blockbuster revelation to get zero mention in the mainstream press.