Dartblog

When The New York Times some weeks ago published a few details from the National Intelligence Estimate—only those few details which were delivered to the paper by the criminal leaker—it provoked the White House to declassify further portions of the document, so that the whole truth could be told. In essence, that happened. The Estimate, as it turned out, did say that Iraq had made terrorism worse (of course), but it also said that victory in Iraq would significantly harm the Islamist terror movement (also of course).

The whole incident confirmed that 1) The Times is no longer a serious newspaper, 2) ‘Intelligence community’ is an oxymoron, and 3) Utter victory in Iraq really is as important as the president has said.

The very funny thing about this particular leak is that the Times got just those juicy sections its politically-motivated leaker elected to deliver. And so it could run one of its bloody murder headlines and do its nice little liberal hit job on the White House. When the White House decided to declassify more of the document in response? Horror of horrors, the editorial board cried!

Well, in any case, the news this morning is that it wasn’t an activist CIA agent who leaked the information. It was a Democratic operative.

It’s a good thing leaks are bad now, right? Right?