Donald
Rumsfeld
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6930197.stm">revealed
the identity of the star witness in the Abu Grhaib case.
The guy who blew the whistle had been promised anonymity.
In
2004, the Bush Administration
href="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/bush-admin-may-be-responsible-for.html">blew
a Pakistani intelligence operation
by revealing sensitive intelligence information. In 2005, there was the
Libby-Plame Leak. In April 2006, the Bush Administration blew
rel="tag"
href="http://corpus-callosum.blogspot.com/2006/04/leaker-in-chief-reduxoffered-without.html">Operation
Tiramisu, putting Israeli intelligence operatives at risk.
In November 2006 in was learned that the US had
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/world/middleeast/04nuke.html?ex=1320296400&en=35c10590c3e0e196&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss">posted
sensitive nuclear information on its website. What
they did was to put up scanned documents that had been seized in Iraq.
Even after nuclear scientists pointed out the sensitive
nature of the information, it remained online for weeks. It
was a rough guide for making a nuclear bomb.
It was those kinds of things that led to the moniker, Leaker-In-Chief.
- Log in to post comments
Not a surprise. The only think they keep from the American public are their priorities and illegal infringements on privacy. And if someone appropriately calls them out on it, they then say those people are just freedom haters. History does, indeed, repeat itself.
While bigshot security leakers like Rumsfeld, Cheny and Rove are still free, the FBI raids a home looking for the whistleblower who notified the press about the existence of FISA.