Last weekend, a Russian hacker cracked six and a half million Linkedin user passwords. Monday, he posted them on the Internet. Wednesday, Linkedin came out and admitted what had happened. Thursday, all hell broke loose. Friday afternoon, I had an appointment for a policy consultation with a Linkedin representative. I had Gretchen reschedule her, however, to make room for an emergency telephone consultation with somebody representing a organization even more important than Linkedin, and no, I’m not talking about Twitter or Facebook, either. Believe it or not, this particular organization, and its representative, are even more important than those are, or ever could be.
Gretchen: Mr. Collins, the President of the United States!
Obama: Um… thank you. Mr. Collins?
Tom: Good afternoon, Mr. President. To what do I owe this extreme honor?
Obama: Ah… does your secretary always announce your teleconference guests like that?
Tom: Actually, Mr. President, this is the first time she’s ever done it. Gretchen’s a very enthusiastic supporter. I think she’s entered every single one of your celebrity dinner raffles – George Clooney, Sarah Jessica Parker, and those dinners with you and Michelle, naturally.
Obama: Please thank her for me.
Tom: I’ll be sure to, Mr. President, and I know she will be thrilled.
Obama: And I’m sorry she didn’t win any of them, of course. Um… she’s not… listening in or anything, is she?
Tom: Oh, absolutely not, Mr. President.
Obama: That’s good, because, you know, I often need to discuss rather… delicate subject matter.
Tom: I can assure you, Mr. President, of the same level of confidence I extend to all of my clients.
Obama: Well, that’s nice to know. Thanks.
Tom: You’re welcome. I must say, Mr. President, celebrities are an area where you have it all over the Republicans. You’ve got Spike Lee, Lady Gaga, Barbara Streisand, Jon Bon Jovi, Anna Wintour – the list goes on and on. And Romney, what’s he got? Donald Trump, that’s about it. After all, who would contribute three dollars to enter a raffle for an opportunity to have dinner with Mitt and the Koch brothers?
Obama: Hardly anyone, but unfortunately, there are a significant number of people who would contribute one hundred thousand dollars to Republican Super-PACs in return for a guaranteed invitation to that meal.
Tom: No doubt. Rich people don’t enter raffles, but they always have a hundred large to invest in a sure thing. So, Mr. President – to what do I owe the extreme honor of this telephone call?
Obama: Well, I guess you’ve heard about that book David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, has written?
Tom: You mean, Confront and Conceal – Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power, the book that revealed our covert war with Iran?
Obama: Yes.
Tom: The book that blew the cover off Operation Olympic Games, the top-secret collaboration between the United States and Israel to insert malicious software into Iranian nuclear program computer networks?
Obama: Uh-huh.
Tom: The book that explains, in exquisite detail, how the Stuxnet worm threw a monkey wrench into the whirring, high-speed clockworks of the Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuge plants?
Obama: Ah… yep.
Tom: The book that also explores your administration’s use of drone strikes – over two hundred, as opposed to the Bush administration’s use of less than fifty – and what appears to be a program of targeted assassinations?
Obama: Uh… that’s it, all right.
Tom: And you’re concerned, I suppose, about the effects that this book has on your administration’s image?
Obama: Well, actually, no.
Tom: No?
Obama: Not so much, really.
Tom: Because, in fact, it makes you, a Democratic president, appear unusually strong, powerful and decisive with respect to foreign policy and international affairs, thus pulling the rug right out from under the Republicans, who are accustomed to owning that issue?
Obama: Hmmm… you could put it that way, I guess.
Tom: So, in that case, I guess it must be the ruckus John McCain is raising about security breaches in your administration, and how Confront and Conceal is symptomatic of that?
Obama: It’s not just McCain. If it were only him – and that Mike Rogers guy who’s the Republican in charge of the House Intelligence Committee, and the usual lynch mob of conservative Republicans like Saxby Chambliss who are always out to get me about anything they can – I could understand it. But Senator Dianne Feinstein is screaming bloody murder about it, too. She’s a Democrat, and she’s demanding an investigation. And not just about secret cyber war with Iran or drone execution lists, either. They’re hot under collar over there on Capitol Hill about a whole bunch of stuff, including leaks about our agent who infiltrated Al Qaeda in Yemen posing as a suicide bomber; and information about the mission to eliminate Osama bin Laden that somehow ended up with the national media and some documentary film makers. Did you see my press conference this morning?
Tom: I faithfully watch all presidential press conferences; live when possible. Today, I was with a client during your press conference, but Gretchen recorded it for me to watch at my desk during lunch.
Obama: So you know how I feel about these baseless allegations.
Tom: Of course, Mr. President. I’m shocked – shocked – at the mere suggestion that an incumbent presidential administration would deliberately leak classified information to the media in order to enhance its image during an election year.
Obama: It’s good you feel that way about it, because personally, I am deeply offended by, as you say, the very suggestion.
Tom: As you made amply clear during your press conference, Mr. President. And besides, as you so correctly pointed out during your responses, all of the journalists and film makers involved have announced that nobody in the White House leaked any classified information whatsoever to them.
Obama: And you’d think that would be enough, wouldn’t you?
Tom: Well, I guess it’s because, if those statements are parsed carefully, it’s apparent that “White House” doesn’t exactly mean “entire executive branch.” And I do believe that yesterday, the Justice Department’s national security division had to partially recuse itself from the investigation. Which is somewhat… extraordinary, isn’t it?
Obama: I think that all depends on what your definition of “is” is.
Tom: Ah… yes… good point, Mr. President.
Obama: Right. Nevertheless… it would be… er… beneficial… to determine how to… um… manage an issue… uh… of that nature… should it arise.
Tom: Do you foresee… special prosecutors, then, Mr. President?
Obama: Yeah, looks like it.
Tom: It certainly does. And when they find the individuals responsible…
Obama: If they find them.
Tom: Okay, Mr. President, supposing if they find out who leaked these various pieces of classified information to the media, then whoever they find, that person or persons will not have committed any breach of United States security at the direction of any member of your administration, the White House or the Executive Office of the President?
Obama: No, no, absolutely not.
Tom: So, the person or persons the special prosecutors identify as the culprits will, without exception, turn out to have been acting completely upon their own initiative?
Obama: Well, sure.
Tom: They will be found to have given classified information to journalists, film makers and/or others in the media without any orders, direction or imperatives from any of their superiors in the civilian or military components of the executive branch?
Obama: Well, presumably, yes.
Tom: And your administration will subsequently call for their punishment – to the fullest extent allowed by the law – for their crimes, correct?
Obama: Um…
Tom: You will leave them – no matter who they are – twisting slowly in the wind?
Obama: Twisting… slowly… in the wind?
Tom: Because, as you said in your press conference today, you have zero tolerance for such conduct and the federal employees who behave that way?
Obama: Well, uh,…“zero” means zero, just like “no” means no, I guess.
Tom: In that case, Mr. President, I recommend you clearly state precisely that – without qualification – in the next speech where you can appropriately address the subject. Tell America and the world that the White House will not only cooperate fully with the special prosecutor, it will actively seek to aid the special prosecutor in any way possible in order to see to it that whoever it was that leaked all this information that makes your administration look like a tough, competent and formidable force in foreign policy and international affairs spends the rest of their lives – or the next several decades of them, anyway – in federal prison.
Obama: Um… yeah… ah… look… I already knew I could say that, okay?
Tom: But you don’t want to?
Obama: I’d rather not… you know… limit my options.
Tom: In other words, if you did that, and it turned out to be somebody who had something on… I mean, someone to whom you owed… um… make that… a person who was close to you and, ah, did these things out of a misguided sense of loyalty or admiration, and, of course, did them completely without you knowing anything about it, you’d like to be able to avoid having them reveal… um… make that fabricate… any details which might make it appear that you had anything at all to do with the acts which they perpetrated?
Obama: I am sure you realize that, for obvious reasons, I cannot confirm or deny any aspect of that question.
Tom: Certainly, Mr. President. You haven’t been making audio recordings of your daily conversations in the White House, have you?
Obama: No, I haven’t.
Tom: And you haven’t secretly assembled a covert task force to locate and neutralize these leakers before the special prosecutors can get to them, have you?
Obama: Absolutely not. Those are things Richard Nixon did. I’d never do them, if for no other reason than that.
Tom: Sorry, Mr. President, I was just checking. Well then, in that case, as I recall, in your press conference today, you said, “If we can root out folks who have leaked, they will suffer consequences,” and then went on to state, “In some cases, it’s criminal.”
Obama: Yes, that’s what I said alright. What of it?
Tom: Mr. President, in my opinion, with those remarks, you inadvertently got off on the right track for your desired course of action. I recommend that you continue to follow that road map. You should persist in being artfully vague and keep leaving yourself adequate wiggle room to cope with the inherent uncertainties of this situation. For example, you said, “suffer consequences,” not “go to prison.” Likewise, you said that it’s criminal… in some cases. I would suggest pursuing further polemic along those lines.
Obama: Such as what?
Tom: Next time a reporter holds your feet to the fire about the leaks, say something like, “These are reprehensible actions.” That sounds pretty strong to the average Joe, but “reprehensible” really only means “worthy of disapproval.” You could also express your “disdain” for such “contemptible” behavior and call for “appropriate measures” to be meted out to the miscreants. Characterize what was done as “unprincipled,” “terrible,” “illicit,” “immoral,” “shameful,” “proscribed,” “inexcusable,” “unscrupulous,” “wicked” or “unethical” – all of which are true – and again, all of which sound extremely angry and condemning – but all of which, in fact, are just rhetorical nerf balls. When discussing the circumstances, I suggest you say such things as, “This outrage is beyond the Pale,” “These violations of trust should be censured,” “Examples ought to be made,” “Justice must be done,” “The guilty cannot be allowed to escape,” or, “The wrongs committed cry out for redress.”
Obama: Right, I get the idea. Can you prepare a list of words and phrases like that and deliver them to my speech writers by Sunday morning?
Tom: It would be both a pleasure and a privilege, Mr. President.
Obama: Okay, then, do that.
Tom: Certainly, Mr. President.
Obama: Thanks. Goodbye.