Joey's Take: No Catch & Release Here

Sorry 'bout the late post. This running for Congress can sure eat into a dog's time. While I've been hard at it, "Bobama" is chillin' in Martha's Vineyard where they've welcomed him with T-shirts proclaiming him the "new dog in town." Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

I don't want to sound like I've been eating sour grapes, but I don't want all my would-be constituents to taint me with Bo's pampered lifestyle. Remember, I'm a red-blooded working dog. You won't catch me vacationing in Martha's Vineyard a) because I can't afford it and b) I wouldn't be welcome amongst all those bluebloods.

Enough vacation talk. There are some real issues facing our nation. No, I'm not talking Cash for Clunkers, the economy or even healthcare. One of the biggest issues confronting our country remains security. Arf! Remember 911? Now, don't let the liberals tell you I'm just trying to scare you into voting for me. That's just their PC way of saying that anyone who doesn't vote for them is a) stupid, b) easily swayed, c) ignorant of the "real" issues, and d) part of that angry, out-of-control, town hall mob.

But even the president and his minions are sweating the security scene a bit now that Scotland -- an ally?! -- has implemented a catch-and-release policy when it comes to terrorists. In a letter to Scotland's government this weekend, FBI Director Robert Mueller said its release of the Lockerbie bomber would give comfort to terrorists all over the world. "Your action," he wrote, "makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988." (Source: Daily News)

Despite our public show of outrage and the wagging of fingers at the hero's welcome Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi received when he arrived in Libya last week, Eric Holder -- with the president's blessing -- is instituting his own be-nice-to-terrorist fishing policy. Today, he announced that he's opening an investigation into the interrogation techniques the CIA used on the men behind the 911 and USS Cole attacks. From now on, the FBI -- not the CIA -- will do terrorist interrogations, and they promise to be really, really, REALLY nice while asking questions. (Source: CNN)

Holder's announcement not only will give comfort to the terrorists of the world -- it will have them dancing in the streets. And, to paraphrase the FBI's Mueller, it makes a mockery of the families who lost loved ones on the USS Cole in 2000 and in the attack on the U.S. Sept. 11, 2001.

If this kind of wrong-headedness continues to win the day, security will be issue No. 1 by time the elections come around next year.

I wish I were just trying to scare you into voting for me.

(Un)classified

CNN ran an interview yesterday with Robert Draper, a GQ reporter who wrote an "expose" about Donald Rumsfeld, including some top secret briefing documents Rumsfeld purportedly prepared for President Bush. (A former aide said Rumsfeld didn't prepare the documents; military officials did.) The classified documents were recently given to the reporter by someone in the administration who must have had security clearance to get his hands on them and who was outraged by something in the documents.

The cause of the outrage and the focus of the CNN interview? The fact that the cover sheet for some of these intelligence briefing reports included a verse from the Old Testament in italics -- sandwiched between a large bold headline and a large color photo of a war scene. Yes, a government official dared to put a Bible verse on a top secret classified intelligence document. To prove it, CNN -- and I'm sure the GQ article -- ran pictures of these top secret classified intelligence documents for all the world to see.

The verses shown came from the Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Joshua -- all books of the Bible recognized by Christians, Jews and Muslims. Joshua is a history and Ecclesiastes and Psalms are often included in academic literature anthologies. Joshua also was a military strategist as was King David, who wrote most of the Psalms. Quoting them is rather like quoting Gen. Patton or Napoleon or Alexander the Great. But that's beside the point.

What I want to know is where is the outrage about a person with security clearance taking it upon himself to illegally leak top secret documents to the media just because he doesn't like the way they're put together. What else did this person leak?

Having a quote from King David on one of our government documents is far less dangerous than having someone we're supposed to be able to trust with our national security running around exposing classified information. If everyone with a security clearance could unilaterally and arbitrarily decide what should be released, we would have no national security.

A security clearance is a privilege and a huge responsibility. Violating that clearance has consequences for the country. And it should have consequences for the people who violate it -- whether they're government officials, politicians or the media.