<div>On 12/4/06, Doug Henwood <<a href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">dhenwood@panix.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Rumsefeld's memo was arrogant and callous, for sure, but it's still at odds with the admin's public stance. And it makes you wonder - who's leaking this stuff to the NYT? First the Hadley memo fucks up the meeting with Maliki, and now this. It has to be someone inside the admin - these things don't circulate that widely, do they? Doug </blockquote></div> Well, who can answer this question?  Do you think it is one source or more than one?  Are they acting in concert or separately?  It is like the question of "Deep Throat" a little bit. In some ways it is easier to guess at motivation, as long as we agree that my guess may just as well be my fantasy, no matter how educated.  Guess... I will anyway. It seems to me that someone(s), probably not at cabinet level but at the high-level of the national security bureaucracy, has come to the conclusion that no matter what decision is made by this administration vis-a-vis Iraq, etc. it will be the wrong decision.  Given the fact that there will soon be a majority of the non-presidential party in Congress, the possibility that leaks will be used by more than just newspapers has grown.  In other words the utility of leaking has grown since the election.  The possibility that a leak may help stale-mate another disastrous policy decision by the Administration makes leaking more attractive.  Since my guess about the leaker(s) is that s/he thinks that almost any decision by Bush and Co. will be a bad decision, thus the leaking of internal memos between administration analysts becomes a way to blow open the debate.  Or to put it in a very peculiar way -- the market for leaks is much better given the potential gains as a proportion to risk.  Maybe what I am saying is banal or fantasy; or common sense and good a priori guess work.  Take your pick.  I understand the curiosity on this issue, but excepting inside information, what else do we have but banality or fantasy? Jerry Monaco