Analyst's note:  Will someone tell Obama and his staff?  Would they even listen?  Would a little time in the Big House solve their problem?  I remember asking the same questions about the Clinton "progressive" administration.  Politicians of whatever political affiliation have/had access to information ... to which they would otherwise be totally denied access.  Their political status is somehow deemed to be enough vetting to provide them access to extremely classified and sensitive information that gets people killed?  The system is clearly broken.  If politicians do not stand up to the same national security vetting process as the rest of the intelligence community they should not be provided access ... in fact, they should not even be eligible for an office that requires access to classified information to which they do not properly qualify.  They must be as accountable as the rest of the community.  The stakes here are too high to do otherwise.  It is not perfect, but put our politicians through the proper vetting using a "blind study approach" before they could run for certain offices and we'd have a lot fewer crooks in office ... I'm just saying ....

"Espionage is a dangerous business often seen only through a Hollywood lens. Yet the real-world operations, and lives, that inspire such thrillers are highly perishable. They depend on hundreds of hours of painstaking work and the ability to get foreigners to trust our government.

[....] The stakes are high: success or failure in our campaign to defeat plots by al-Qaeda. These leaks are inexcusable, and those responsible should be held accountable. FBI and CIA investigations are a good start, but more must be done to prevent intelligence disclosures of this magnitude.

The problem stems in part from the media's insatiable desire for real-world information that makes intelligence operations look like those of filmmakers' imaginations. That is understandable, but this hunger is fed by inexcusable contributions from current and former U.S. officials.

For example, why did the Obama administration hold a conference call May 7 with a collection of former government officials, some of whom work as TV contributors and analysts, to discuss the foiled bomb threat? In doing so, the White House failed to safeguard sensitive intelligence information that gave us an advantage over an adversary. Broadcasting highly classified information notifies every enemy of our tactics and every current and future partner of our inability to provide them the secrecy that often is the difference between life and death."