THE LEAK AS AN ART FORM - AT 7:35 A.M. ET:  We said yesterday that the leak of General Stanley McChrystal's Afghan troop-request report was a major story, that the leak might signal a revolt by...someone.  Today the Politico takes us on the hunt, in Washington's latest who-and-why-dunnit:

...inside the White House and out, the leak touched off another familiar Washington ritual: speculation about the leaker’s identity and motives.

This is a capital parlor game that, for the Obama administration, has some dire implications. Unless the West Wing somehow orchestrated an elaborate head fake — authorizing what looks at first blush like an intolerable breach of Obama’s internal deliberations — the Woodward story suggests deeper problems for a new president than a bad news cycle.

The key question:

So who did it?

The simplest theory — and one most administration officials Monday were endorsing — is that a military or civilian Pentagon official who supports McChrystal’s policy put it out in an attempt to pressure Obama to follow McChrystal’s suggestion and increase troop levels in Afghanistan.

But...

There are believers in the reverse leak, in which the leak itself is meant to damage McChrystal’s position by inducing White House anger at the general. There’s the fake leak, in which the White House may have been trying to back itself into a corner. A former government official with ties to the Pentagon said the talk in the building was that a senior military official had given it to the reporter for his book on the Obama White House — not realizing it could end up in print sooner.

“That places the ball clearly in the president’s court,” former Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen said, noting that Obama had already publicly placed his trust in McChrystal’s judgment.

COMMENT:  Who leaked?  Only Woodward knows for sure.  But you can be certain he'll milk the mystery for all it's worth to boost his upcoming book on the Obama administration.

Deep throat, though, it ain't.

September 22, 2009