King: House Homeland Security panel will be vigorous, demanding

War on Terror.” The British will be inclined to help us, he believes, because they “understand how deadly” the leaks are.

King then expressed concern about Obama administration officials’ response to what he calls the “incalculable damage” caused by the massive document leak. “Considering how fast they moved [to file a lawsuit] on Arizona’s immigration law and how determined they were to move against our CIA agents… there is definitely something missing here,” he asserted. He disclosed that he was involved, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, in a briefing on WikiLeaks some time ago, and he was “shocked by the lack of urgency. We’ve known about this for six months, and yet we were caught flat-footed.” He said that he has already spoken to his staff about hearings on the leak and on the administration’s response.

As to why the administration has not more vigorously moved toward prosecution, King said he did not want to get into “psychobabble.” He then mused that there are people in the administration who consider Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who disclosed the Pentagon papers, “a hero.” King continued: “From a liberal perspective, this is a First Amendment issue. If prosecution goes forward, he asserted, “The logical result would be going after the New York Times.”

—On possible cuts in the defense budget. King told Rubin that congressional Republicans are serious about deficit control. He contends, though, that “defense spending shouldn’t be subject to across-the-board cuts. We shouldn’t spend a penny more or a penny less than we need on defense. But we ask people to put their lives on the line. Fighting a war has to be our main focus.”

He therefore rejects that cutting defense is equivalent to cutting domestic programs, although he says we should go after all the fraud and waste we can find in the Pentagon.

— On the war on terrorism. As for the war on terrorism, King said there has been a sea change in the administration’s approach: “They came in here not using — or hardly using — the term ‘terrorism’” and believing that “somehow this was all contrived by Bush and Cheney.” He said that this mindset “influenced their thinking for too long.”

There was a change in attitude after the Christmas Day bombing and Times Square bombing attempts, however. He said that he now enjoys a good relationship with both DHS secretary Janet Napolitano and terrorism advisor John Brennan (whose resignation he once called for).

He said the contrast is dramatic between the present attitude and what “seemed like a mad dash to hide from the reality of Islamic terrorism” when the president first entered office.

— On Iran. The day before Rubin spoke with King, a bipartisan group of senators sent a letter to the president urging that he hold firm on sanctions on the Iran. Is King worried that the administration is going wobbly? “More and more, in reading the body language, I think they are considering… that Iran is going to get the bomb,” he said. He cautioned that the administration may be saying something different in private discussions, but he thinks it is quite possible, in an effort to keep the administration on course, that the House will generate a letter similar to the Senate’s version.

—On Israel. As the conversation turned to Israel, King became animated. He reiterated that “Israel is vital” to the United States as an ally. He was critical of Obama’s handling of the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. King said: “The president created unnecessary problems for himself — the way he went after [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu…. I don’t know any ally who was treated as badly as Netanyahu. He was treated like Gaddafi or something.”