D.C. media drum up excitement with passport flap

With Congress taking its long spring break in the last half of March and the Washington press corps itching to tangle with something during the “quiet” period in D.C., “revelation” that someone snooped into the U.S. passport files of presidential candidate Barack Obama (D., Ill.) grabbed heavy print and radio/TV time for several days.

Grumpy Editor wonders what all the ruckus is about.  Passport files contain basically the same information --- including Social Security numbers --- as found in patients’ folders in doctors’ offices, application and renewal forms at state motor vehicle departments, even cable service requests, among many other forms.

Media scribbled every word from Obama spokesman Bill Burton.  “This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years," grumbled Burton.

"Our government's duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes," he continued.  "This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama's passport file, for what purpose and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach.”

But then word came out that the two other presidential candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) and Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) also had their passport files inappropriately examined.

Emphasis on Obama as the solo “victim” suddenly faded.

But it was still enough for vacationing politicians to call for investigations.

Howard Berman (D., Calif.) chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, plans a probe, comparing the passport records spying flap to a similar breach 16 years ago against then presidential candidate Bill Clinton.

Then, Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, joined in, announcing Sunday on CNN that unauthorized eyeing of passport information is a “despicable” breach of privacy.  He called for a “very intense investigation.”

“Intense” or not, investigating the 1992 incident involving Bill Clinton spanned three years, cost taxpayers $2.2 million --- and resulted in officials being exonerated.