Exactly. I mean look at how the Bush administration manufactured consent for the invasion of Iraq via the false WMD claims. These agencies consistently have agendas and narratives they selectively reveal to the press and that shouldn’t be a secret to anyone.

Well at that time it wasn't clear that WMD were non-existent (or they just weren't able to found them).

Iraq gov did everything to make it look like there are: prevented any inspections, blatantly lied to UN etc.

This is akin to "where there's smoke there's fire" (on the level of gossip and hearsay and rumors) except of course for the fact that a war was based on this information, many people died and a country fell into ruin as a result...

There was procedure to make it not gossip -- UN mandated inspections. Iraq blatantly prevented them, and intentionally made it look like they are stockpiling WMDs. Good play on their part to trick US and UK.

Look up "UN Security Council Resolution 678 and Resolution 1441".

It was pretty clear, to both the government with access to the data, and also to a lot of average citizens. It was kind of obvious it was a pretext for a misguided retaliation for 9/11, a wounded Bush admin lashing out, trying to look strong.

The Iraq government prevented inspections in defiance of multiple UN resolutions for many years, during several admins, not just Bush admin. Note it was UN rules, not US. It just no country besides US wanted to enforce the UN resolutions.

Look at leaks at Apple. Some people are holding onto hot information and want to blab. It doesn’t have to be some master plan.

Apple leaks are usually not related to privileged knowledge of national security concerns, for one. Nobody blabs about the next iPhone with the intent of canning executives.

Apple is not a three-letter government agency.

Based on the information so far, it is irrational to say we can guarantee this.

On top of the national security implications, there are credible reports of both export control violations AND political interference with a Commerce Dept investigation into these violations.

If there is anyone talking with a specific goal, it can be as simple as calling out the political interference or trying to warn the public that the administration isn't taking the export ban seriously.

Not all "specific goals" are nefarious or 12-dimensional chess. A lot of people talk to reporters, including at the NYT, because they're genuinely frustrated at not being able to do their jobs.