Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Gag Me With An Order - Not! | Main | Sacked CIA Officer - Hey, Big Donor... »

April 21, 2006

Comments

topsecretk9

and for good measure James R. Schlesinger, who spoke with Wilson and Larry Johnson at that Iraq Symposium? he is a...you guessed it... CSIS Trustee.

Neuro-conservative

BTW -- Have people seen this latest 60 Minutes hit piece planned for this Sunday? (h/t: Rick Moran). This guy Tyler Drumheller is worthy of some research. Initial google searches have come up with some interesting pairings, but too many hits to fully sift through at this hour. Goodnight.

topsecretk9

Wow, Neuro...your not kidding...
look
at the site owners name...twilight zone was tame

(link google highlighted for ease too)

Squiggler

You know, it is hard to fathom how a woman who undoubtedly had to fight her way to the top, and who is extremely well educated and was involved where the real power is could be so overtaken with BDS that she'd throw it all away. This is so reckless, it smacks of fanaticism, not far different from the Terrorist Extremists.

I wasn't a particular fan of the President when he was first elected, but I've grown to like him and I can't understand why he generates such fanatical hatred. Our career military family despised Clinton, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to put my country in jeopardy. I figured sooner or later he'd be an out of office has been and we'd move on. This maniacal hatred we see from the left is very disturbing. Mary McCarthy can't be written off as one of those "kiddies" or immature Deaniacs. She screwed the pooch on her career, her reputation, possibly her marriage (and her children??), and probably the majority of her friends, not for any noble cause, but for the sole purpose of making George W. Bush look bad.

Squiggler

Please tell me that John McCarthy is not her husband.

larwyn

Larry just help sowing seeds of chaos - Dr. Sanity linked to this in her email just rec'd:

Report documents major increase in terrorist incidents

By Warren P. StrobelKnight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The number of terrorist attacks documented by U.S. intelligence agencies jumped sharply in 2005, crossing the 10,000 mark for the first time, according to U.S. counterterrorism officials and documents obtained by Knight Ridder Newspapers.
SNIP
The official said that worldwide last year, there wasn't a large change in the number of high-fatality attacks, in which 10 or more people were killed, compared with 2004.

Larry Johnson, a former State Department counterterrorism official and frequent administration critic, said counting terrorism incidents is tricky because "it's always required a judgment about motive and intent." But Johnson criticized the new definition of terrorism now in use.

"There are some things they're lumping in there as terrorism that in my view make absolutely no sense," he said. "They've made it almost impossible for the average person to understand what's happening in international terrorism."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14390584.htm

Our Larry is such a busy boy -he'll be even busier when when
VIPS are exposed as he makes LSM AAA list and the book /movie
deals pour in.

MayBee

Shockingly, Mr. Drumheller has a book coming out. On the Brink, published by William Morrow.
Product Details

* Hardcover: 256 pages
* Publisher: William Morrow (February 1, 2006)
----
You can preorder now!

topsecretk9

--Please tell me that John McCarthy is not her husband.--

Squig...happy to inform no, husband name "Michael", but does she have a brother named John?

::grin::

topsecretk9

oops, that would be brother-in-law.

kim

Drumheller, another asshole lying about his particular grasp on an elephant extremity.
==========================

kim

Would you believe Sabri?
==============

topsecretk9

And just to reiterate and theme I am going with...Daniel Benjamin being a "quoted" source for the Fitz/WAPO story, he who was a National Security Council memeber with Wilson and McCarthy of which Benjamin is a ffliated with both CSIS and the NYU security group of which DANA PREIST is a member as well...

"...Pincus had been writing about the buildup to theinvasion for months, along with ***Post writers Dana Priest, Karen DeYoung, Barton Gellman, ***and others who ****gathered at “war meetings” every day.**** But according to reporters, editors continually underplayed Pincus’s scoops and discounted their stories that ran counter to Bush’s call to arms...

...In June Pincus sunk his teeth deeper into the emerging story of the nuclear material that Iraq was supposed to have sought from Niger to make nuclear bombs. US officials repeated the claim as fact and talked ominously of mushroom clouds. President Bush mentioned “significant quantities of uranium“ in his State of the Union speech.

Other reporters questioned the nuclear transfer, including Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, David Sanger in the New York Times, and Joby Warrick, Priest, and DeYoung with Pincus at the Post. Pincus pursued it day after day. He says he had to fight to get it on the front page....

///Finally, at the end of May, Pincus broke onto the front page with a story about the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. He stayed there as his stories—some with other reporters—put pressure on the White House to admit that the President’s 16-word sentence about uranium going to Iraq was not credible.

Pincus eventually prevailed within his own newspaper, but why did a veteran reporter have to bow and scrape to get his stories noticed and then printed?

“It was ridiculous. Many of the stories were buried,” says Priest, also a star on the national-security beat. “Editors continually undervalued what he does.”...

http://www.washingtonian.com/buzz/2004/pincus.html

larwyn

This is the page on John J.McCarthy jr. on the site you linked:

An American P.O.W.
--- In America
Captain John J. McCarthy


FROM THE WILDERNESS


is proud to present the story of U.S. Army Special Forces Captain John J. McCarthy Jr, a real American hero.

While some would challenge hero status for a man who admittedly was ordered to train assassination teams for the CIA during the Vietnam War (none of which carried out a mission), no one can challenge the fact that as a triple volunteer (airborne, ranger, Special Forces), John served his country with bravery, honor and distinction. Like so many of the young men who went to Vietnam, he believed in his country and what he had been taught was the rightness of its mission in the world. But this is also the story of John's disillusionment and of his painful awakening, which came at the cost of wife, family and friends. It is a story about how he stood alone, at a crucial moment, as his country broke its word to him and refused to capitulate as he saw that the moral leadership of those who gave him orders was an empty house of cards. ---

Mike Ruppert, 7/14/98
http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id1.html

Squiggler

Oh my God, he must be one of Kerry's Winter Soldiers.

larwyn

he sure fits into the group!

Is he the bro-in-law? Be too old to be son.

Squiggler

Need to go talk to the Swift Boat group. They would know.

Foo Bar

TM:

they will see that she was troubled that Libby was not giving her anything new (since other parts of the NIE had been declassified in October 2002).

and Miller:


it appears that Mr. Libby said little more than that the assessments of the classified estimate were even stronger than those in the unclassified version.

As I've noted in an earlier thread, the October '02 declassified NIE said nothing about Iraq trying to procure uranium in Africa. It only discussed uranium in the context of Iraq's uranium enrichment capabilities.

So when Libby, according to court documents describing his testimony, was instructed to tell Miller that the classified version of the NIE said that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium, this was specific information that was not in the October '02 declassified NIE. And when he told her that Wilson's report said that Iraq had tried to expand commercial ties with Niger, this was, again, specific information that in no way was present in the October '02 declassified NIE. In other words, Libby was giving her something new.

larwyn

great idea - must try to get some sleep - too much excitment tonight to log off

see you in the morn---afternoon

frequent lurker

She also testified before the 9/11 commission. some excerpts: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1619050/posts?q=1&&page=1051#1075

Dwilkers

If only this were happening in August we'd have a feeding frenzy over it and maybe get to the bottom of what happened.

Specter-

"Or would I have hordes of FBI types rummaging through my entire house and office while I was led away in shackles?

No kidding brother. Any of the rest of us would be wearing orange overalls this morning and eating balogna sandwiches.

Ghost-

She's lost her generous pension, which she nearly had in hand, and his biz doesn't seem that prosperous. Absent a bailout, they're in a world of hurt. Which is to say, I agree she's likely to cop a plea.

Yeah....so if money is so tight then what are they doing giving away $10,000 of the American dollars (as the Manolo would say)? Its a small point, but where do government employees get 9 or 10 thousand dollars to contribute to politicians? That's a pretty good chunk of change - the type of offhand toss in the kitty contribution that big dollar guys make.

Ahh. Reading further down in the thread I see I am not the only one wondering about this. FWIW I disagree with anyone that thinks a $10k donation is 'not unusual' for a wage earner, even one that makes 6 figures. It is WAY unusual for anyone but the idle rich.

Anyway get ready for it guys. Mary McCarthy is about to become the toast of the left, the new Dem hero and media darling. Book deal to follow ASAP.

Patton

Regarding fake prisons.

It would be entirely appropriate for the CIA to creat fake prisons, prisons that even some in our government believe exist.

One of the scariest things to a captured terrorist is to be sent back to his home country like Egypt or Saudi Arabia where he will probably be tortured and at the very least have a really hard time in prison as opposed to say an American prison.

Liberals have complained about this process of rendition - EVEN THOUGH IT WAS STARTED BY BILL CLINTON -. So what if we just made terrorists believe they were being taken to
one of those countries.

Fly them around on a plane for several hours, land, truck them to a 'prison' where all the guards are Eqyptian, etc. Except the 'prison' is not in Egypt.

Might not be a bad way to get them to talk or turn them over (You talk now and you can get back on that plane, otherwise you will be staying here!!

Patton

Anyone want to hazard a guess how the Lamestream media will play this story:

1. CIA Agent was a criminal out to undermine the war effort.

2. CIA agent was a whistleblower trying to correct the excesses of the Bush White House.

Patton

17 June 1998

TEXT: BERGER APPOINTS MCCARTHY SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR INTELLIGENCE
(And senior director on NSC Staff for intelligence programs) (370)

Washington -- National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger announced
June 16 the appointment of Mary O'Neil McCarthy as Special Assistant
to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs.


She succeeds Rand Beers in that post, an announcement by the office of
the White House Press Secretary said.


Mary McCarthy had been Director of Intelligence Programs on the
National Security Council Staff since July 1996. Previously, said the
White House, Mrs. McCarthy served as the National Intelligence Officer
for Warning from 1994-1996 and as the Deputy National Intelligence
Officer for Warning from 1991-1994. She began government service in
1984 as an analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence of the Central
Intelligence Agency.


McCarthy has a B.A. and M.A. in history from Michigan State University
and an M.A and Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota.


Following is the White House text:

(begin text)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

June 16, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY

National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger announced today the
appointment of Mary O'Neil McCarthy as Special Assistant to the
President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs. Mrs. McCarthy
succeeds Rand Beers.


Mary McCarthy had been Director of Intelligence Programs on the
National Security Council Staff since July 1996. Previously, Mrs.
McCarthy served as the National Intelligence Officer for Warning from
1994-1996 and as the Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Warning
from 1991-1994. She began government service in 1984 as an analyst in
the Directorate of Intelligence of the Central Intelligence Agency.


Prior to her government service, Mrs. McCarthy held positions in both
the private sector and academia. She was a Director, then Vice
President of BERI, SA, a firm conducting financial and political risk
assessments, from 1979-1984. Previously, she had taught at the
University of Minnesota and was Director of the Social Science Data
Archive at Yale University.


Mrs. McCarthy has a B.A. and M.A. in history from Michigan State
University and an M.A and Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota. She
and her husband Michael McCarthy have a son, Michael.


(end text)


Squiggler

Here is a taste from the start of a NewsBump USA article: (http://www.newsbump.net/brainbox/nbus/NewsBump.nsf/AddComment?OpenForm&ParentUNID=89A672A74CE309A8CA2571580039F154)

Bombshell Accusation: Rice Leaked Classified Defense Info

From the diaries. This should give us plenty to talk about on a Friday night. Are you going to fire this leaker, Mr. President? --mcjoan. On the day that a courageous CIA whistleblower is fired for telling the truth about American gulags, a bombshell accusation.

Patton

Looks like McCarthy, just like Joe Wilson had ties to Beers who headed Kerrys' National Security government in waiting.

Most likely Beers or someone close to him told her/Wilson/Clarke and others that they would be under consideration for high positions in a Kerry adminstration.

Part of that is to make contributions to get your name on the list.

maryrose

I agree with Rick:
Throw all these Clinton Bums out! They are now working against us in the War on Terror.

Squiggler

She would have been a natural selection for NSA. What makes me mad is she was obviously qualified for a high level job based on the merits and she just threw it all away. And worse, she threw it all away for a cowardly lurch.

And whistleblower ... give me a break! There are guidelines for whistleblowers and I'd bet the farm that Dana Priest isn't mentioned in them.

MayBee

Funny that McCarthy, leaking to the media to feed the "people's right to know", gets her bio yanked from public view the second it's *her* butt on the line.

But hey...Go Spartans!!

MayBee

Why the $5000 to OHIO? $5000 to a state you don't live in? Isn't that kind of weird? I know it was going to be a battle ground state, but so were many others. Ohio only gets the buzz as the big election decider after the fact- because it was one of the last reporting and the Kerry people were calling the stations begging them not to call it.
PA was about as close, with 21 electoral votes (OH has 20). Michigan and Wisconsin were both close. The meme that it was all about Ohio was made up after the fact. So why did she give that kind of money to OH? Why not just the DNC?

hrtshpdbox

I guess it's too much to hope for, but wouldn't it be great if Bush himself didn't LET the MSM portray McCarthy as a whisteleblower instead of a criminal? If Bush gave a press conference every week, turned any remotely related question into a diatribe (with potent soundbites) about cleaning up his own sloppy intel agencies, while excoriating a press that's just a wee bit too creatively "adversarial" during wartime? Something like "We're helping to build hospitals and schools in Iraq, but you're looking for stories about imaginary prisons, and the American people are getting disgusted with your negative slant"? W needs to be on the attack for November and this McCarthy story, and all of the fall-out sure to follow from it, seems tailor-made for some relentless outrage from Bush. Maybe dreams can come true.

Judith

One comment...she served on the African desk while working for the CIA. Same desk that would oversee Plame/Wilson game on Yellow Ore?

JeanneB

Sue:

Do these people understand that Bush was elected and as a result of that election he gets to make foreign policy decisions? ...Bush is the elected official. It is up to us to remove him from office, not some unelected, pissed off, Kerry-ite, career CIA agent.

I appreciate your rant. Last weekend I was watching CNN Reliable Sources. There was a panel discussion with Kurtz, Johah Goldberg and Aravosis, Americablog.com. I was gobsmacked when Aravosis said this:

"It's Richard Nixon all over again. As long as the president does it, it's OK....The president has decided when he wants to leak stuff -- and I would argue that it may be legal for the president to leak things, but good God! Do we really want George Bush being the one deciding what classified information will and won't hurt national security?

Simply unbelievable...if I hadn't heard it for myself.

TM

So when Libby, according to court documents describing his testimony, was instructed to tell Miller that the classified version of the NIE said that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium, this was specific information that was not in the October '02 declassified NIE. And when he told her that Wilson's report said that Iraq had tried to expand commercial ties with Niger, this was, again, specific information that in no way was present in the October '02 declassified NIE. In other words, Libby was giving her something new.

Well, new or not, the report on the Wilson trip was not part of the NIE, which is what the Times was ranting about. Tenet gave a lot of info on that trip on July 11.

As to the NIE itself, there does seem to be a gap between what Libby was authorized to say and what showed up in Miller's notes.

That said, one might argue that even though I have about four paragraphs on the NIE, when I say "Libby was not giving her anything new (since other parts of the NIE had been declassified in October 2002)" it may not be crystal cear that I am referring to the NIE.

I'll work on that.

foreign devil

McCarthy has connections to Berger? "Sox" Berger? There's your answer. She's obviously part of that mindset that came out of the Clinton era which said 'winning wasn't important; it was the ONLY thing' and chose to do 'whatever it took' as Berger did. If she is part of the group of 'entitled' personages, she may well not have balked at leaking to the media, seeing it as her Democratic 'duty' to save the country from the evil 'Bushniks'.

lonetown

Berger destroyed documents that even the most naive would speculate contained information damaging to the Clinton administration.

His punishment was hardly onerous.

Why would McCarthy turn states evidence?

At worst can anticipate a long and confortable retirement at our expense.

Kitty

I have posted what appears to be the only picture of Mary McCarthy, plus her background info.

sad

Lefty blogs referring to her as a whistleblower.

Sue

Someone needs to rewrite the Whistleblower Act to include the ability to leak to journalists. Otherwise, they are pissing in the wind. Of course, they have pissed in the wind before and failed to have it come back in their face. Hopefully, this time they will need hankies.

Charlie (Colorado)

You know, it is hard to fathom how a woman who undoubtedly had to fight her way to the top, and who is extremely well educated and was involved where the real power is could be so overtaken with BDS that she'd throw it all away.

Probably the simplest explanation is that she didn't think she was risking throwing it all away. When's the last time you heard of a senior CIA person with political appointments in her resume be snagged for leaking?

Patton

Remeber when SACKED had a whole different meaning in the Clinton adminstration?

JF

MayBee,
It would be interesting to know when the $5000 donation to Ohio happened. She was in the loop enough to know where the DNC was asking for the donations to go. Remember all the lawyers the Kerry campaign had lined up for the threatened recount in Ohio. This was to be the big push in the final weeks of the campaign.

Also, isn't it interesting that she held the same job descriptions as Tenet did before he was appointed CIA Director? Could she have been in line in a Kerry administration for CIA Director... She is definately a big fish.

MikeyMike

I see a book by Ms. McCarthy already in the works.

Chants

Sue,

If they can't get the Wistleblower Act re-written through the legislature, they will try to do it through the judiciary. Hence, the argument that the 1st Amendment protects the press from revealing it's sources.

Sue

The $5,000 donation to the Ohio DNC was on 10/04/2004.

vnjagvet

Being too lazy to check the FEC link, did anyone note whether the McCarthy's contribution(s) to the Ohio DNC before or after election day?

If after, it creates the inference that they were among the truly die hard deadenders on the 2004 election.

Sue

vnjagvet,

10/4/2004

cathyf

I'm confused about something... A couple of months back Zell Miller wrote an op-ed for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution advocating that the regulations against politicking by CIA agents be extended to spouses. (I can find quotes from the article in various spots on the internet, but the AJC site has taken it down.)

But anyway, this article made pretty clear that intelligence agents were not supposed to be engaging in political activity under current rules -- how does McCarthy get to be making donations under her own name?

cathy :-)

Soylent Red

Some have already alluded to it indirectly, but I get a strong vibration that McCarthy is the tip of an iceberg that involves the post-9/11 removal of the Gorelick wall.

Military intelligence and the various civilian agencies have been in a blood feud for going on five years now. With MI on the wax and CIA on the wane, the Clintonistas and careerists see their territory shrinking. They honestly believe, I think, that they are the only ones capable of (and entitiled to) intel gathering and dissemination.

The whole timely donation above pay grade into what would be a contested state (and I dunno: was Ohio considered seriously that far ahead of the election?) seems suspicious. But having said that, I get the feeling that this is garden variety D.C. status quo protection (similar to the Six Generals), with a splash of B.J. Clinton legacy protection thrown in for flavor:

Chimpy is peeing in the personal and career cabbage patches of some of Clinton's best and brightest. Therefore, Chimpy must be brought down.If not to protect their jobs, then to protect their reputations.

What I find terrifically amusing is the fact that BDS has changed traditional liberal loyalties somewhat. Used to be if you were Pentagon or CIA you were the liberal poster child for everything evil. Now, it sort of depends on how committed you are to bringing about Chimpy's demise through leaks, votes or donations.

vnjagvet

I see it was on 10/5/04, according to FEC. Still, (I speculate) as an insider, she knew it was going to be close.

Were I a conspiracy theorist, I would be suspicious that so many of her contacts through CSIS have been in the middle of the MSM stories on the current administration's security "scandals".

As a lawyer who has prosecuted and defended conspiracy cases, were I investigating these "scandals", I would be exploring these connections very thorougly.

For example, Libby's counsel might be checking up on this even as we write.

Foo Bar

As to the NIE itself, there does seem to be a gap between what Libby was authorized to say and what showed up in Miller's notes.

That said, one might argue that even though I have about four paragraphs on the NIE, when I say "Libby was not giving her anything new (since other parts of the NIE had been declassified in October 2002)" it may not be crystal cear that I am referring to the NIE.

I'll work on that.

OK, thanks. My point was not that you had paraphrased Miller's account of what was said re:the NIE at the Libby/Miller meeting incorrectly. My point was that Miller's account does not jibe well with what the court docs say.

Just as you might have hoped that the NYT would follow the former CIA officer's quote with something about how Miller said she wasn't getting anything new on the NIE, I might have hoped that you would follow your reference to Miller's account with something from the court docs that suggests that Libby did actually give her something new on the NIE.

JM Hanes

Sue

"The $5,000 donation to the Ohio DNC was on 10/04/2004."

Sure looks like lawyer money for challenging election results. McCarthy had every right to support any candidate she liked, but it's hard not to read this particular contribution as messaging, i.e. I'm on your side. At that point, a whole lot of folks thought Kerry was actually in a position to win the election, so you could also read it as a play to keep her job in a new administration. Combine it with the leaks, however, and it starts looking less exclusively pragmatic and more overtly political.

She'll certainly be played as a whistleblower, but I hope she does write a book. Even allowing for inevitable spin, I think we'd end up learning a bunch about the internecine warfare that's been playing out below the surface. There's an increasing irony attached to the assertion that each and every buck stops at Bush's desk, considering just how few former Clinton appointees he apparently replaced.

Syl

There's an increasing irony attached to the assertion that each and every buck stops at Bush's desk, considering just how few former Clinton appointees he apparently replaced.

I don't buy into all the accusations of 'incompetence' on Bush's part, but this comes close. I really do think Bush has more faith in people than was good for him.

Since Bush did not share that side's worldview before 9/11, he wouldn't understand how uncomfortable it is to sense one's worldview being shattered after that event. Some people went with the flow and changed, others hung on to their old views and fought tooth and nail to keep them. Inflexibility, thy name is the Left.

larwyn

CULTURE OF TREASON!
Take that Nancy!


Gateway Pundits:
TIME MAGS "BEST SENATORS"


Flopping Aces:
Democrat's "Culture of Treason"

JM Hanes

More irony from McCarthy's CSIS bio: Under expertise they list "Preventive diplomacy/Conflict resolution."

Squiggler

Probably the simplest explanation is that she didn't think she was risking throwing it all away. When's the last time you heard of a senior CIA person with political appointments in her resume be snagged for leaking?

I don't think leaking is going to be her final downfall, although I think it should be. She is going down because she FAILED a lie detector test ... a fact that has been shunted to the back in favor of the "she leaked classified info." The government's favorite fallback is to charge lying and obstruction and if she lied, then she was obstructing the investigation. To get caught lying on the lie detector test seems particularly egregious, especially for someone in her position. In fact, I would think that people at her level probably think they are immune from things like lie detector verification of their veracity.


Anyway, I'd like to see the Referral to DOJ, but I'd bet the principle charge is the lie.

Syl

Squiggler

They cannot charge on the outcome of a polygraph test. That's why her admission of the leak(s) is so important.

Squiggler

I'm not sure that's true, Syl. The CIA and many government offices inform prospective employees that they can be subject to random polygraphs and that failure is grounds for dismissal and perjury charges. They sign agreements not to reveal and that they understand the procedures and the consequences. If prosecution is spelled out in advance as a consequence, they may very well be able to prosecute the lie and surely the obstruction rising from the lie.

Thnik about what she revealed and the sensitivity of the information and how it affected our enemies and allies. Pollard is sitting in prison for life for revealing sensitive information to a friendly, Israel, and this woman revealed not only to foreign friends but foreign enemies as well during wartime. If it turns out that I've been right for months that there is/was a CIA cabal to bring down the duly elected government of the United States, then maybe it is time to think treason.

Charlie (Colorado)

Squiggler, they can dismiss you fo failing your poly (although they've failed to do so in a number of cases) but I'm pretty certain that when I signed my oath there wasn't anything about prosecution for failing a poly, and even if there had been, considering that the polygraph isn't admissible as evidence of guilt, I don't think they could possibly make a charge stand on the poly alone.

Dave in W-S

There's an increasing irony attached to the assertion that each and every buck stops at Bush's desk, considering just how few former Clinton appointees he apparently replaced.

There has always been a great deal made overbe th the existence of two governments in Washington - the elected and appointed political government, and the career government officials who are, supposedly, the real core of the government and outside of the political domain. The accepted apolitical nature of this bureaucracy has been the justification for retaining the vast bulk of government officials from one administration to the next. The benefits are obvious - you get to keep the experienced people; those people can continue to grow in competence, as the political heads of government come and go; normal government functions have a continuity of operations, without the glitches that would result from political replacements deep into the bureaucracy.

The integrity of the career government has long made this a relatively low risk way of doing business. Now, however, the polarization of American politics and the propensity for career government officials to violate their apolitical role has drastically increased the risk factor in allowing career government officials to retain their jobs from one administration to the next.

What are the alternatives?

IMO, either much more of the career bureaucracy needs to be replaced as a matter of course when a new political party takes control, or a no-prisoners enforcement of the "no politics" rules already in place, as well as the security regulations governing disclosure of classified information, must occur across the board.

I would much rather see the second option. I think it would be extremely difficult to replace many thousands more government officials every 4-8 years without seriously degrading the government's ability to function efficiently. I don't think we could find the numbers of qualified people who would be willing to interrupt their own careers, and I fear the political cronyism that would undoubtedly result. To avoid that, however, the government (and by this, I mean the career managers, as well as the politically appointed chiefs) have to play hardball with the "know betters". Step on them and step hard. Zero tolerance must be the rule.

Squiggler

But what about the obstruction charges growing out of the lie and the fact that once the poly showed she wasn't telling the truth she admitted the lie? I'm just trying to get this all straight, not questioning anyone's facts.

I would like to see the restrictions on career CIA employees as far as political activity. You can't do it while an active duty military person, or at least we were restricted during my husband's 30 year career.

JM Hanes

I agree on the cure Dave, although I think it's not just that polarization has become increasingly problematic. It's that 9/11 really raised the ante -- both in terms of blame-gaming failures and in terms of prospective policy. Which is not to say there isn't a certain chicken-and-egg element to this sorry state of affairs. [BTW, does W-S stand for Winston-Salem? I assume you don't mind explaining the reference, but pls. don't feel obliged to do so.]

Dave in W-S

JMH,

You got it in one - Winston-Salem, NC :-)

Back later, off to deliver teenager to birthday party. (No strippers, this is W-S, not Durham)

Jor

TM, I look forward to your investigative reporting on how 67% of Americans are secretly american-hating communists with ties to Iran.

One day, I suggest you sit down and spend some time with Bayes rule. It will help clarify your misperceptions on how to evaluate evidence. This doesn't seem to be something they teach in law school.

kim

When circularity palls, switch to hyperbole, molls.
=============================

Syl

Is that 67% a part of the 74% who don't approve of Hillary? Seems to me you're rather confused about the electorate.

maryrose

DaveinW>S>
LOL about the teenage party. A sense of humor can carry us through these crazy times.
Living in Ohio I can tell you it was VERY close on election night. My husband and I were on pins and needles and as I've posted before just screamed when they called Ohio for President Bush. I love the fact that Maybee I believe posted that Kerry people were begging the networks not to call Ohio for Bush.
Finally on topic; All the inter-connections with McCarthy and Berger and Kerry campaign is just downright creepy. Is this how our government by the people is supposed to work? People working at the pleasure of the president are trying to stage an election coup? We haven't seen such nefarious doings since "Julius Caesar" " Et tu Brute" Indeed.

Dave in W-S

Maryrose,

No, it's not supposed to be how government by the people is supposed to work. At least, as our experience with self-government grew, we learned from the mistakes and excesses of the past and policed ourselves. Hence, the Hatch Act of 1939, which

"...grew out of a general tradition of electoral reform. In essence, it finally did away with the last vestiges of patronage, and one could say it was the end of the civil service reforms started in the 1880s. But the most significant impetus, affecting both its timing and its content, was the widespread allegation that Works Progress Administration (WPA) funds had been misused by staff members and local Democratic Party politicians during the congressional elections of 1938."

[snip]

"The original Act forbade intimidation or bribery of voters and restricted political campaign activities by federal employees. It prohibited using any public funds designated for relief or public works for electoral purposes. It also forbade officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support.

The most restrictive measure was brought about by Republicans in the Senate. It dictated that persons below the policymaking level in the executive branch of the federal government must not only refrain from political practices that would be illegal for any citizen but must abstain from "any active part" in political campaigns."

The Hatch Act survived Supreme Court 1st Amendment challenges in 1947 and 1974, and numerous attempts in Congress to water down its provisions. Finally, in 1993, "...Congress passed legislation that significantly amended the Hatch Act as it applies to federal and D.C. employees..."

The current version of the Hatch Act still prescribes what federal employees may and may not legally do with respect to political activity.

Most federal and DC employees have been allowed somewhat greater political freedom.

Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Participate in Partisan Political Activity

These federal and D.C. employees may-

* be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
* register and vote as they choose
* assist in voter registration drives
* express opinions about candidates and issues
* contribute money to political organizations
* attend political fundraising functions
* attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
* join and be an active member of a political party or club
* sign nominating petitions
* campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
* campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
* make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
* distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
* hold office in political clubs or parties

These federal and D.C. employees may not-

* use official authority or influence to interfere with an election
* solicit or discourage political activity of anyone with business before their agency
* solicit or receive political contributions (may be done in certain limited situations by federal labor or other employee organizations)
* be candidates for public office in partisan elections
* engage in political activity while:
o on duty
o in a government office

o wearing an official uniform
o using a government vehicle
* wear partisan political buttons on duty

HOWEVER, there is more yet to come:

Agencies/Employees Prohibited From Engaging in Partisan Political Activity

Agencies/Employees Prohibited From Engaging in Partisan Political Activity

(My presumption is that these lists are cumulative - i.e., the restrictions that follow are on top of the restrictions previously listed.)

Employees of the following agencies (or agency components), or in the following categories, are subject to more extensive restrictions on their political activities than employees in other Departments and agencies:

Administrative Law Judges (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372)
Central Imagery Office
Central Intelligence Agency
Contract Appeals Boards (positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 5372a)
Criminal Division (Department of Justice)
Defense Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Elections Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Security Agency
National Security Council
Office of Criminal Investigation (Internal Revenue Service)
Office of Investigative Programs (Customs Service)
Office of Law Enforcement (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms)
Office of Special Counsel
Secret Service
Senior Executive Service (career positions described at 5 U.S.C. § 3132(a)(4))

Permitted/Prohibited Activities for Employees Who May Not Participate in Partisan Political Activity

These federal employees may-

* register and vote as they choose
* assist in voter registration drives
* express opinions about candidates and issues
* participate in campaigns where none of the candidates represent a political party
* contribute money to political organizations or attend political fund raising functions
* attend political rallies and meetings
* join political clubs or parties
* sign nominating petitions
* campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances

These federal employees may not-

* be candidates for public office in partisan elections
* campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates in partisan elections
* make campaign speeches
* collect contributions or sell tickets to political fund raising functions
* distribute campaign material in partisan elections
* organize or manage political rallies or meetings
* hold office in political clubs or parties
* circulate nominating petitions
* work to register voters for one party only
* wear political buttons at work

Dave in W-S

BTW, one more tidbit on the Hatch Act.

Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act

"An employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual. However, if the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than 30 days' suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the Board."

I wonder whether Mary McCarthy was fired for a Hatch Act violation.

kim

What does the Hatch Act say about regicide?
=========================

Dave in W-S

Okay, so I'm on a soapbox here. But I spent 20 years in the Army and can't begin to count how many mandatory classes I attended on the Uniform Code of Military Justice provisions on political activity by service members - basically the Hatch Act as it was incorporated into the UCMJ. Every active duty service member knows full well what the deal is on political activity. I can't help but believe that senior people in non-military government service are also well schooled in this area.

Somewhat OT, with regard to the gaggle of generals who recently became outspoken critics: If their actions would not be acceptable for an active duty serving officer, are they excusable for a retired officer?

I submit, for your consideration, two points:

1. Military retirees are not retirees in the same sense as civilian retirees. They are, upon retirement, transferred to the Retired Reserve, are placed on half-pay by virtue of their reserve status, and are subject to recall to active duty per the needs of the service.

2. Per the Uniform Code of Military Justice, section 802.ART.2 Persons Subject to this Chapter, the persons subject to the UCMJ include
"(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay."

The question then appears merely to be, is the political fallout worth taking down these generals for violating their own legal code?

Dave in W-S

Kim,

I doubt the Hatch Act says much about regicide, but the British equivalent (if there is one) may well. ;-)

Foo Bar

Is that 67% a part of the 74% who don't approve of Hillary?

Syl,

Do you have a link to this poll that shows 74% disapproval of Hillary? I would like to read more about this poll. Thanks!

NIBystander

There are other interesting ‘connections’.

According to blogger ‘Sweetness & Light’ (www.sweetness-light.com) “Dana Priest’s Husband Gets Joe Wilson Gigs -- Pulitzer Prize winning Dana Priest is married to William Goodfellow. William Goodfellow is the Executive Director of the the Center for International Policy (CIP).”

“The Center's Mission:

Promoting a U.S. foreign policy based on international cooperation, demilitarization and respect for basic human rights

The Center for International Policy was founded in 1975, in the wake of the Vietnam War, by former diplomats and peace activists.”

Mr. William Goodfellow’s email address is wcgpeace@aol.com. So, Ms. Priest is married to an antiwar activist. I am certain she brings fairness and balance to all her ‘reporting’.

Squiggler

The Center for International Policy was founded in 1975, in the wake of the Vietnam War, by former diplomats and peace activists.

Now who was that "Winter Soldier" John McCarthy? Hmmmm.

Patton

Dave says ""The question then appears merely to be, is the political fallout worth taking down these generals for violating their own legal code?"""

It may be fun if Bush recalled Zinni to active duty and send him to Iraq for a year.

john mccarthy

In response to the article by Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver

All That's Given Up In The Name Of National Security

http://www.nswbc.org/Op%20Ed/All%20Thats%20Given%20up%20Op-ed-July31-06.htm

The potential for abuse with the catch all phrase of "National Security" is finally exposed in the continuous efforts on the part of the US Government which show no sign of abatement.

So, what is the reason for "national security" being used as the blanket response to justify the suppression of information?

Is it invoked for gagging whistleblower's who possess information which, if disclosed, would expose the official government position on a given subject as a bold faced lie or as a pretext for war or continuing a war?

Grave Danger to the United States gives us pause to reflect on the cause and effect of the inappropriate release of information which could provide an enemy of our country to take such action as to avoid our defenses. But that is not the case here. We certainly would not want a potential enemy from knowing our war plans. That is not the case here, either.

But suppressing information which would destroy our government's contrived position on relevant information on issues such as 911 is an egregious excuse and mis-use of "national security"excuse to hide the truth. It should also be noted that current and past regulations forbid the use or excuse for the classification of matters which are invoked to cover a criminal act.

An actual example of invoking "national security" as the primary reason/excuse for closing a criminal trial proceeding stretches the fabric of the blanket of "national security" to the breaking point.

Government court arguments that exposure of witness testimony in an open court environment would seriously effect the national security of the United States and the further prosecution of the war (in Vietnam) gives us obvious trepidation and a cause to pause. For those who would question the validity of such procedures without having access to the "national security" issues, there is the assumed factor that there MUST be something in the classified portions of the Record of Trial which are part and parcel of the evidence for the court having rendered a verdict of guilt. This throws us back to the reasoning that "certainly if the government had a reason to listen to our conversations, read our email or maintain a classification of sensitive materials, there must be a just cause for such action".

However, when years later it comes to light that the actual reason for this blanket of national security was to obsfucate a high crime, it is way too late to do anything about it, and in most cases, the perpetrators are dead.

Will the excuses of "national security" gag orders against the current cases of whistleblowers last long enough for them to die before the documents are exposed for what they actually are?

1. Since no one had yet testified on the "national security" issues argued by the government as the reason to close the trial to the public, in violation of the 6th Amendment, it would appear incredible that such a position be advanced before the court. The fear of exposing unknown and unspecified secrets gives caution as to the actual reason for closing the trial to the public.

2. Re witness testimony "seriously effecting the further prosecution of the war" in Vietnam, one is left with the great impression that such testimony would cause the war in Vietnam to be stopped. This Linus Blanket of "national security" was the ultimate excuse which was designed to provide the trial judge with the rationale to close the court to the public. (Had the testimony been given in open court and the war in Vietnam stopped as a result of this testimony, there would be thirty thousand fewer names on the Vietnam War Memorial. Did the government actually fear that the exposure of the treason on the part of the NSC members would halt the Vietnam War? Did they even know of the actual treason or were they just relying on CIA's reasoning that the issues were most sensitive to their sources and methods? Did the local CIA have a clue to the NSC treason against the President?)

Other options for the government were to defer the trial until after hostilities ended or dismiss the charge and free the defendant. The government strongly hinted that if the judge ruled in favor of keeping the trial open, they would entertain the option of halting the prosecution.

The judge, being informed that the prosecutions case did not rely on classified matters, allowed the trial to proceed in open session with a number of interested parties in attendance.

The prosecution had already established that all members of the court, the lawyers for both prosecution and defense were cleared for information up to and including top secret. The judge was therefore on notice that certain issues of "national security" would be forthcoming in the form of testimony from defense witnesses but not from the prosecutions witnesses.

When prosecution witnesses began responding to questions by the prosecutor the judge called a halt to the proceedings and declared, after the court was cleared of jurors and 'interested' parties, "I thought you assured me that we were not going to have this turning the witnesses on and blurting out classified information?" The prosecutor explained that there was nothing classified about the witnesses testimony. The judge noted that, "Well, the security officer (CIA) is about to have a heart attack!"

The judge then exclaimed, "I am not going to conduct this trial walking on egg shells. Why are we being forced to go through this exercise?"

Up to this point, there had been no disclosure before the court or interested parties of CIA involvement or mention of the country of Cambodia. Discussion on these issues had taken place before the court was called during government's arguments to close the court to the public. The aura of National Security permeated the courtroom and the psyche of the judge. But it is here that the pattern in the weave of the Linus Blanket of 'national security' began to unravel.

The trial ended in a conviction for premeditated murder on January 30, 1968 at 7:00 PM. The sentence was life in prison.

The conviction was overturned in November, 1970 by an appellate court in Washington, DC because of "newly found evidence and fraud on the court". The governments expert witness had recanted his incourt testimony, in writing, and submitted it to his boss at the Bethesda, Maryland Armed Forces Institute of Pathology where it remained hidden from September, 1968 until November, 1970. This file also contained FBI reports dated February 8, 1968, just nine days after trial, containing exculpatory evidence in violation of Supreme Court Ruling Brady v Maryland http://www.ipsn.org/court_cases/brady_v_maryland.htm
However, the written recantation of the government's star witness was determined to be sufficient to over rule the conviction and the FBI was never called to task for their violation of Supreme Court rulings or other egregious acts in this matter.

The charge was dismissed on January 8, 1971

In November, 2000 the State Department declassified once top secret documents which were released on the Internet by the LBJ Library.

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id48.html
http://www.geocities.com/larryjodaniel/17.html
http://www.geocities.com/larryjodaniel/21.html
http://www.geocities.com/larryjodaniel/22.html

This is where the Linus Blanket of 'national security' became shredded. These documents prove, in no uncertain terms, that the CIA, State Department and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as other members present during National Security meetings attended by the President, blatantly disregarded presidential directives issued during NSC meetings during June 1966 wherein the president expressed his concern over the state of affairs in Cambodia and his desire to 'get closer' to then Prince, now King Norodom Sihanouk by forbidding any and all support for Khmer Serei activities including the overthrow of the Cambodian Government and the assassination of Sihanouk.

This information allows but one conclusion for critical thinking: The government's demand for a closed trial was predicated on maintaining the secrecy of rogue CIA operations in violation of presidential directives issued during NSC meetings, during wartime. When LBJ was made aware of the court outcome in 1968 he made it known that he "...would not seek, nor accept, my parties nomination for a second term as President of The United States". One must conclude, therefore, that the treasonous actions by the NSC were of major concern to the President and the root cause for the continued quagmire of the Vietnam War.

And these are only a few examples and long lasting ramifications when 'national security' is wrongly invoked. Unfortunately, the added blockage of 'need to know' further isolates those with true justification for such knowledge.

The pattern of abuse continues.

Must we wait another thirty two years for the blanket of national security to be lifted on the information used to gag Sibel Edmonds by court order? Are there crimes of treason in the documents shielded from interested parties relating to the 'inside job' and government facilitation of the events of 911?

It should also be noted that the information found in the above documents has been submitted to Senators of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the former Attorney General, the National Archives and White House, without response. Subsequent letters of Inquiry seeking response have likewise been ignored.

Sibel Edmonds and William Weaver wrote:

"We have also received e-mails from individuals who argued against the public’s right to know when it comes to issues such as NSA warrantless eavesdropping or mass collection of citizens’ financial and other personal data by various intelligence and defense related agencies. They unite in their argument that any measure to protect us from the terrorists is welcomed and justified. One individual wrote: “so what if they are listening to our conversations. I have nothing to hide, so I don’t mind the government eavesdropping on my phone conversations. Only those engaged in evil deeds would worry about the government placing them under surveillance.” But how far can one let the government go based on this rationale? This issue is well articulated in Federalist, No. 51, “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” How do we oblige our government to control itself?"

Having nothing to hide matters not when the government resorts to fabricating evidence in order to obtain a guilty verdict. Surveillance of phones and emails can trigger a warrant-less search and the potential of 'planting' evidence which, when 'found' can and will be used in a court of law to convict any individual. But in this continuous war on terrorism and the Patriot Act, such convictions will only be obtained in secret courts covered by the blanket of 'national security', ostensibly to protect the vital interests of our country but actually to secret the sources and methods of obtaining 'evidence' with which to convict 'terrorists' or other enemies of the state.

"Our entire system of government and its institutions is grounded in an insistence that tyranny be combated and that individual liberty be protected from a potentially tyrannical government. The result is a suspicion of authority and an emphasis on limited government. Samuel Huntington, a well-known conservative Republican, states in American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony: “The distinctive aspect of the American Creed is its antigovernment character. Opposition to power, and suspicion of government as the most dangerous embodiment of power, are the central themes of American political thought."
Tyranny in the form of treason, to undermine the will of the President, and therefore the people, by forming a government within the government, and by subtrefuge, bypass and eliminate the will and focus of the President to counter efforts of war expansion and continuation of the existing war is utterly reprehensible and mind numbing to those now exposed to such skulldugary. In this case, the opposition to power, the power of the presidency, itself, is a matter of grave concern and shows the potential for true disaster in the nuclear age by those who would subvert the law of this land.

The following was written in 1979, before the above documents were known to exist or released. This is the background for continuity of the documents in question.

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id17.html

And the following synopsis, written in 1997, provides further continuity.

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id1.html

In conclusion, the use and excuse for secreting crimes by invoking the blanket of "national security" must be exposed for the ruse that it is.

Bests,

John McCarthy

http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame