If It Is Worth Reporting, Isn't It Worth Reporting Right?

The NY Times remains stuck on dumb on fired CIA officer Mary McCarthy's partisan campaign contributions:

The case has increasingly taken on distinct partisan coloring. Ms. McCarthy gave $2,000 to Senator John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, and conservative commentators suggested that Ms. McCarthy had deliberately tried to sabotage President Bush's policies by leaking to the news media.

The Times continues to fail to report  on Ms. McCarthy's $5,000 contribution in October 2004 to the Ohio Democratic Party; they also are skipping past the $2,000 contribution to John Kerry by Michael J. Murphy of the same address (we are guessing it is her hubby).

The Times - ignorant, or willfully deceptive?

They love to ignore their readers: try the public editor at : public@nytimes.com

Now, there is some hope - the Times is at least listening to Rush Limbaugh:

In his Monday broadcast, Rush Limbaugh, the radio personality, called Ms. McCarthy a "Clinton person" and part of a "shadow government in opposition," suggesting that she was one of a number of C.I.A. officers who had worked against the White House. "When we've said that the C.I.A. was at war with the White House, we were more right than we knew," Mr. Limbaugh said.

This seems to capture the spirit of the bit to which the Times was referring (in the linked transcript, a phrase quoted by the Times, "shadow government in opposition", does not appear, although "shadow government in operation" does).  Shockingly, there is no mention in this segment of her generous contributions, but I have no doubt that El Rushbo mentioned it at some point.

The Times delivers the comic climax in their concluding paragraph, right where the punchline belongs:

Yet friends and former colleagues have strongly challenged that partisan allegiance ever governed Ms. McCarthy's actions.

"That's not the Mary McCarthy that I know," said Rand Beers, a former colleague of Ms. McCarthy's on the National Security Council who has spoken to her several times since her firing.

"I'm glad she was prepared to push back," Mr. Beers said. "I was concerned that we were only hearing one side of the story."

Mr. Beers, who is now only "a former colleague", doubts her partisanship.  Was it only Saturday that the Times reminded us that Mr. Beers was "an adviser to Mr. Kerry's campaign in 2004"?  How soon they forget.

UPDATE:  I will argue from an authority even greater than the Times own decision to mention the $2,000 donation - Howard Kurtz himself:

But on National Review's The Corner , Andy McCarthy says:

"There is no mention by the Post -- none -- that Mary McCarthy is a big Kerry campaign and Democratic Party contributor.

"How can the WPost justify reporting one friend's mere impression that McCarthy is not biased and that it is very difficult even for those who know her well to understand why she would leak sensitive information, and yet not report the objective fact that -- after a meteoric professional rise in intelligence circles during a Democratic administration -- McCarthy, while a government official on a government salary, gave at least $7,700 of her own money in a single year to Democratic political campaigns?"

I would agree. Absolutely relevant information.

That buttons it down.

 

Comments

[MayBee]

My guess? This eventually turns into an assertion that she was targeted for being a Democrat.
The NYTs isn't reporting all of the money because they haven't decided what to say about it yet. But eventually they'll realize that all her hard-earned money spent on the Candidate of a Lifetime actually made that partisan hack Porter Goss set his sights right on her.
If we are really lucky, they will editorialize that Federal Government Employees should be exempt from having their polical contributions publicly reported. Because of the People's Right to Know.

[Jeff]

MayBee - dingdingding. What was she fired for, again? And why was she fired? How close was she to retirement? Was she the only person they found who had unreported contacts with reporters? (If so, they did a horrible job of investigating.) What kind of message was Goss sending in firing her?

And I never understand why TM seems to assume that anyone who is a partisan is motivated principally or only by partisanship.

[maryrose]

Jeff:
If the person is a partisan dem and out of power than they are ALWAYS PARTISAN first before love of country or their fellow man. McCArthy was a PAID employee of the BUSH administration not the Kerry one. SHE revealed secrets and was a CONFIRMING source for Dana PRiest. She also lied on a polygraph test. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Rick Ballard]

Why, she was fired for breaking her oath, Jeff. A rather common failing among Clinton appointees (vide Berger, Sandy). Time and the DoJ will provide the answer as to whether her oathbreaking can be prosecuted but I think it fair to assume that whatever the specifics of her misconduct it was somewhat more than taking office supplies home for personal use.

Stand beside her, Jeff, support her conduct right to the bitter end. I would expect no less.

[Cecil Turner]

What was she fired for, again?

Er, passing information to reporters in direct contravention of CIA policy? Personally, I'm having a hard time seeing the defense here. Having an intelligence agency that's incapable of good advice is one thing; having one that can't keep a secret is entirely another. Faster, please.

P.S. Jeff, after a short sojourn over to "No Quarter," I've had to recalibrate my "tinfoil beanie" scale . . . and nothing you've ever written comes close to the new threshold. Please accept my apology for any previous suggestions to the contrary.

[ordi]

Jeff,

Here is what Newsweak is reporting.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano re-affirmed on Monday that an agency official had been fired after acknowledging “unauthorized contacts with the media and discussion of classified information” with journalists.Gimigliano and other administration spokespersons said they were prohibited by law from disclosing the identity of the person who was fired. But government officials familiar with the matter confirmed to NEWSWEEK that McCarthy, a 20-year veteran of the CIA’s intelligence—or analytical— branch, was the individual in question.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/

[sad]

*******Cobb said that the polygraph tests and interviews that led to her firing came after she had initiated her retirement, and that she did not quit because she anticipated the agency's action. Although not addressing all these details, the senior intelligence official confirmed that McCarthy was preparing to retire and said she will retain her government pension despite the agency's decision.********

From the washington Post

[Semanticleo]

MayBee, Jeff;

Her real crime is that she is not a Senator
or the President, thereby lacking the power
to stop any leak investigation.

[ordi]

Semanticleo,

Rank has it's privledges. In Government and the private sector and since the beginning of time. It is just the way life is.

[Tom Maguire]

[Ty Cobb], A lawyer representing fired CIA officer Mary O. McCarthy said yesterday that his client did not leak any classified information and did not disclose to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest the existence of secret CIA-run prisons in Eastern Europe for suspected terrorists.

Reached for comment, Pete Rose said "I bet that's wrong".

[sad]

TM intersting name isn't it? I am interested in background on the part about being permitted to keep her retirement. How does that fit into the norm and what are the implications?

[Jim E.]

TM: "If It Is Worth Reporting, Isn't It Worth Reporting Right?"

Then why do you think it is "right" to link McCarthy with a man's (spouse or not) political contributions? What century is it?

[sad]

Jim E.

Its a century where a woman can get her husband hired for a trip to check on a "crazy idea" which becomes a boondogle and then an exhibition of outraged chivalry when it is revealed that the woman arranged for her husband to go on the trip.

[Semanticleo]

Pete Rose said "I bet that's wrong".

"It's deja vu all over again. You can observe
a lot just by watching." Y. Berra

[MayBee]

Jeff- you know the answers to the first three questions.
Was she the only person they found who had unreported contacts with reporters? (If so, they did a horrible job of investigating.)
I don't know the answer to this, but reports tell us they continue to investigate. I'm with you, though, in thinking more heads are bound to roll. Or get gently escorted off the stage.

What kind of message was Goss sending in firing her?
He was sending the message that if you are caught leaking or talking to the press without permission, you will be fired. Regardless of cirmcumstance or time with the agency.

And I never understand why TM seems to assume that anyone who is a partisan is motivated principally or only by partisanship.
I can't answer for TM, but I can answer for myself. I don't believe she (or assume anyone) is motivated by partisanship. I do believe that whatever motivated her partisan behavior is something that motivates her as a person.

[Sue]

Mr. E.,

Simple then. Remove the $2500.00 donated by her husband and you get $7500.00. A lot of money to be ignored when you are mentioning her contribution to Kerry's campaign. Wonder why?

[maryrose]

sad:
I also want to know why she gets to keep her pension. I don't want my tax dollars supporting this person who can't keep her mouth shut. Also I still want to know WHO hired her back in 2004 and why.

[Jonas Cord]

I just lurk here, as I rely on everyone arguing to figure out whats going on in these cases, but I haven't seen anyone talk about this yet:

HERE COME THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES... So Newsweek is reporting that Mary McCarthy denies being the leaker. This despite stories in the press saying that she failed a polygraph and admitted to it. McCarthy's not the the one who told Newsweek. Do you know who did? Her "close friend" Rand Beers. Who's Rand Beers? The National Security Council staffer who quit in 2003 and went to work as John Kerry's senior national security campaign adviser. You know who else is Rand Beers's old friend from the National Security Council staff? Joseph C. Wilson IV. Just saying.

[richard mcenroe]

"And I never understand why TM seems to assume that anyone who is a partisan is motivated principally or only by partisanship."

Well, if TM were a registered Democrat like myself, I'd say it was because he was getting the e-mails from Dean, Pelosi, Kerry and the DCCC.

"These are people who would rather lose a war than their committee chairmanships." — James Lileks

[Ranger]

"That's not the Mary McCarthy that I know," said Rand Beers, a former colleague of Ms. McCarthy's on the National Security Council who has spoken to her several times since her firing.

They've spoken "severel times" since Thursday?

Sounds like Mr. Beers is debriefing his operative doing a damage assesment on his network.

Now I really want to know the timeline of when she went to work at the IG's office, when he left the NSC, and who exactly were her references for the IG position.

If I were a betting man, I would wager that Mr. Beers had a hand in her move back to the CIA from Think Tank Land, and maybe even suggested the IG's office as the perfect place for her to finish up her 20 years.

[Gary Maxwell]

God just what I expected. High dungeon when the matter is a republican. Revealing classified information? Get a rope. Even if its as innocuous as "I heard that too." But let it be a democrat and suddenly Jeff just switches in perfect pitch into why do you think partisanship has anything to do with it. One can go to jail possibly and the other can have mint tea purchased with a government pension and served it to Larry Johnson on her veranda.

The partisanship is on display here and its yours that has its slip showing.

[Sue]

You know, maybe she isn't the leak on the secret prisons. Read their carefully crafted denial. She did not leak information to Dana Priest about the prisons. She did not have access to that information. Yada yada yada. But they don't say she did not leak ANYTHING to ANY reporter ANYWHERE. What else has Dana Priest written on?

[Semanticleo]

She worked in the IG's office for god's sake.

How would she have info to give to freakin'
anyone, if that office weren't investigating
the secret sites? Christ!

[MayBee]

Semi: Her real crime is that she is not a Senator
or the President, thereby lacking the power
to stop any leak investigation.

I know it seems crazy. Being elected to office actually brings power in a representative democracy. Go figure.

[maryrose]

Semanticleo:
You sound impatient. What do you believe McCarthy has done here?

[Tom Maguire]

And I never understand why TM seems to assume that anyone who is a partisan is motivated principally or only by partisanship.

I assume that? Moi? Why couldn't she just be a Great American who has seen the damage done to this country by Bush and was determined to stop it by fair means (contributions) or foul (illegal leaks)? Her lack of earlier contributions seems to suggest that.

Bush made her do it!

Of course, when Clinton mis-bombed a drug factory in 1998, embarrassing him with a kleak was out of the question - more proof of her Great Americanship, presumably.

Well. If the NY Times is going to report on her contributions and wonder about her partisan inclinations, shouldn't they at least report the evidence accurately?

Look, like Jeff, I know nothing about this woman. Rather than assume she is a bitter partisan or a Great American, I would like to see some facts. The Times seems to partly share that inclination.

[Semanticleo]

Mary rose;

She was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Polygraph interp is very subjective. They
saw her vulnerble and decided to squeeze.

She heard or said something, no one knows
what. She admitted what exactly? She denies
she was the source for Priest. They are
looking for that person and are putting her
in a vise to try and get it any way they
can. Their big problem now is that, since
it is all so public, they can't send her
to Pakistan for remote torture.

[Ranger]

She worked in the IG's office for god's sake.

How would she have info to give to freakin'
anyone, if that office weren't investigating
the secret sites? Christ!

Posted by: Semanticleo | April 25, 2006 at 06:55 AM

Actually, the IG's office is the perfect place to be if you want to pass dirt from inside the CIA (or any other intel organization) to outside.

1) IG officers are given clearance to see and hear about anything in the organization. This is so anyone with an issue can go to the IG and not violate compartmentalization rules.

2) IG officers have access to every data record in the organization, so they can check on issues raised and compare complaints with documentation.

3) The IG's office is the perfect "cut out" position for passing information because anyone can go to the IG officer, then the IG officer can pass the information along to reporters. This protects the original leaker because they were only exersizing their right to talk to the IG, and the IG officer can claim (as she now is apparently) that they "never had access to the information). It also sets up a nice way to creat that all important "second source" because if the leaker wants to take the risk of actually talking to the press themselves, they can go to the IG first, then go to the press, and when the press goes to their source in the IG's office, they get the "I heard that too" that apparently counts as verification in MSM land these days.

4) Finally, given that the IG's office see every complaint, an operative in the IG's office will get information that other operatives deeper in wouldn't see because of compartmentalization.

I will also note that from my experience with IG offices, most IG complaints are found to be groundless because they are based on ignorance of the entire situation. What looks bad from one individuals perspective is usually not nearly as significant as it seems once the IG gathers the "whole picture." In that regard, leaking IG complaints without also passing along the findings of the investigations is a very dishonest thing to do.

[Sue]

LOL. I truly enjoy the left's spin. Wouldn't Leo have enjoyed the field trip? He could have shown us around, told us how the locals live, etc.

**Duck** The black helicopters are coming in for a close up...

[sad]

Here is more on the retirement issue.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.spies25apr25,0,5928384.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

[Gabriel Sutherland]

How much does the CIA pay their employees? How much does a lawyer working in the CIA's IG office tend to make?

$7,500 in one year seems like an awful lot of money even to a person that makes $100,000 per year, which I will wager is a typical government salary for an attorney.

Furthermore, the fact that the $5,000 contribution to the Democrat Party of Ohio was made in October 2004 should raise all sorts of eyebrows. It was only perceived that Ohio would be a battleground state where big money would be required in order to try and win the state's electoral votes. Down to the wire, Ohio became the one of several battleground states and thus Ms. McCarthy must have been getting information from Democrat Party financiers of when to give money and when not to give money.

In other words, the Democrat Party did not want a lot of contributions made in February 2004 in Ohio because it didn't want to tip off Republicans that they were spending a lot in that state.

This seems like news.

[Jeff]

Of course, when Clinton mis-bombed a drug factory in 1998, embarrassing him with a kleak was out of the question - more proof of her Great Americanship, presumably.

It's funny, I could've sworn I read something yesterday - maybe it was even something by Hitchens! - that seemed to hint that McCarthy had leaked something about her view of Clinton's bombing of the drug factory. But it's true, nothing about kleaks.

[sad]

This section of the above referenced Baltimore Sun Article addresses remedies for retirement benefits of those who disclose that which should not be disclosed.

*******If the measure is approved by Congress, the nation's spy chief would be ordered to consider a plan for revoking the pensions of intelligence agency employees who make unauthorized disclosures. It also would permit security forces at the National Security Agency and the CIA to make warrantless arrests outside the gates of their top-secret campuses.*********

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Oh, I forgot to note the retainment of her retirement package.

The agency has its priorities. Veteran personell, especially those that worked in the IG's office, are not the kind of people you want to simply cut off from the payroll. Keeping them happy is another way of keeping them quiet. Unless the agency spies on its retirees until they pass into the next life, it becomes less expensive to simply fulfill one's retirement package based on their number of years in government service.

The other problem is the use of the polygraph. The agency was aware that the polygraph would likely prevent prosecution of Ms. McCarthy because of it's prohibition in criminal court proceedings. However, they weren't looking to prosecute Ms. McCarthy. They were looking to prevent her from working from the agency any longer. That was the goal. Stop the leaks. Terminate the leakers. Start navigating the CIA ship by throwing overboard all those that are drilling holes in its hull.

[sad]

Thanks Gabriel

[sad]

Will retainment of benefits reduce the likelyhood of Ms. McCarthy becoming the new Ray McGovern or Larry Johnson in the Times and Wapo "news" articles?

[Appalled Moderate]

As much as I realize Dana Priest and all the other reporters have to do something to maintain their jobs, it is absolutely appropriate for the CIA brass to find leakers and terminate them. The only caveat is that said brass should have to take these things as well.

Also, does anyone think it odd that reporters who have been receiving leaks from the CIA all these years are now reporting denials that said officers actually leaked them their big, big story? That strikes me as a real ethics problem.

[Rick Ballard]

Sue,

I don't think that focusing on Priest's articles is the best bet (although she did write on the 'secret' air transport story). I would look at Pincus' and others work too. The press is making it seem as if the CIA is a sieve but that doesn't have to make it true at all. In fact, believeing anything written by the mainstream press requires a level of credulity equivalent to thinking that clapping is going to keep Tinkerbelle alive.

If the CIA is running polygraph exams, how many people subject to those exams are going to be willing to put careers at risk by having unauthorized contact with the press? Is it not more likely that there are few rather than many and that those few are being given cover by the presstitutes?

I find it difficult to believe that there are scores of willing oathbreakers within the CIA and very easy to believe that there are a very limited number and that those involved are as tightly linked as Berger, McCarthy and Beers. That a snake pit exists is incontrovertible but the number of snakes need not be very high to constitute a nest of VIPers.

[Sue]

Appalled,

It was reported that Porter goss and the head of the IG were both polygraphed. Of course, reporters reported it so who knows...

[Sue]

Rick,

I would look at any story that quoted senior CIA officials. And this could be where the story is. Her link to Beers and Wilson. They are not saying she didn't leak classified information, they are saying she wasn't the source for the CIA prison story. Big...huge...difference. IMO, of course.

[Foo Bar]

Public Service Announcement to JOM community:

In about 15 minutes (11 Eastern) there will be a WaPo chat session with reporter Dafna Linzer about the McCarthy story. Thought some of you might be interested in submitting a question.

I have had about 25% of the questions I've submitted in the past answered by the WaPo reporter at these chat sessions. It seems you're more likely to get your question answered if you submit it while the chat session is going on, rather than ahead of time.

FYI.

[Hit The Bid]

Gabriel: "$7,500 in one year seems like an awful lot of money even to a person that makes $100,000 per year, which I will wager is a typical government salary for an attorney."

She may have this crazy thing called a savings account! Ohhhh how scandelous.

How come none of you are suspect of Porter Goss and his political Lackey's conducting a witch hunt retaliation on behalf of the white house. I thought you people hated prosecutorial abuse? Oh wait...thats right only when it suits your ends.

[Appalled Moderate]

Hit:

The possibility exists. Do you think that leaking at the CIA should be a firing offense?

[Sue]

How about a witch hunt on behalf of the CIA? They have been leaking like a sieve and they needed to shut them down.

[Semanticleo]

reporters reported it so who knows...

black choppers indeed. Moron.

[Sue]

Leo,

Is that you Larry? ::grin::

I surely wish these people would come up with a better word for me. Moron is getting so boring...

[boris]

Andy McCarthy has a good question ...

If McCarthy is not a black-sites source, the Post, better than anyone else, knows that. How in good conscience do they run a story so strongly identifying her as the source?

[maryrose]

Sue:
I agree there is more underneath the surface to this story. The fact that she was preparing to retire convinces me that she knew at some level she had done something wrong and wanted to make a clean getaway before the --- hit the fan. Unfortunately for her, her shoe got caught in the door and now a large magnifying glass will hopefully reveal who else is under the rock she crawled out from under.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Hit The Bid asked How come none of you are suspect of Porter Goss and his political Lackey's conducting a witch hunt retaliation on behalf of the white house.

Because if the President wants to use politics to decide who gets to stay at the CIA and who doesn't get to stay then that is entirely within the powers of the Presidency. The President could fire every single Democrat in the executive branch and it would be entirely within the law.

Albeit, such moves would draw significant criticism that would ultimately leave such a President as eventually unemployed, it would all entirely be in accordance with the law.

The President gets to use pragmatism like no other political figure in the country. It's one of the main reasons low level pols want to run for President. The President can decide to leak whatever information he chooses. You may not like that, but we still don't know that there was any political motivation in terminating Ms. McCarthy because the NY Times refuses to report that she made campaign contributions with the intent of changing bosses.

Rather than trying to excuse law breaking -- your argument -- I'd rather you address Ms. McCarthy's devastating political trail.

[Sue]

For those word challenged amongst us...the following is being provided in order to break the overuse of the word moron...

--idiot
--imbecile
--cretin
--changeling (my personal favorite, please use as often as possible)
--half-wit
--retard (not really PC anymore, but moron probably isn't either, so go for it)
--dolt

Feel free to pick one or more of the above when referring to my moronish ways in the future.