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 : email@example.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.