The NY Times and the WaPo cover the news that CIA officer Mary O. McCarthy was dismissed for leaking. From the Times:
The Central Intelligence Agency has dismissed a senior career officer for disclosing classified information to reporters, including material for Pulitzer Prize-winning articles in The Washington Post about the agency's secret overseas prisons for terror suspects, intelligence officials said Friday.
The C.I.A. would not identify the officer, but several government officials said it was Mary O. McCarthy, a veteran intelligence analyst who until 2001 was senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council, where she served under President Bill Clinton and into the Bush administration.
At the time of her dismissal, Ms. McCarthy was working in the agency's inspector general's office, after a stint at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an organization in Washington that examines global security issues.
The Times found her bio at the CSIS before someone took it down, or crashed it out, or something. I reprint it below, and it is also available at NYU Law (scroll down) or the Google cache (until Chloe and the CIA clean it out). Let's duly note her overlap with Joe Wilson on the National Security Council from June 1997 to July 1998.
The Times notes that Ms. McCarthy made the max $2,000 contribution to John Kerry in 2004, but so did Sue; what the Times missed (but Rick didn't) is that Ms. McCarthy also appears to have given $500 to the DNC in 2004. Ghostcat found a $2,000 contribution to Kerry from the presumed hubby, Michael J McCarthy; and I have found a $5,000 contribution to the Ohio democratic party in 2004 (FEC, Mary McCarthy, Bethesda, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & INTERNATIO).
So, in 2004 the McCarthys gave over $9,000 to the Democrats. How about that? And the Times even found $2,000 of it. Maybe they should subscribe to the FEC Spy. [Open Secrets site is helpful, too - Mary O. McCarthy, Michael J McCarthy.]
But the Times did better on this than the WaPo, which did not even look in that direction.
I liked this:
News of the dismissal was first reported Friday by MSNBC.
I have read that Andrea Mitchell had that first. Since she also broke the news of the Plame criminal referral in September 2003, I just like to think of her as in the know.
The Times regales us with this outraged intel official:
Several former intelligence officials — who were granted anonymity after requesting it for what they said were obvious reasons under the circumstances — were divided over the likely effect of the dismissal on morale. One veteran said the firing would not be well-received coming so soon after the disclosure of grand jury testimony by Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff that President Bush in 2003 approved the leak of portions of a secret national intelligence estimate on Iraqi weapons.
"It's a terrible situation when the president approves the leak of a highly classified N.I.E., and people at the agency see management as so disastrous that they feel compelled to talk to the press," said one former C.I.A. officer with extensive overseas experience.
No - it's a terrible situation when the Times can run this criticism of the NIE "leak" with a seemingly straight face and fail to note that the key bits of the NIE were formally and publicly declassified on July 18, 2003, within a few weeks of the Libby talks. In fact, if the Times reviews their own Ms. Miller's account, they will see that she was troubled that Libby was not giving her anything new [on the NIE] (since other parts of the NIE had been declassified in October 2002). Let's just clip that here:
As I told Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Libby also cited a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced by American intelligence agencies in October 2002, which he said had firmly concluded that Iraq was seeking uranium.
An unclassified version of that estimate had been made public before my interviews with Mr. Libby. I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I had pressed Mr. Libby to discuss additional information that was in the more detailed, classified version of the estimate. I said I had told Mr. Libby that if The Times was going to do an article, the newspaper needed more than a recap of the administration's weapons arguments. According to my interview notes, though, 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.
A terrible situation indeed. To their credit, the Times runs two off-setting quotes:
But another official, whose experience was at headquarters, said most employees would approve Mr. Goss's action. "I think for the vast majority of people this will be good for morale," the official said. "People didn't like some of their colleagues deciding for themselves what secrets should be in The Washington Post or The New York Times."
Paul R. Pillar, who was the agency's senior analyst for the Middle East until he retired late last year, said: "Classified information is classified information. It's not to be leaked. It's not to be divulged." He has recently criticized the Bush administration's handling of prewar intelligence about Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons programs.
UPDATE: Flopping Aces plays Friendster with Mary McCarthy - links to Joe Wilson, Rand Beers, Sandy Berger, Dana Priest (at the NYU Center for Law and Security).
Let's go to the bio:
Mary O. McCarthy:
Prior to joining CSIS in August 2001, Mary O. McCarthy was a senior policy adviser to the CIA's deputy director for science and technology. Until July 2001, she served as special assistant to the president and senior director for intelligence programs on the National Security Council (NSC) Staff, under both Presidents Clinton and Bush. From 1991 until her appointment to the NSC, McCarthy served on the National Intelligence Council. She began her government service as an analyst, then manager, in CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, holding positions in both African and Latin American analysis. From 1979 to 1984 she was employed by BERI, S.A., conducting financial, operational, and political risk assessments for multinational companies and banks. Previously she had taught at the University of Minnesota and was director of the Social Science Data Archive at Yale University. McCarthy has a B.A. and M.A. in history from Michigan State University, an M.A. in library science from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Minnesota. She is the author of Social Change and the Growth of British Power in the Gold Coast
(University Press of America, 1983).
Obviously McCarthy didn't understand the concept that if you have a secret prison for your terrorists you don't have to do renditions.
Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
I guess the idea is that Kahlid Sheik Mohammed was just a poor misunderstood fellow who deserved a lawyer to tell him not to speak or he would incriminate himself. His daddy probably abused him so he grew up to be a poor widdle tewowist.
Posted by: Syl | April 22, 2006 at 12:23 AM
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see the difference between a government employee with access to classified information divulging that information without authority to do so, and the declassification of information by an authorized official to provide information to the public. Number one is a serious crime, number two is a government in a free society exercising it's responsibility to informing the people governed. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature can see the difference. This will be a great opportunity to see if anyone on the left has an IQ above room temperature.
Posted by: Lew Clark | April 22, 2006 at 12:24 AM
After strolling through blogosphere, I've noticed a growing trend. Did Priest get her Pulitzer for a story that was planted to catch a leaker? Seems no one can find the prisons. Wouldn't that be a kicker? Do you give back your Pulitzer if the story you won it for is false? Things that make you go hmmm....
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 12:25 AM
Now let's see. If I was caught leaking classified government secrets to the press do you think I would just lose my job? Or would I have hordes of FBI types rummaging through my entire house and office while I was led away in shackles? Hmmmm....I guess there are some perks associated with working for the agency that is supposed to protect the secrets.....
Posted by: Specter | April 22, 2006 at 12:27 AM
Sue -- ouch!
Never thought of that. I don't think it's likely, but boy do I find myself wishing it to be true. How very devious, yet elegant, it would be to find a leaker by planting a "too good to check" story.
Posted by: Fredrik Nyman | April 22, 2006 at 12:31 AM
Classic Negroponte, though.
Posted by: ghostcat | April 22, 2006 at 12:33 AM
Let me guess. Larry Johnson and/or one of his VIP pals. ::major eyeroll::
Do these people understand that Bush was elected and as a result of that election he gets to make foreign policy decisions? And what the hell does management have to do with the leaking of a secret prison? Unless the management referred to is Bush. If so, I reiterate my first point, 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.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 12:34 AM
I want to know if there's any connection wilary? With the Plame referral?th the Berger burg
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 12:35 AM
Careerists think it THEIR job to set policy when a Republican is President. They do what they can to hold the fort until its legitimate owners (Democrats) return.
Posted by: ghostcat | April 22, 2006 at 12:37 AM
Sorry--problems with this laptap composing.Any connection with the Berger burglary? Any connection with the CIA referral? Any connection with Rockefeller and the NSA leak?
This is so fantastic..
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 12:38 AM
They can't find the prisons. And they are looking. Europe is pissed and wants those prisons found so Bush can be properly strung up on the nearest street corner. Why can't they find those prisons? Maybe Priest could look for them.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 12:38 AM
I think a lot of mysteries are about to come unshrouded.
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 12:39 AM
Clarice,
I'm glad you re-posted. I thought we were witnessing your drowning or something. Sounded like the last gurgles before you didn't come up for air anymore. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 12:41 AM
If it was a sting--it's a three fer:Treacherous opponents; credulous enemies and a press that was in their pockets. (And another black eye for the Pulitizer.)
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 12:41 AM
Mary McCarthy has interesting connections. Berger and Beers - whodathunk?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 22, 2006 at 12:41 AM
Sue==I am the most pathetical techno klutz in the world. (Well, my old neighbor I.F. Stone was worse but he had my then ten year old son to bail him out and I don't.)
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 12:43 AM
Please...please.....I promise I'll stop fill in the blank if only you'll let it be a sting....
Posted by: Specter | April 22, 2006 at 12:43 AM
Well, the sting idea isn't mine. I'm just sort of buying it for the moment. Lots of bloggers out there working that angle and I found it intriguing.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 12:43 AM
Specter,
Can you imagine the roar from MSM if this was a sting? They will go beserk. I'm with ya'...it would be a sight to behold.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 12:45 AM
It may well be..and if it is, she's been on the fire for a while before the firing was announced..and if that's true, I suppose she'd already talked and turned.
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 12:46 AM
It would be fun....And just think...we could prove that you can lead the MSM to water and you can make them drink.....
Posted by: Specter | April 22, 2006 at 12:46 AM
Oh, Sue started the ball rolling on the mcCarthy's contributions, so maybe she can check my work - I found a $5,000 from MAry to the Ohio Dems in 2004. The employer is the CISI, but I am wondering if somehow I am seeing a cumulative year-to-date rather than new money.
Anyway, with 2 K each from hubby and wife for Kerry and 5 k here, that is lots of money, one might think.
Posted by: TM | April 22, 2006 at 12:49 AM
The Goddess is already planning the celebrations--Secret of course, but gather kindling, there are a lot of bonefires being planned.
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 12:49 AM
Maybe they got a grant or something..That's an enormous amount of money for people in their income bracket.
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 12:51 AM
Did I say BonEfires..or well, maybe that, too?
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 12:52 AM
That there was an intricate web of treachery is pretty obvious. Ms. Mary Mc was almost certainly part of that web, probably close to its center. There was also a Clarke strand, a Wilson/Plame strand, etc.
Berger may have been the master weaver.
Posted by: ghostcat | April 22, 2006 at 12:52 AM
So lemme get this straight. The leakers WORKED IN THE IG'S OFFICE?
qui custodes ipset custodias...?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | April 22, 2006 at 12:56 AM
Tom,
I think she gave $5,000 to the Democratic Party of http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=mccarthy%2C+mary+o.&txtState=%28all+states%29&txtZip=&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2006=Y&txt2004=Y&Order=N>Ohio. It shows her $2k separate to Kerry.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 12:56 AM
Regardless of who they've contributed to, the action in and of itself stands on it own.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 12:57 AM
I am late to the party, but they took the bio down? WOW.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 01:00 AM
bonefires - I like it!!
Macsmind is trying to make the connections you seek, follow his links in the Rockefeller post.
http://macsmind.blogspot.com/
it was linked earlier, I think.
Posted by: SunnyDay | April 22, 2006 at 01:01 AM
Mac Ranger is thinking McCarthy will turn evidence..
I agree with him. And there are more to come. The NY Times is reporting McCarthy leaked a lot, and on various topics.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1666
Cheers, AJStrata
Posted by: AJStrata | April 22, 2006 at 01:01 AM
I do so want to see that referral letter. Are the Wilson's still planning to attend the WH Correspondents Dinner?
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 01:02 AM
In addition to Mrs. McCarthy's contributions, we have Mr. McCarthy contributing http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=mccarthy%2C+michael&txtState=MD&txtZip=20817&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&Order=N>$2500
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 01:05 AM
Thanks, AJ. I'm out of town and only your emails clued me in when I got to the PC.I take it you agree that wouldn't announce her arrest until they got everything they thought she had..esp if this were a sting?
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 01:05 AM
I like his poker player theory. It fits with the "sting" theory about today's firing.
"If you're going to attempt a coup..."
Posted by: SunnyDay | April 22, 2006 at 01:06 AM
How odd. The only year that I can find that Mr. & Mrs. McCarthy made political contributions is the year 2004. And that year the 2 of them gave $9500 to democrats.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 01:07 AM
Re: Turning Evidence -
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.
Posted by: ghostcat | April 22, 2006 at 01:08 AM
PS -
Did I miss something? Has Ms. McCarthy actually been arrested?
Posted by: ghostcat | April 22, 2006 at 01:10 AM
seems like these people are buying there positions on the demo ticket
Posted by: brenda taylor | April 22, 2006 at 01:10 AM
I'm sorry. I can't add. In 2004, they gave http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=mccarthy&txtState=MD&txtZip=20817&txtEmploy=&txtCand=&txt2004=Y&txt2002=Y&Order=N>$10,000 to democrats. In 2002 it looks like they only managed to give $250. Weird. Just plain weird.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 01:10 AM
Not weird. Desperate. Suspicious.
Posted by: ghostcat | April 22, 2006 at 01:11 AM
No bailout - they will get to make speeches for $12.5K each to Mother Sheehan fans - or at least he will.
Posted by: Specter | April 22, 2006 at 01:12 AM
Sue
on the contribution...
Mikulski, Barbara A is who Russell Tice, The NSA'er, first approached.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 01:14 AM
Okay. If I were a suspicious sort of person, and I am, I would want to know why all of the sudden in 2004 they decided to start making political donations to the tune of $10,000. And my next question would be, was it your money? Or were you just helping out a 'friend' and making the donation in your name. The limit for gift tax in 2004 was $10,000. Anything over that amount and you have to report it to the IRS.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 01:15 AM
Start checking all the grants Tides Foundation made in 2004.
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 01:16 AM
ghostcat --
A lot of people have speculated about what's essentially a conspiracy; the CIA's war on Bush, if you will, and identified likely key players whose connections go way back; Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, Sandy Berger, Rand Beers etc. Ms. McCarthy fits in very nicely in this, since she was closely associated to all the key players.
It will be very interesting to see what else will come out in the coming days. I suspect that Ms. McCarthy has already turned state's evidence, and that her testimony will put a lot of people in a world of hurt.
Posted by: Fredrik Nyman | April 22, 2006 at 01:17 AM
Also Soros' One World outfit--can't remember its exact name--probably went to her for some research as CSIS..or some other such dodge. If we can wrap into this these tax exempt foundations working for theanti-American nutsos of this world, it'll be too wonderful for words..
Posted by: clarice | April 22, 2006 at 01:20 AM
Okay, I don't usually indulge in conspiracy theories, but this is just too weird. What are the odds that these people donated $10,000 to democrats in 2004 when the only other time they made a political donation was in 2002 for $250? And if you wanted to spread your money around, just make sure you stay under the $10,000 (in 2004, it is now $11,000) and the IRS is not involved. Free money. No taxes. Income or gift.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 01:20 AM
I believe Russell Tice was so foolish as to tell a reporter that careerists, not elected leaders, should make national policy.
Posted by: ghostcat | April 22, 2006 at 01:20 AM
Clarice,
I don't know how to check it from that end. I think if they passed it out through a foundation, it would show up. I'm talking personal money. Gift money.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 01:23 AM
A foundation or a 501(c) would have to file a 990 with the IRS. It would show up that way. It wouldn't though if it was personal money.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 01:24 AM
Does anyone know what state Larry Johnson lives in?
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 01:28 AM
I wonder if McCarthy burped Priest after she fed her? I also wonder who Priest claimed as her "second source" for her amazing investigative regurgitation on the government safe houses for terrorist interrogation (AKA "Secret Prisons").
They need to change the name to Pulitzer Press Slut Prize (regardless of the gender of the recipient).
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 22, 2006 at 01:28 AM
Here's my pet theory: McCarthy, et al, were scared sheetless that a second Bush term would uncover their first-term shenanigans. So they scraped up every dollar they could to help elect Kerry. And the "et als" were legion.
But I don't rule out something more nefarious, like Soros money.
Posted by: ghostcat | April 22, 2006 at 01:29 AM
Sue,
Utter confusion alternating with malice and rage.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 22, 2006 at 01:30 AM
The limit on political contributions, so I thought, is $1000 per person primary and $1000 for general election, $2000 total. How'd they give so much? And how the heck do they live on her salary and a landscaper's wage with an $850,000 house in the highest priced living area in the country almost. What could her top salary be, about maybe $65,000 or so, does anyone know what her paygrade was? Government employment isn't exactly the road to riches when you are salary dependent.
TM ... I saw the first Breaking News and it was on Fox by Brett Baer. Andrea Mitchell's report came about 20 to 25 minutes later, although that doesn't necessarily mean she didn't have it first, she just wasn't the first on air with it.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 22, 2006 at 01:31 AM
Welcome back Goddess,
First question I asked when the fact that she worked in IG office of CIA is:
Would that office have been ones to send referrals on to DOJ.
That would explain why leaks that injure the WH got put into Tenet's TO SIGN PILE.
After Ghostcat and Sue came up with donations - even at lower level of $4,000 - and someone suggested they were "perhaps funded" I asked:
= if they had children?
= where did they work?
And connections to DEMS al la Time's Cooper.
FOR THAT
JEFF TOLD ME I WAS SICK!
What is sick is a coup by the CIA & STATE LEFTIES TO STEAL AN ELECTION.
WONDER WHERE MRS & MRS. MCCARTHY WERE GOING TO SHOW UP IN KEDWARDS
ADMIN.
Someone also saw connection with Rocky and Molohan - both W.Va. -
14 million is a very nice slush fund - good WAM!
AND THE DISMISSAL OF THE LEAK WAS
LEAKED!
I questioned the release of this on a Friday.
But see that they leaked it while LSM has GAS PRICE STORY to run with 24/7 and on SUNDAY SHOWS -
they'll have full spin developed by next week.
Praying Mac is right on.
Glad you are back.
Gotta pick slow night for FNL
- Friday too exciting lately,
but do want to know how our hero is taking his demotion.
Posted by: larwyn | April 22, 2006 at 01:33 AM
ghostcat,
It could be as simple as a roll of the dice. Kerry wins and they are on his honor roll. I'm not sure why Clinton appointees are still in any position of responsiblity to begin with and she may have been reading handwriting on the wall. I know that Bush had other things aside from appointments on his mind but these Clinton leftovers need to be dumped. They've gone bad and are stinking up the place.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 22, 2006 at 01:39 AM
Want to know something hilarious?
On one fund raising website, her address comes up as Wilson Lane.
Posted by: MayBee | April 22, 2006 at 01:40 AM
Sue
Maybe you answered on old thread, but did you make the connection with Daniel Benjamin who was also on the NSC on CSIS site? Do remember what story he was quoted vouching for his absent minded friend?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 01:44 AM
Squiggler,
Landscape architect - not landscaper, although good money can be made at either. I would imagine her pay was over six figures and it would be no surprise at all if his was too. They are not poverty stricken by any means and a $10K bet is not unreasonable.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 22, 2006 at 01:44 AM
I thought the limit was $1,000 also. But the site lists them both as donating $2,000 each to John Kerry. $4,000 total.
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 01:46 AM
Top,
No. Who is he?
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 01:48 AM
Sue -
I found a Larry C. Johnson in "Balmer" MD and another in Hayes VA (Eastern Shore). Both seem unlikely to be your guy.
Posted by: ghostcat | April 22, 2006 at 01:51 AM
--"His thoroughness, his relentlessness, his work ethic are legendary," says terrorism expert Daniel Benjamin, a former member of the National Security Council.--
Friend
From 1994 to 1999, he served on the National Security Council staff.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 01:52 AM
oops, CSIS BIO, again.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 01:54 AM
FEC Limits
$2,100 per federal candidate per election with primary and general election counted separately.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 22, 2006 at 01:55 AM
Sue I think they can each give $2000, but not more than a $1000 during each election cycle. One cycle being the Primaries, the other being the General Elections. At least that's the way it used to be.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 22, 2006 at 01:56 AM
My eyes are crossing.
I'll be back...tomorrow. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | April 22, 2006 at 02:01 AM
Rick, do you know what her pay grade was? I would find it very hard to believe she would make anywhere close to six figures. Maybe my $65,000 is lowball, but I would doubt it was over $80,000. My nephew is a PhD. at Treasury in his fourth year and he hasn't even reached $55,000 yet. He has to share a house with five roomates just to make ends meet in DC.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 22, 2006 at 02:01 AM
Guess you guys already had the Wilson Lane address.
Still, it is pretty funny to me.
Perhaps all the money for Kerry is to buddy on up to Berger. He would probably had a position with Kerry, right? And Berger gave her her appointment.
Posted by: MayBee | April 22, 2006 at 02:09 AM
The following from Captains's Quarters ...
Posted by: Squiggler | April 22, 2006 at 02:15 AM
THIS
is interesting...Mary Mcarthy, Daniel Benjamin, Neal Katyal, Seymore Hersh, DANA PREIST...TO NAME A FEW
Speakers and Associates
The Center is committed to enabling experts in the fields of security, democratization and counterterrorism to come together and exchange ideas in an open format alongside legal scholars and advisors. In order to facilitate the Center's exposure to developments in these fields, the Center relies on a wide circle of individuals. Their contributions have included advising the executive director, participating in the Law and Security Colloquium, submitting periodic policy briefs and articles for Center publications as well as contributing to our open forums, roundtables and conferences.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 02:15 AM
I think the above link just nails he association (McCarthy - Priest) and lends to the notion she gave the Abu Garib info to Seymour (spelled incorrectly above) Hersh...don't you think?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 02:20 AM
crud. sorry.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 02:21 AM
Squiggler,
Her appoint was as "Special Assistant to the President". Here is a list of current pay scales and she was also named as a Senior Director for Intelligence. She's getting six figures.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 22, 2006 at 02:27 AM
Be still my heart. I just read on AJ Strata's site (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1434) that Durbin and Rockefeller and staff could be subject to lie detector tests. I think the bottom of the NSA leak case will reveal Rockefeller and I just plain dislike Durbin, so to me this would be a red letter day. One can only hope.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 22, 2006 at 02:28 AM
Okay, thanks Rick. She was higher ranked then I thought.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 22, 2006 at 02:29 AM
Rick
Notice the above NYU Security associate link above that McCarthy and Priest were both members of is much like the Aspen Strategy Group - Kristof-Scowcroft-J
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 02:31 AM
well that was weird...continue
--Notice the above NYU Security associate link above that McCarthy and Priest were both members of is much like the Aspen Strategy Group - Kristof-Scowcroft-JMiller-Armitage association and "group" merger organization
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 02:33 AM
Top,
Yeah, lots of cozy clubs in DC. I would be careful about the sting idea for the moment. It might be but it must be remembered that "Secret Prisons" is pressspeak like "intercepting enemy communication" is "domestic eaves dropping". The press invents terms all the time. If we weren't using safe houses in foreign countries as places to interrogate terrorists I would be saddened at our incompetence.
It takes a Democrat and a willing press to turn a safe house for interrogation into a "Secret Prison" but that's all it takes.
Seditionist bastards.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 22, 2006 at 02:38 AM
*** 4/26/04
Mary O. McCarthy, genuine national security expert ***
How can we get this online journal article, linked all over the leftosphere but now a 404:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/042604Burns/042604burns.html
It's by Margie Burns
Posted by: MayBee | April 22, 2006 at 02:43 AM
Berger, by his thumbs. I'm tellin' you, our security depends on him spilling what he's hiding.
================================
Posted by: kim | April 22, 2006 at 02:51 AM
I found the Margie Burns article with the Wayback Machine here.Doesn't">http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/042604Burns/042604burns.html">here.Doesn't look like much, unless I'm missing something.
Posted by: Neuro-conservative | April 22, 2006 at 02:55 AM
try in here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports
Posted by: SunnyDay | April 22, 2006 at 02:56 AM
Sting?
I do think it is interesting that Daniel Benjamin is "quoted" as a friend of Fitz in the WAPO love letter bio story and then viola -- he was on the NSC with Wilson And McCArthy, and well a member of CSIS with Mcarthy and on the NYU Security thing with McCarthy AND DANA PRIEST (and Hersh)
...and check here and you see Larry and Joe and scroll for Zeyno Baran link and who he's affiliated with (ahem CSIS ahem) and oh, guess who else? --James R. Schlesinger --found here with Mary Mc Carthy...
...in a first blush search...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 02:57 AM
I'm old and slow.
Posted by: SunnyDay | April 22, 2006 at 02:58 AM
I don't know neuro, I find this statement by her quite informative:
"When you have a new agency, you get a new culture."
She should have remembered her own words. Well, if she gets convicted, she'll have lots of time to mull them over.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 22, 2006 at 03:02 AM
Do you suppose they waited for the Pulitzers to be announced?
================================
Posted by: kim | April 22, 2006 at 03:03 AM
Oh, and when you look at the Zeyno Baran text copy, ignore the Turkish references...::sarcasm off::
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 03:03 AM
Yeah,nothing much in that article.
But this paragraph, in retrospect, is funny:
She is probably the most candid, least defensive, most lucid witness yet. On the idea of creating a new agency to include domestic surveillance, she was refreshingly clear: "I do not recommend a new agency." "When you have a new agency, you get a new culture."
Most candid. (to reporters)
Doesn't want a new agency because it will have a new culture (of not backstabbing the President, I suppose).
Posted by: MayBee | April 22, 2006 at 03:07 AM
TS ... sort of makes that old point about "everyone knew" huh?
Just asking ... do you think one of those highly skilled, highly paid insider attorneys could raise a "conflict of interest" argument on Fitz if all these connections are documented? Seems all too inbred, even for a small town like DC.
Posted by: Squiggler | April 22, 2006 at 03:09 AM
Oh, I forgot to thank you neuro and sunnyD, for finding that article for me.
Posted by: MayBee | April 22, 2006 at 03:13 AM
Well Squiggler
Definitely lends to the pretext of why Fitzgerald bought or went for the "whisltblower" route, doesn't it?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 03:15 AM
They can't find the prisons because they moved them to North Africa so Condi Rice could deny their existence during her trip to Europe.
Dana Priest COULD get it wrong, though I haven't know her to, as could Human Rights Watch, as could ABC news, but all three at once? Not bloody likely. Then there are those flight records.
Posted by: Katherine | April 22, 2006 at 03:15 AM
--They can't find the prisons because they moved them to North Africa --
not sure i'm buying this anyways but, how does one move a prison?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | April 22, 2006 at 03:19 AM
The gleaming one shone softly in the corner, pondering the irony of the most powerful War Secretariat in the history of the world also being the most humane ever, and reeling from attacks on that humanity. The armour enclosed cortical machinery within had always found irony a rich source of strategic political creativity. They yinyang jiu-jitsu to opposo foo. Tort, you are tortiious; torture feasible, beezlebubble. Pulsar pulsa, DanaMara go to hella.
The gleaming and the low hum gradually faded.
He awoke with a start; why the echoing words 'Little on earth as good as a good cop; little in hell as bad as a bad one.
Pulitzei.
Suis.
===================
Posted by: kim | April 22, 2006 at 03:19 AM
"Do you suppose they waited for the Pulitzers to be announced?"
Kim with the Poker Player Bush and his trusty "demoted" buddy can there be any doubt.
Must be my computer but cannot see the article via the Wayback Machine link?
I need a chart for all these connections - think NYT or WaPo will do a nice one for us?
Posted by: larwyn | April 22, 2006 at 03:20 AM
So, K, your source? And where in N. Africa? Was it Libya; Khadafy's payback for Bush's relieving him of Saddam's nuclear project?
However, prisons are easy to move.
======================
Posted by: kim | April 22, 2006 at 03:23 AM