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 : [email protected]

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.

[Semanticleo]

how about motley sue?

craven maven?

coy named sue?

etched in crass?

take your pick. it's your reputation.

[windansea]

She was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

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

Posted by: Semanticleo

poor vulnerable little Mary....a shame you can't use the race card

[Sue]

Leo,

You decide. Just try to limit the use of moron. I might not feel that way in a day or 2, but after being over at Mr. Johnson's site, the overuse of that word is still fresh on my mind.

[sad]

Sue

You forgot "spaz"

It its good enough for Tiger Woods, its good enough for me.

[maryrose]

So let me get this straight- Is Mary now entititled to federal unemployment as well as her pension? Somehow there is something wrong with that. Well hopefully her lawyer fees will eat up some of that FREE income.

[Semanticleo]

poor vulnerable little Mary....a shame you can't use the race card

misogynist alert!

Your read of 'vulnerable' gives you away.

[Sue]

Sad,

Good one. I suggest they mix it up, that way I don't get bored. I bore easily...and moron is so yesterday...

[topsecretk9]

What kind of message was Goss sending in firing her?

Well if she had passed her polygraphs I suppose there would be NO grounds for firing, right?

Anyhow, the people scheduled for polygraphs yesterday, today and tomorrow? Sucks to be you.

[sad]

*******1. The release of intelligence after being declassified by an authorized authority (e.g., the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate by the White House) directly to the public--or via the press--is not a "leak," and is, therefore, legal. The unauthorized release of classified information to the public (e.g., the allegations against Mary McCarthy) is a "leak," and against the law.
2. If an intelligence official is concerned about conduct they consider to be inappropriate/illegal, measures exist to make competent authority aware of the situation. An agency's Inspector General is a good option. Failing that avenue, an intelligence official can always turn to appropriately cleared congressional oversight committees such as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Resigning in protest is also an option; running to the press isn't.

3. The fact that McCarthy is accused of leaking operational (as opposed to analytical intelligence such as that which was contained in the Iraq NIE) is especially egregious. Most serious: the disclosure of operational information (e.g., intelligence sources and methods) can put American operatives as well as our foreign agents in danger. The bad guys read the press, especially the American press, which--unfortunately-- is rife with sensitive information. Moreover, since operational information is so sensitive, its disclosure makes friendly foreign intelligence partners reluctant to share information with the U.S. That can really hurt with the war on terror and the Iranian nuclear program still on the boil.

4. The accused undoubtedly signed a federal government secrecy oath, saying that she understands that she will be entrusted with highly-sensitive information which can cause harm to U.S. national security, and that if she discloses intelligence to individuals not authorized to receive it, she may be prosecuted. The accused is NOT a hero as some would suggest. She not only broke the law, but she violated the special trust she was given to her by being granted a security clearance and access to sensitive intelligence.

5. While U.S. government employees are allowed to have political views, they shouldn't be mixing them with their work. Let's just say her political career is interesting: Clinton NSC staff, moved off by the incoming Bush administration, sizeable cash donations to the DNC, and $2,000 contribution to the Kerry campaign in 2004. It's not clear her actions were politically motivated at this point, but you do the math...********

This info comes courtesy of Peter Brookes, former Deputy Assisstant Secretary of Defense (DASD)for Asian and Pacific Affairs earlier in the Bush Adminstration.

Read it all at Realclearpolitics.

[cathyf]

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.

McCarthy was top brass.

cathy :-)

[windansea]

misogynist alert!

chics dig me :)

[Semanticleo]

chics dig me :)

think you mean 'bury' you.

[sad]

AM

It will be interesting to see how much backpedaling the press does from their "government sources," on some of their stories. Are there editors, even as we speak, chasing down details on sourcing? Or are notebooks disappearing?

[windansea]

think you mean 'bury' you

that's not very nice Cleo...I think I'll go pout at the beach :)

[sad]

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House has an interesting observation:

******** My post last night on McCarthy pointed out that she may have been simply a facilitator for the press, confirming or denying specific information to keep reporters on track with their stories. But even if she leaked like a sieve and sang like a canary, the question you have to ask is: How has a woman who may not be in any danger at all from prosecution been able to procure the services of a $750 per hour attorney like Ty Cobb whose client list reads like the attendees at a Bill Clinton private Sybaris party?

Just wondering… *********

WOW!!! $750 per hour

[topsecretk9]

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.

Yes, like they jumped on the HLS creep luring teens on aol? Evidence, EVIDENCE of Bush's evil empire...until it was revealed he was a registered Democrat.

Not saying his party registration or contributions is representative, but then the left never fails to seize an opportunity to suggest such.

[JohnH]

Firing one CIA employee is not yet, and may not even become in the future, a big housecleaning. Looking at Sandy Berger's gentle goodbye kiss, I would say that we don't know yet how hard Goss or anyone else is going to work to plug the leaks.

And Sue, your cover is blown. No more field trips. But we'll keep you marked "classified" so we don't have to reduce your pay grade.

[topsecretk9]

How has a woman who may not be in any danger at all from prosecution been able to procure the services of a $750 per hour attorney like Ty Cobb whose client list reads like the attendees at a Bill Clinton private Sybaris party?

Sad, put it this way...if the woman isn't guilty of any wrong doing still availed her pension and may not be in any danger at all from prosecution ....then not only HOW but WHY would she procure the services of a DC Power attorney at $750 and hour...

I am not surprised she lawyered up...I am surprised how MUCH she lawyered up.

[maryrose]

CYA politics motivated McCarthy to lawyer up. I still think she is the tip of the iceberg and doesn't want to be the loan CIA officer going down. Flipping her would be a real feather in someone's cap.

[Cecil Turner]

Firing one CIA employee is not yet, and may not even become in the future, a big housecleaning. Looking at Sandy Berger's gentle goodbye kiss . . .

Personally, I don't really care how gentle the goodbyes are . . . as long as they're goodbyes. These leakers need to be gone, and find work somewhere outside the intelligence community. (Though a prosecution or two might be useful por encourager les autres.)

[ghostcat]

The "secret prisons" story was not a sting. The firing itself was the sting. And it worked.

[Sue]

Wind,

I had visions of burying you in the sand when he said that. And sipping Coronas while watching the sun set. Yeah, chicks dig ya. ::grin::

[Lesley]

Fascinating theory from the inimitable Wretchard of the Belmont Club: Mary McCarthy "I Did Not Do It"

""""Ok, here my speculation and I emphasize the word speculation. It's a mental exercise and not meant to be fact.

Going backwards in time it will be observed that all the leaks were never randomly timed but always politically timed. The NSA wiretap and Secret Prisons stories never came up together, when there would have been public relations fratricide, but they came serially. That suggests that the leaks are not the random eruptions of conscience but are controlled by a handler.

The second observation is that the substantive target of the "secret prisons" leak must be the intelligence sharing program between the US and the Europeans themselves and not something so narrow as a perceived human rights violation. The object is probably to send the message that the CIA is insecure: that the program has been penetrated and raises doubts about how far it is penetrated.

If we assume that the NSA wiretap leaks are part of the common handler's brief, then the espionage ring is not restricted to the CIA. The revelations about the wiretapping of AQ comms has been limited. But the deeper message is the same. The NSA wiretapping program has been penetrated and how far is for you to guess. This is just a sample of what we know.

If we put all the elements together it's natural to wonder whether we aren't seeing parts of the old KGB network shifting to providing political intelligence to the press in order to undo a policy which Russia has openly opposed. Namely, OIF. Alternatively one could surmise that a professional but partisan American agent handler is running a brilliant operation to destroy the current administration.

I should say that the seriousness of these penetrations actually argues against the Democrats. If they are doing this they are destroying the willingness of allies to trust the US with anything sensitive. They are destroying the intel agencies they hope to inherit. In fact, I would argue that the CIA has already been massively damaged by events so far and can only expect to be damaged further. And there will be a further. Or maybe I'm giving partisan politicians too much credit.

I'll stop there and remark again that this is all castles in the air. Why do I bother building them? Because it will be interesting to see how emerging data fits with this hypothesis, which can be modified as details come out.""""

[Gabriel Sutherland]

DSCC staffers Katie Barge and Lauren Wiener had their legal bills paid for by the DSCC when they were investigated and prosecuted for the illegal procurement of Michael Steele's credit report.

The staffers hired $400 an hour Democrat crisis manager William Lawler III, Robert Torricelli's corruption defense attorney.

McCarthy will have a legal defense fund shortly. She's hired an attorney not to defend her against prosecution. She's hired an attorney that specializes in crisis media management. Cobb will has the go ahead to swing away at any and all charges, in the press, against Ms. McCarthy.

[sad]

The hiring of Cobb is also a signal to the press that McCarthy is under the wing of the DNC.

[Gary Maxwell]

So why would John Kerry have popped up almost immiediatley and started defending her? I mean she just a civil servant working mundanely in the Inspector General's office. HMMMM

[Rick Ballard]

"Firing one CIA employee is not yet, and may not even become in the future, a big housecleaning."

JohnH,

On the analysis side the WMD group VIPers nest has been cleaned out. As I look at operations leaks (per Sue's instructions) I find three stories of interest:

1)Interrogation techniques
2)Clandestine air transport
3)Safe houses (or clandestine debriefing/interrogation sites)

Those three are linked and there may well be people involved who through normal bureaucratic caution raised questions to the IG in order to provide themselves a 'see, I checked' line of defense in the event that improprieties were charged. That suggests the existence of another VIPers nest in the IG office with St Mary of the Leak in a central position.

The only other potential VIPers nest that comes to mind is the office which approved Scheur's book for publication. There is a bad odor in that sector as well.

It should be a matter of indifference as to whether VIPers are rooted out through resignation or firing. Their departure is the thing of importance.

[Semanticleo]

Yeah, chicks dig ya.

Get a room. you two.

[topsecretk9]

She's hired an attorney not to defend her against prosecution. She's hired an attorney that specializes in crisis media management.

Gabriel

I think I have to disagree here...sort of. Cobb is not the sort for just crisis management...particularly if you didn't do anything and don't expect some future legal proceedings. He is te kind you get if you expect it...as in he is there at the onset ...to be very prepared. IMHO.

[maryrose]

Semanticleo:
now you sound jealous. Guess your snarky comments backfired on you.

[sad]

Tops

Will he represent her best interests, her's alone, or is he really about something else?

[Sue]

My goodness...who wouldn't conjure up visions of paradise when you think of windandsea? ::grin:: Semanticleo doesn't stir my imagination.

[JohnH]

Rick Ballard:

I missed the part re cleaning out the VIPers nest. Is it that these snakes have retired or resigned? Sorry I didn't read the assigned material here.

[Sue]

I didn't know who http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1076017_1?channel=LP#AOPs>Ty Cobb was. His area of practice...Litigation and White Collar Defense and Investigations Practice. Weird.

[a]

Sue: I don't think you are a moron. I think you're a TROG! and you can come out of the cave to play anytime.
::grin::

[topsecretk9]

Sue, here is Ty Cobb's firm bio and a list of prior clients/representation.

[larwyn]

Lesley,
May I add to Wretchard's musings.

What makes the possibility of a sting, (sure there are safe houses that hold captures waiting for rendition - but PRISONS/"gulags"?)
is on fact that the CIA AIRLINE story came out months before the rest.

The EUROS working with us were embarassed and p.o.'d.

Realize that they have hugh Muslim populations - think riots by "youths" in France.

So leakers had to be found - and EURO'S wanted them found as strongly as admin did/does.

Whatever the "political face" of many of these governments is - I have faith that their intelligence people fully realize the threat to their countries. It is much greater than the threat to us - we only worry about pockets/cells of Islamists here - they must worry in percentages of population.

Therefore, it make sense that they would be in on it. And that they are celebrating the egg on the faces of the LEFTY HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS, the NGO's and the EURO politicians that bought into the PRISONS/GULAGS story and screamed to high heaven.

THEY CAN'T FIND ANYTHING!

As I wrote several days ago, betting that many bottles of special alcoholic beverages have been dispatched in special pouches to and fro for celebratory toasts
at the success.

So I think Wretchard is correct and Goss was given his orders.

GW does the right thing again and is not led by polls. If he were, McCarthy would have only been put on short leash and allowed to retire.

If GW cared about polls he would not have wanted to add another stick to the HORNET & VIPer NESTS!

Probably won't be alive 50 years from now when FOIA may get the low down. But I am betting the sting was the exaggeration of safe/holding houses to PRISONS.
For exactly the reasons of continued coop by EURO/ALLIES INTEL COMMUNITY.

My story and I'm sticking to it!

[Sue]

You have got to go read this...http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/04/please_help_lar.html#comment-16545964>Chants.

::grin::

[lsmft]

You guys are just so funny.

Here, we've got a White House that leaks and lies like a seive to get its way or get the country into war, destroying innocent lives both here and abroad.

And you guys are arguing about how high to hang Mary McCarthy? She's just imitating her bosses, like every employee should.

WOW, where do you get those industrial strength blinders?

[topsecretk9]

WOW, where do you get those industrial strength blinders?

DNC

[noah]

Yep at the DNC where they "lie like sieves"!

[Lew Clark]

She was not fired for her politics. She was fired for violating Agency policy, and (maybe) breaking the law. Doesn't matter who is President! If she had done the exact same thing during the Clinton administration, Tenet would not have been doing his job if he didn't fire her.
The argument that she didn't officially have access to the information, so couldn't have leaked it is bs! Aldrich Ames did not have official access to the names of covert agents (real covert agents) he provided to the Russians. But he made it his business to learn them. That's what enemy agents do!
Whether or not she keeps her retirement depends on whether she was removed " for cause" or for "poor performance". "For cause" basically means committing a crime. Normally, if someone is a really poor performer and eligible to retire, they are "forced" to retire in lieu of being terminated.
CIA employees are "special employees" under Federal Civil Service rules, because of the sensitivity of their jobs. It is much easier to fire a special employee. Plus they have security clearances. No one has a right to a security clearance. It can be pulled at any time for any reason and the employee has no appeal. Now the Agency is supposed to try to find them a job that doesn't require a security clearance, but the CIA has no such job at her pay grade. So she hits the street. But, by virtue of being a special employee, it is harder to withhold retirement pay. Kind of a trade-off for the loss of civil service protection.
As far as the political contributions. They were "legal" but were also "just something that isn't done." In my 35 years in intelligence, granted at a much lower level than this, I knew no one that was a heavy contributor to a presidential campaign. And contributing to the "challenger" would raise eyebrows even higher. The appearance of conflict is just too high. You are busily taking orders from the CiC while busily doing everything in your power to have him booted out of office, doesn't matter who the CiC is or what your or his politics are, in your position, it is just too easy to do things to make the incumbent President look bad. Better to remain, publicly, non-partisan and just do your job.
It is true, you can't go after someone based on her husband's politics. But in the real world of national security and classified programs, if your wife/husband, mother/father, son/daughter, brother/sister just moved to North Korea to work for their Intelligence Directorate, you just lost your security clearance and your job, unless you can do a really good job of proving no contact with that person for a long time. That's the real world.
And in the real world, I met no one who was supporting John Kerry because they felt he was "The Man". It was all about "anyone but Bush". So, in the real world, you have a high ranking official in the CIA ( the friggin CIA, the place with all the secrets) who is actively working to "dethrone" their boss. . Eyebrows have to shoot up. Maybe nothing there, but my Spideysense is ringing overtime.

[Cecil Turner]

And you guys are arguing about how high to hang Mary McCarthy? She's just imitating her bosses, like every employee should.

Let me get this straight. The same Left that insisted outing a desk-jockey at CIA headquarters was so important that it demanded an independent investigation (and subsequent indictment of the nearest WH official, once it became obvious the leaker was at State), now wants us to believe leaking is no big deal. Keep 'em comin'!

[Tom Maguire]

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.

We are very tough on kleakers here at JOM.

I thought Hitch's point was that she had not leaked. Easy to check.

Well - what is the current spin on that? I thought the NY Times "plays by the rules" piece on Sunday also told me that no one thought she leaked in 1998.

Hmm, both are silent on that point, I see. Bother - I can read between the lines in a pinch.

[Bob in Pacifica]

I don't doubt that elements in the intelligence services or military have done things to subvert or embarrass Presidents who have crossed their paths. Colodny says as much from a right-wing perspective. Hoover always mistrusted the CIA as a bunch of Ivy League lefties intruding on his turf.

But the CIA has historically been filled with Wall Streeters and people involved with Big Oil, and its mission seems pretty much aligned with protecting American investments overseas, not a particularly leftist position. Maybe that's why the Manichean lens for judging McCarthy strikes me as dubious.

I have no doubt that there are lots of people in government who would love to see Bush permanently clearing brush in Crawford.

Making donations to the Democrats doesn't seem to be very much proof of a conspiracy, though.

If McCarthy turns out not to have had access to the information leaked to the NYTimes, then would anyone here believe that it's more badly aimed Administration retribution for a source that they haven't identified?

[Cecil Turner]

If McCarthy turns out not to have had access to the information leaked to the NYTimes . . .

Bob, she worked in the IG. She had access to anything anyone who works there wanted to complain about. However, if you could prove she never heard anything about it . . . (There's a little problem with that one, eh?)

Besides, the firing offense is talking to a reporter without permission. That's an employment condition for working at the world's most expensive spy agency, and one she apparently admits violating. Personally, I don't think it's unreasonable.

[Californio]

Here in Los Angeles, LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzek got in trouble on his blog - no not for simply suing pseudonyms - but for using these to cross reference himself as a citation to authority. "Hey, Californiosan really had a great point when he quoted Californio, who pointed out the relevant argument of Californiostan - clearly there is a consensus out there that we are right!"

This is relevant when the paper quotes a fellow [unhighlighted] partisan talking about how shocked (Shocked!) they are that anyone could question the motives of their fellow [hidden] partisan! Another unfounded attack on the MSM! (smirk)

[Gary Maxwell]

She had access to anything anyone who works there wanted to complain about

And a good deal more given the IG is tasked with most internal ivestigations not just following up on disgruntled employee complaints.

[larwyn]

GatewayPundit refreshes memories of Dana's "Hobbyist Plane Spotters"

You'll have to read it all - but establishes how leak planned to ruin co-op by EUROS with USA!

Mary McCarthy, Hobbyist Plane Spotters, Frog Marching & Ty Cobb

Since Sept. 11, 2001, secret renditions have become a principal weapon in the CIA's arsenal against suspected al Qaeda terrorists, according to congressional testimony by CIA officials. But as the practice has grown, the agency has had significantly more difficulty keeping it secret.

According to airport officials, public documents and hobbyist plane spotters, the Gulfstream V, with tail number N379P, has been used to whisk detainees into or out of Jakarta, Indonesia; Pakistan; Egypt; and Sweden, usually at night, and has landed at well-known U.S. government refueling stops.
Dana Priest
"Jet Is an Open Secret in Terror War"
Washington Post
December 27, 2004

** We now can conclude that Dana Priest did not gather her information from "Hobbyist plane spotters" but rather from a very high level official in the CIA.

Ms. McCarthy had impeccable timing in releasing her information to the Pulitzer winner, Priest. This news on November 2, 2005, made the Secretary of State's trip to Europe a battle to deflect questions on the pracice of rendition and secret prisons from the agitated European press whose governments had known about the practice for years.

History News Network has this take:

When you look at the timing of the leak you see how Mary O. McCarthy not only tried to prevent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from enlarging the American anti- terrorist coalition but put significant pressure on its existing coalition partners.
Ms. McCarthy was no whistle blower.

Also, this secretive practice of rendition that Condoleezza Rice defended in her trip was initiated under the watchful eyes of Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke:

The CIA's controversial "rendition" program to have terror suspects captured and questioned on foreign soil was launched under US president Bill Clinton, a former US counterterrorism agent told a German newspaper.

Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who resigned from the agency in 2004, told Thursday's issue of the newsweekly Die Zeit that the US administration had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system.

"President Clinton, his national security advisor Sandy Berger and his terrorism advisor Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al-Qaeda," Scheuer said, in comments published in German.

"We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said 'That's up to you'."

Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit that tracked Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, said that he developed and led the "renditions" program, which he said included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.

He accused Europeans of being hypocritical in criticizing the US administration for its anti-terror tactics while benefiting from them.

"All the information we received from interrogations and documents, everything that had to do with Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England was passed on," he said.
The several leaks from intelligence officials allowed even the BBC to put together a map of the CIA flight routes...

...Or, maybe it was the hobbyist plane spotters?

It is interesting that Mary O. McCarthy's boss, Sandy Berger, initiated the practice of rendition in the autumn of 1995, but it did not become an issue to the high level CIA Official until autumn of 2005, nearly 10 years later!

In From the Cold says it was because after her meteoric rise in the agency she was banished when the Bush Team arrived in DC:

Ms. McCarthy had been on the intelligence equivalent of the career fast-track; in barely a decade, she climbed from obscure analyst at CIA Headquarters to the National Intelligence Officer for Warning (NIO), a feat of bureaucratic advancement that it simply stunning. A protege of legendary CIA officer Charlie Allen (who now runs the intel shop at the Department of Homeland Security), Ms. McCarthy catapulted over hundreds of more senior officers until she reached the apex of her career in the Clinton White House, as Director of Intelligence Programs--hand-picked by none other than National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.

But with the arrival of the Bush team, McCarthy was apparently banished back to Langley, and wound up with a rather mundane posting to boot.

Me (afraid to use caps)
Read it all - give more insight in how this all worked and the now obvious goals of the PLAN! (oops!)

[Semanticleo]

"now you sound jealous"

First, I was impatient....

Projection much?