Powered by TypePad

« Extraordinary Cardplay | Main | More On "An Army of Hiltziks" »

April 24, 2006



Error so persistent must be deliberate. Hang them, too.

Harman was referring to White House staff members disclosing the classified identity of CIA case officer Valerie Plame in 2003.

If the staff members referred to are Rove and Libby, it's double wrong. The public disclosure that Plame was CIA did not come through them.

Not only were they not authorized to disclose it, they weren't even involved in it's disclosure.


The MSM metanarrative depends on sustaining a lie, and they can't hold it up much longer.


agreed. This lie has to come out and to compare McCarthy and a declassified report in the same sentence just shows how desperate they in the msm have become.

Cecil Turner

The MSM metanarrative depends on sustaining a lie, and they can't hold it up much longer.

I'd love to believe that was true, but I see precious little evidence of it. Pincus has been the go-to man for the CIA's disgruntled disinformation department for the last three years, and profiting professionally. And don't get me started on the Pulitzers.


Well they can't sustain it after Mary McCarthy, Pinch Sulzberger, and Joe Wilson are marched off to durance vile.

I realize I don't have a lot of support for my hangman's noose.

Patrick R. Sullivan

James Lileks today, retelling the story of his back yard water garden:

' [in]August I hired a company to install a Water Feature. They said it would take five days. It was unfinished when November snows arrived. Construction took forever, crap was left in my lawn and driveway for most of the fall, the Water Feature leaked like the CIA....'


If even one Dem would condemn this without a 'but' or a 'while', I would do cartwheels.

The WaPo is being very funny about this leaker source thing. Not only do they refuse to name names, they pretend they don't really even know! They so strongly don't know, they sometimes get the details wrong. Clever.


"Harman was referring to White House staff members disclosing the classified identity of CIA case officer Valerie Plame in 2003."

Do these people care even one whit about accuracy?

Man I'd love to have a job like that. How much do these folks get paid? You realize how easy it would be to write a better story than that and actually include some basic facts?


"Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to leak portions of the National Intelligence Estimate as part of the push-back against Joe Wilson."

"Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation" Porter Goss

Ah yes, there really is no difference between those leaks which help Bush, and those that
hurt. It's clear.


Bush has a blue dress?

Florence Schmieg

I sense an out and out war now between the MSM and the White House. Before they were just partisan, sloppy, poor fact checkers, and out for sensational stories against the Bush administration. Now they feel under threat themselves by the new CIA investigations which include them as well as the Libby subpoenas. They will hit back as hard as they can. Facts won't matter much when their own survival is at stake.


I came across somewhere that the first to have the name of the fired CIA employee was Andrea Mitchell of NBC. The same Andrea Mitchell that indicated that she was "one in the know" in regard to CIA leaks.

Did Andrea know that Ms. McCarthy was leaking ? Did Andrea get her knowledge, as "one in the know", that Ms. Wilson (AKA Ms. Flame) worked for the CIA from or through Ms. McCarthy ? How about her boss Tim Russert ? What di he know about Ms. McCarthy ?

So many new questions.


Don't you think there may be a war going on inside the WaPo, too? I keep seeing signs that grownups like Woodward are battling at the front lines with hacks like Pincus and Priest?

Howard Kurtz, if you come across this I want you to know I'm watching this as closely as I watched your paper's 2 1/2 year wait to correct Pincus big Wilson lie. You deal mwith this or the fact checkers online will.


Actually, Clarice, you could change the tense for the factcheckers acts to the past. Talk about, talk about, talk about, taking an axe to the past, the past.


I posted this in a previous thread, but I'm really curious to know the answer:

"Her (Andrea Mitchell) statement about Priest was that she only went to McCarthy for verification of what she already had."

Well, if this is true, I have a question for the legal types:

Did Ms. Priest engage in solicitation of a crime (the illegal disclosure of classified information)?

I have been wondering this since the NSA leak actually. It seems clear that if someone with classified information seeks out a reporter, then the reporter is, to a large degree off the hook (depending on what they do with the information). But, if the reporter goes to someone and seeks classified information from them, are they not engaging in solicitation of a crime or conspiring to violate the law?


Why not? Erasing the record used to work.



"You realize how easy it would be to write a better story than that and actually include some basic facts?"

Bloggers do it every day, consistently


Rick Ballard


IANAL but I don't think that solicitation is in the cards. Conspiracy may be and I hope that the Hatch Act comes in to play, too.

What is needed for this is a '60ish prosecutor who would like to close a career with a very methodical prosecution that would have the possibility of changing the current DC culture. (S)he would have to be prepared for a probable outcome of a hung jury, unless the venue were changed from DC.

I'm not at all sure that the DoJ is up to the job. Careerism there is as prevalent as anywhere in government and the payback threat should Dems retake the Presidency would be rather worrisome for anyone not reasonably close to retirement. DoJ has not displayed much of a backbone in prosecuting Dems - watch the Mollohan affair for confirmation. He's crookeder than a dog's hind leg and he's not sweating at the moment.


Back to yesterday, for those who haven't found it - Juan Williams' meltdown - about 5 minutes of video.


dialup people go here http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/04/losing_your_mind_on_national_t.html

scrolldown a little more than halfway it's in the senence about "Watch Juan in class" - right click and save, then play it.


http://www.msunderestimated.com/2006/04/losing_ your_mind_on_national_t.html

sorry, didn't fit - take out the space for it to work.


Senators Rockefeller and Durbin May Take Polygraph Tests

But people such as former deputy-undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin don't think the Justice Department investigators and prosecutors have the guts to indict a US senator. Babbin said it would cause a battle royal on the Hill, if not a constitutional crisis.

He did say however, that any senator or Congressional staffer that holds a security clearance can be asked at any time to take a polygraph. The individual can of course refuse to take the test, but failure to do so is reason to remove that person's security clearance. Babbin further said that Senators Rockefeller, Durbin, and Wyden, and some on their staffs will soon be requested to take polygraphs.



Bring on the polygraph machines and let's get this show on the road. All their security clearances should be revoked and they should get new committee assignments. They can't be trusted with classified information.


CSPAN replay of this morning's
appearance by Walter Pincus


Understand video at CSPAN.ORG.


You are exactly right in your analysis.They will try to pull out all the stops in order to protect themselves but they can't hide forever.


There are numerous barristers and self-appointed legal pundits who enjoy
the knock down/drag out of legalspeak and
'technicalities' both pro and con defense,
but does anyone here ever address 'right
vs wrong'?

Myopia seems a resplendent disease of choice
for those who make a career out of 'gulping
down the camel, yet straining out the gnat'.
but do any of you ever get airborne to
see the lay of the land?. You know, the big

Or is everything reducible to the GWOT,
therefore, the end justifies the means?


address 'right vs wrong'?

Based on your morality? What morality would that be? Not trying to be "judgmental" are you? Don't hurt yourself.


CNN is reporting McCarthy was a serial leaker to many reporters. They also note that the CIA's IG office are the experts on whistle blowing. Interestingly CNN includes bipartisan sources in the House saying McCarthy never blew a whistle since they never got word from CIA IG - as is the process




Don't hurt yourself.

Make it easy on yourself;

Does the end justify the means.

Simple question, simple answer.

No equivocation.

Don't strain yourself.


Good leaks - bad leaks. Good lawbreaking - bad lawbreaking. Who is going to decide?

It's that parallel universe.

Rick Ballard


Please explain what was "right" about McCarthy's breaking of her oath and the law by her conduct.

You might take a swing at what is 'wrong' about interrogating terrorists at clandestine locations while you are at it.

The "ends justify means" argument seems to be running the direction opposite that which you imply. What particular "ends" do you believe that McCarthy's subversive "means" serve?


Hadley immediately LIVE on FNC

at reports of 3 bombing in Egypt's

Resorts area Dahab.

Hope that means the WH has gotten the message - don't wait for events to be spun before reacting.

Fingers crossed this continues.

Just verbalized all the lies he writes.



Does the abstract define the reality, or does reality define the application of the abstract? I expect you will need to strain yourself to answer that one.

Your 'big picture' in our democracy is the majority approved picture, not someone's lone fantasy. Do you agree that it requires concensus to change that picture, or can anyone at anytime destroy that picture to achieve personal goals?




Not sure why the simple question has to
be muddied up. answer according to your
own moral code.

AJ; Not sure what is humorous about the
subject, or what 'majority' you refer to.

simple qustion remains;




"The character that takes command in moments of crucial choices has already been determined by a thousand other choices made earlier in seemingly unimportant moments. It has been determined by all the 'little' choices of years past—by all those times when the voice of conscience was at war with the voice of temptation, [which was] whispering the lie that 'it really doesn't matter.' It has been determined by all the day-to-day decisions made when life seemed easy and crises seemed far away—the decision that, piece by piece, bit by bit, developed habits of discipline or of laziness; habits of self-sacrifice or self-indulgence; habits of duty and honor and integrity—or dishonor and shame." —Ronald Reagan


"Kerry prefaced his remarks by noting: "Clearly, leaking is against the law. And nobody should leak. I abhor leaking. I don't like it."

""If you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that [and] at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you, you know, put on that person," Kerry told ABC's "This Week."

So "“I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.”

Wish I could send a thank you note to that stadium full of voters.
That nifty chart starring KERRY & FRIENDS is found here:
McCarthy's Connections


The president is not The President
The laws are bad laws
Democracy is not democracy
Relative is absolute
Absolute is relative
Whose end?
Whose means?

Whatever suits my current purpose... Wow!

Old Dad

I've never had any patience for the "ends justifies means" canard.

Of course the ends must justify the means in any moral action. What's meant is "you can never justify the means so shut up you despicable barbarian."


Did Ms mcCarthy follow the whistleblower procedure?


There is no justification for this woman leaking to the press. She was in a position to know how to blow the whistle and she knew it didn't include Dana Priest and/or other reporters. I like the new description given her...Serial Leaker. I want Harman and Kerry to defend her once they find out she was leaking more than just the prison story. I'm sure they will, but I want to see it...


Has the RNC gotten off its butt yet and demanded the Democrats return her contributions or give them to charity.

10K is alot of money that could go to poor children, or Hummer owners......

Barney Frank

Some ends justify some means and some don't. Perhaps if you gave a specific example you would get a specific answer. Duh.


"you can never justify the means so shut up you despicable barbarian."

thanks for your input.

Anyone else?

Rick Ballard

"Not sure why the simple question has to be muddied up."

That's just silly. You imply both illigetimate means and ends then clumsily dodge behind rather undeft rhetoric.

What you are doing is sophmoric - study a bit and you might get to sophistry with some work. Try not to bore.


"Some ends justify some means and some don't."

Good Glenn Reynolds answer.

Anyone else?



Didn't you take the quote out of context?


She was a nothing but a covert political operative, taking advantage of the trust that had been placed in her, in order to do as much damage as possible to the opposing political party.


"You imply both illigetimate means and ends"

My apologies if that's what you inferred.

I merely ask; what do you think?

Should the end EVER justify the means?


Is this a pop quiz, professor? pffffffffffft


A serial leaker. That's just great! Our highly classified intelligence matters are in the hands of McCarthy -the serial leaker. How did she get another job in this administration-did she brown-nose someone with the ultimate intention of stabbing them in the back?


Is this a pop quiz, professor?

No. Just trying to stimulate some new
nerve pathways.

Barney Frank

The 'end' of cutting short a conversation with a pedantic doofus is nearly always justified. In this case they definitely are, and I 'mean' to. There's your answer.


Just like Joe wilson McCarthy doesn't see the need to go the usual whistleblower route. She'd much rather let Priest and the WAPO do her dirty work for her.Despicable behavior.


The 'end' of cutting short a conversation with a pedantic doofus is nearly always justified. In this case they definitely are, and I 'mean' to. There's your answer.

Yes, ITA. When you lose the argument, become consdescending, Works every time.


"Valerie Wilson was "a CIA WMD managerial type and the wife of Amb. Joe Wilson". s "managerial type" spook-speak for "NOC", and are NOCs names bandied about in memos? Please."

It is an insult.


No Ends or Means can be "moral" to BDS DEMS:

American Thinker:

The Psychomyopic Democrats+ psychoglaucoma & psychoastereopsis

.......I have been waiting for someone to say the obvious, waiting in vain until I feel compelled to blurt it out myself.Here goes: “Many Democrats want the US to fail in Iraq!” I don’t mean that they think we’ll fail—they want us to. .....

The neural pathways inside their heads run something like this:

• The best thing for the United States would be for the Democratic party to come back into power.

• A really embarrassing failure in Iraq would tip next year’s election toward the Democrats.

• Therefore, a failure in Iraq would be good for the USA..

No "moral" filter in that pathway.
Hence no celebration of what has been gained even by Women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They use "morals" like I use

Kleenex during allergy season:

Whip one out.

Corrupt its pristine essense.

Toss in trash,

knowing I have 3 full boxes in reserve.

Foo Bar

So "“I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.”

Since some here are apparently still in love with this quote, let me take this opportunity to congratulate those of you who supported the troops by supporting Bush's version of that spending bill, which put the $87 billion on the national credit card and stuck the young returning soldiers and their children (along with the rest of the nation's future generations) with the obligation to pay it off. That's clearly far more supportive of the troops than actually paying for the $87 billion out of our own pockets now, as Kerry wanted to do.

Oh, but wait- I forgot that we wanted to make sure the soldiers would come home to a thriving economy, and we all know that a tax hike would have killed the economic recovery. We learned that tax hikes kill recoveries back in the 90s, when Gingrich was spot on with his prediction that Clinton's '93 tax hike would cause a recession and an increased deficit.


Why did the intelligence level suddenly drop
here at the introduction of a simple question
which might be pondered in a Philosophy 101

The regulars could use a little fresh air.


Maryrose makes a valid point. Who gave her the job. I would imagine the hunters are following the yellow brick road to track down these people.


Get your history straight-at the end of Clinton's last year we were in a recession. President Bush got us out of that and came back with an increase of 6000 in the Dow after 9/11. Are you Economically challenged? Without those tax cuts which DEMS DIDN'tVOTE FOR like your pal Kerry we wouldn't be over 11000 today. Pelosi bragged about benefits to her constituents after she voted against the ultimately passed tax cuts. She's taking credit for policy she voted against. How DEM of her.



You took a quote out of context and then wonder why you are being ignored?

The end does not justify the means with regard to Mary McCarthy.


The end does not justify the means with regard to Mary McCarthy.

Not my point either.
Why assume it is my point from a simple
question? I know lawyers don't ask
questions they don't know the answer to,
but I am not a lawyer.

Does the end justify the means in any
example you can think of?


Cleo the clown is clueless.


Who cares? The end does not justify the means with regard to Mary McCarthy, the subject of this thread. If you want to start a Philosophy 101 board, ask Tom. He might be willing. Otherwise, I believe Dr. Sanity's site does phylosophy.


FooBar ... let's get one thing straight about John Kerry ... he is a lying coward and is depsised by the majority of those troops you claim to care about.


Nice whimp out semanticleo. I find you humorous. The subject is serious. I figured the questions would be a bit of a stretch. Thanks for playing.

The Unbeliever

Semanticleo, the question you ask is, to be blunt, prima facie stupid without supplying any context. Any end worth pursuing will justify some means to achieve it, or else the "end" is not worth pursuing at all and therefore becomes irrelevant. Questioning if "the ends EVER justify the means" is the philosophical equivalent of asking "should we ever bother to do anything".

Not only that, you compound your silliness by asking for a binary (yes/no) answer. Consider:

If my chosen "end" is to make the planet a cleaner, tidier place, does that justify the "means" of picking up a piece of scrap paper I just saw on the floor and throwing it away? Does it justify me spending my weekends picking up litter on the roadside? Does it justify me burning down a large city to prevent the residents from producing so much junk? Reasonable people may say the first is entirely justified, the second may even be noble, while the third is a horrific extremity that should be sanctioned. Yet the first may be in violation of my employer's workplace policy, the second may harm others (my family who wants to spend time with me, the workers who are paid to clean highways, etc), while the third can be argued by some (not me--but I've heard radical environmentalists posit such solutions) to be the only long term solution that could reasonably accomplish the stated "end".

Now I think most would agree that the "end" of a cleaner planet is a worthwhile goal. But if I answered your question as "no", I preclude taking steps 1 & 2 because such a noble goal is not worth breaking a rule or harming others. If I reply "yes", then option #3 comes into play. The simple fact of the matter is, your "simple question" does not have a simple answer, and you're either being ignorant (or, more charitably, irritatingly fatuous) to ask for one.


New Iraqi document dump translation - Saddam's ALUMINUM TUBES

1999, 2000 Iraqi memos: Procurement of 50000 Aluminum Tubes That Can Be Used For URANIUM ENRICHMENT.

Rick Ballard

'Save the Pixels'

Don't waste them on thread thieves. (my apologies for my indiscretion.)

Will the MSM beatification of St. Mary the Mouth be successful and how many lies will Pincus (and the WaPo) write and print on her behalf?

I don't believe that it will work but I hope that DoJ gets in front of a gj fairly soon - sort of 'beaticum interruptus' move.


Semanticleo is desperately trying to come off smart. Did the 'ends' of trying to come off smart justify the 'means' by which he ended up looking stupid?

Hmmmm - now that is a tough call.

Unbeliever - nice one!


Cleo the clown is clueless.

I figured the questions would be a bit of a stretch.

Boris, aj; I thought I would let you frame
the debate around a question. I didn't know
you needed the concept of debate defined for

Thanks for all your intelligent contributions.



Quick question for ya. Let's see if you know the answer. Who were the most popular presidents that ran on the platform of "tax cuts spur the economy"? Give us the benefit of all your economic and presidential knowledge pal.


BTW, I guess folks liked my phrase 'serial leaker'. It has all sorts of interesting connotations.



If you want intelligent discussion, ask intelligent questions. You were answered, you just did not like what was said because it does not fit your POV. Sorry - reality bursts in.


Leo, I gave you two questions to address. You failed. Stop whining about it will ya?



Your end run around the question could described as 'lawyerly' but it is disingenuous
in the extreme. It might have been seen as
clever except for the rapid cheek clapping
of an admirer who dilutes any need to
measure your words beyond the supercilious
attempt at sarcasm.



Love is a Fallacy by Max Shulman

Dicto Simpliciter, Hasty Generalization, Post Hoc,
Contradictory Premises, Ad Misericordiam,
Hypothesis Contrary to Fact & Poisoning the Well.

"Love Is a Fallacy" was published in 1951 and brings to light issues of the day including the stereotyping of women.

cathtf linked this last week - thanks - it is priceless.


A little Kerry retrospective


This graph was found on "recent student of PHIL 101 - as taught today - if taught at all:

"Love Is a Fallacy" was published in 1951 and brings to light issues of the day including the stereotyping of women.

Skipped right over the LOGIC MADE EASY, went right to diversion of stereotyping women.

How old are those guys? Good clue to misunderstanding PHIL 101!


Rick hit the nail on Semanticleo.

Sophomoric tending toward sophistry.

Does tne ends justify the means is a question without a satisfying answer unless the question is answered in segments.

Using immoral means to justify moral ends is usually immoral, as is using moral means to justify immoral ends.

But the law is not always congruent with morality. This country is morally pluralistic. One of this country's basic principles is freedom of religion. Freedom to worship or not to worship a god or gods.

Krishna, Allah, Jehovah, Yaweh, Abba, Christ, Confucious, The Buddah, G**, Wicca, L Ron Hubbard, Science, Zeus, Jupiter, or none of the above. There is a morality which adheres to each of these. With such a multitude of moralities, which one should be used to measure the end or means being considered?

In our system, the only proper "morality" to be considered whether determining end or mean is that which is codified in state and federal law.

There, Semanticleo, what's wrong with that?

But using moral means to justify moral ends is perfectly proper.


"Using immoral means to justify moral ends is usually immoral, as is using moral means to justify immoral ends."

Huzzah!!! An unequivocal answer

But you seem to waffle a little on the
religious interpretations of morality.

That has it's place, but is unnecessary here.

Many agnostics (Benjamin Franklin) have
principled stands based upon natural
ethics, which frequently inhabit the
realm of the Perennial Philosophy
most religions embrace.

I just wanted someone to go on the record
as to today's political atmosphere which
seems to smack of 'end justifies means'.
Political means, that is.


I've been playing catch up on reading other blogs and came across this in NewsBusters this morning ... I figure we all need to lighten up a bit.

New York Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson gave a lecture last week called "The Future of the New York Times." In it she drops this bomb:

She distinguished the Times from many bloggers, saying, "We believe in a journalism of verification rather than assertion."

You can read it all HERE



LOL. Verification that they didn't slip anything in that would not support their POV.


"Will the MSM beatification of St. Mary the Mouth be successful"

only in their own minds. Mike the mechanic sees a blip on the nightly news and thinks "go to jail."

It's definitely going to get even more interesting.


Many agnostics (Benjamin Franklin) have
principled stands based upon natural

It's better to have a common language than for everybody to make up their own. Don't know what language that was but it appears to be a random grouping from a crossword puzzle.


SunnyDay ... there is one consolation that may come out of this ... if McCarthy or one of her cohorts gets arrested you will see the MSM rats deserting the sinking ship so fast and turning on the whole bunch it will be a sight to behold.

They have no true loyalties except to their own potential Pulitzer fantasies. Certainly no loyalties to the United States of America or their citizenship thereof.


And from < a href="http://media.nationalreview.com/095749.asp">Media Blog, the following:

Mark Levin and Tom Maguire have already noted critical errors in Walter Pincus's coverage of the Mary McCarthy firing. But Media Blog reader Tom L. wrote in to add an interesting footnote. After summarizing the points made by Levin and Maguire, Tom writes:

To summarize the Post's strategy:

1) Make sure the reader has no knowledge of the damage done to the war on terror by this leak.
2) Make sure the reader has only the vague and incomplete knowledge of [McCarthy's] ties to the Democratic party.
3) If any facts have to be included, inaccurately report them so as to put Mary McCarthy in the best light.
4) Remember, the real story is LEWIS LIBBY, LEWIS LIBBY, LEWIS LIBBY.

If you don't believe me, I've saved the best for last. In what I can only describe as a blatant attempt at brainwashing their readers, the Washington Post website surrounds this article with NO LESS THAN 15 LINKS TO THE PLAME/LIBBY INVESTIGATION. Bordering the top of the article in bright red are the words "The Plame Investigation" with 6 links to stories on the Libby investigation. Just in case you don't get the message, bordering the article on the right is a box with the bright red headline, "Understanding The Plame Affair". Below this headline are 8 more links to stories on the Libby investigation. While you might think that this is overkill, if you're doing the math you know we aren't done yet. Below this box, and also bordering on the right is a photograph of Lewis Libby and another link to a story on him.


It's better to have a common language than for everybody to make up their own. Don't know what language that was but it appears to be a random grouping from a crossword puzzle.

Dyslexia's a bitch, ain't it?

Tom Maguire

From AJ:

Interestingly CNN includes bipartisan sources in the House saying McCarthy never blew a whistle since they never got word from CIA IG - as is the process

That ties in to the Jane Harman quote that "I don't know this woman, and I do not condone leaks of classified information", which is kind of nice.


Sorry that link should be: Media Blog



Yeah, but there is always a butt...or would that be but?...



Generalities are so comforting.

As a student of Ben Franklin, surely you are aware that he was not above some pretty clever dodges in his political and diplomatic life.

The problem we are facing today is that the Al Quaeda and Hammas view of Islamic morality condones a number of means that our law and international law does not; namely, clandestine sabotage and the deliberate killing and maiming of individuals who are not, under any generally accepted concept of international law, combatants.

Our view of morality does not condone such activities, but in order to survive the tactics of those declaring war on us who use them, we must develop ends and means to stop them or render them ineffective.

The question is to what degree may we temporarily modify our moral, legal and ethical standards to thwart an avowed enemy who uses heinous means to seek our downfall?

The Unbeliever

Semanticleo, perpetual whining about the intellectual beating you received is not an endearing quality. I (and others on this thread) answered your question directly, and the answer is "mu".

All the extra words in my comment merely reflect my belief that you wouldn't understand the one-word answer without some explanation and an illustrative example.


All the extra words



And a taste from the latest article up on CNN.com " CIA agent fired for 'pattern of behavior'" (empasis mine)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. official told CNN on Monday that the CIA officer fired for leaking classified information was accused of a "pattern of behavior," including multiple contacts with more than one reporter.

Sources also confirmed to CNN that the officer fired last Thursday is Mary O. McCarthy, who last worked in the CIA inspector general's office.

"It's not just about one story, it's a pattern of activity," the official said.

Officials said the investigation into leaking to Dana Priest of The Washington Post, and other journalists, is ongoing. "It is not over yet," said one.

McCarthy admitted to multiple unauthorized contacts with journalists after failing a polygraph test, one of "dozens" conducted at the CIA since January of personnel knowledgeable about compromised programs, sources said. Those who took polygraph tests included CIA Director Porter Goss and the agency's inspector general, John Helgerson, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

A congressional aide said that prior to the public revelation that a CIA employee had been fired, the intelligence committees were only told the person was a 61-year-old female in the inspector general's office.

Two congressional aides -- one Democratic, one Republican -- both told CNN they knew of no attempt by McCarthy to speak to intelligence committee members about any concerns about CIA activities.

Last week, spokeswoman Michelle Neff said the officer admitted to "unauthorized discussions with the media in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence including operational information."




"The question is to what degree may we temporarily modify our moral, legal and ethical standards."

That is the salient question, isn't it?

If I may stretch that point beyond the
tolerance of some; what are we seeking to
retain? If it is the principles our
founding fathers wished to preserve, how
do we 'temporarily' modify our legal
and ethical standards? If it is 'survival'
itself which is the ultimate good,
notwithstanding the loss of ideals we
supposedly stand for, then anything goes.

The debate that rages at present,
make no mistake, is between the two views
expressed above. You can make the case
that there are those of both schools in
either camp. But it is not just about whose
party should be elected to office, it is
about who we are and who we want to be.




They always call names - these good LIBS - funny how they SUPPORT THE HANDICAPPED - while writing things like this:

Dyslexia's a bitch, ain't it?

They have called me that. And yes, YOU ARROGANT _____, I am officially disabled.


Taranto - on his game and one John Kerry

* We don't remember who he is either, but his book "A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America" is available on Amazon.com for the BARGAIN PRICE of $3.99.
"Why isn't she in handcuffs?" Andrew McCarthy wonders about Mrs. McCarthy. The obvious answer is that she was fired based on an internal investigation, and the Justice Department, which would handle any prosecution, operates at its own pace. The Post notes a less obvious answer: Charging her with a crime could "force a trial that several former intelligence officials said could wind up airing sensitive information."

It also could wind up airing sensitive information about the Post. At a trial, Priest could be called to testify by the prosecution or, more likely, by the defense. One result of the Valerie Plame kerfuffle is that such federal protection as existed for reporters and their sources has been weakened. So if Dana Priest is forced to take the stand or go to prison, she will have the New York Times, Judy Miller and Floyd Abrams to thank for it.
Kerry this Sunday:
Stephanopoulos: CIA official Mary McCarthy lost her job this week for disclosing classified information according to the CIA probably about a Washington Post story which reveal revealed the existence of secret prisons in Europe. A lot of different views. Sen. Pat Roberts praised action but some former CIA officers described Mary McCarthy as a sacrificial lamb acting in the finest American tradition by revealing human rights violations. What's your view?

Kerry: Well, I read that. I don't know whether she did it or not
so it's hard to have a view on it. Here's my fundamental view of this, that you have somebody being fired from the CIA for allegedly telling the truth, and you have no one fired from the White House for revealing a CIA agent [in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle] in order to support a lie. That underscores what's really wrong in Washington, D.C., here.

Kerry allows that "nobody should leak," but claims it's a less serious offense "if you're leaking to tell the truth." Then he says: "I'm glad she told the truth."

It seems likely that what Kerry is really getting at is that the end justifies the means. Possibly he's being crassly partisan: The McCarthy leak is justified because it aims to hurt the Bush administration, while the Plame "leak" was not because it was in defense of the administration.But there's something more to this than ordinary partisanship. Note how casually Kerry utters the phrase "in order to support a lie." He seems to have bought into the Angry Left notion that Republicans don't just lie on occasion, as politicians are wont to do, but are fundamentally, metaphysically corrupt--the idea that every word President Bush says is a lie, including "and" and "the." One suspects Mary McCarthy would agree.

* We don't remember who he is either, but his book "A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America" is available on Amazon.com for the BARGAIN PRICE of $3.99.


Well I'm in no frame of mind to talk philosophy, but I see no justification with either good means or good ends to reveal classified "operational information." People get killed for these kinds of revelations.



As your disability is now apparent, my apologies.

Mayhaps you should refrain from projecting
poor writing skills to those who confound

The comments to this entry are closed.