I would like to beg forgiveness from those of you who I’ve playfully referred to as “slimeball” or “marmoset brain” or even “liberal pus bucket” over this whole Mary McCarthy imbroglio. In my towering ignorance of her pure and unsullied motives for leaking classified information, I probably went a little overboard in my criticism of your defense of this delicate waif, this fragile flower of a leaker who, according to this very interesting and informative article in the Washington Post this morning, was only exercising her God given right as an unelected American intelligence officer to determine which policies she must undermine and which she should simply blab to the entire planet. The difference between the two is unimportant as the result is exactly the same; aid and comfort to people who would just as soon slit your throat than thank you for looking out for the interests of their captured comrades.
But, as we’re informed in this piece by R. Jeffrey Smith, who uses language and imagery reminiscent of one my favorite books from childhood – Lives of the Saints – to tell our Mary’s story, the effect on our enemies simply doesn’t matter. Not when you are trying to save the soul of America – battling the forces of evil in the Bush Administration while those fake enemies in al Qaeda, trumped up bogeymen by the warmongering neocons, rub their hands together in glee and exchange knowing glances, remembering the words of Osama Bin Laden who informed the entire world that America would lose in the end because she didn’t have the stomach or the staying power to outlast he and his cause that seems to be advancing steadily across the Islamic world.
According to Mary’s friends (who all seem to have the same name; “Anonymous”), our heroine’s sensibilities were upset by policies toward terrorist detainees that “authorized treatment that she considered cruel, inhumane or degrading.”
“She considered” is, of course, the key. After all, Mary may not be elected, but by God she’s an expert in the outrage department. And when our heroine makes a determination that, using her own personal code of morality, the Administration has done something bad, best tell the whole world about it rather than work within the system to right any perceived wrong. After all, it’s just not any fun unless you can get that vicarious thrill of seeing your moral position validated on the pages of the Washington Post.
And what of that “system” that, according to Mary, “lied” to Congress about the detainees?
McCarthy was not an ideologue, her friends say, but at some point fell into a camp of CIA officers who felt that the Bush administration’s venture into Iraq had dangerously diverted U.S. counterterrorism policy. After seeing—in e-mails, cable traffic, interview transcripts and field reports—some of the secret fruits of the Iraq intervention, McCarthy became disenchanted, three of her friends say.In addition to CIA misrepresentations at the session last summer, McCarthy told the friends, a senior agency official failed to provide a full account of the CIA’s detainee-treatment policy at a closed hearing of the House intelligence committee in February 2005, under questioning by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat.
McCarthy also told others she was offended that the CIA’s general counsel had worked to secure a secret Justice Department opinion in 2004 authorizing the agency’s creation of “ghost detainees”—prisoners removed from Iraq for secret interrogations without notice to the International Committee of the Red Cross—because the Geneva Conventions prohibit such practices.
First, for all my liberal friends who have been laughing about my contention that there is a cabal of CIA officers who are actively working against the Bush Administration, please note that our heroine joined the “camp of CIA officers who felt that the Bush administration’s venture into Iraq had dangerously diverted U.S. counterterrorism policy.” What the Post doesn’t say is what that “camp” was doing about their dissatisfaction; leaking like gray matter from a liberal’s brain. And if that reason sounds familiar, it should. Iraq as diversion from catching Osama was the #1 John Kerry talking point on the war during the 2004 Presidential campaign.
But our Mary an ideologue? Perish the thought.
And the fact that our heroine was “offended” by the CIA getting a secret opinion from the Justice Department on the treatment of detainees is very revealing. It is, after all, inherently offensive to keep secrets. And we just can’t have our unelected bureaucrats being offended like this. How dare the Bush Administration even think of “offending” their employees in this manner? It’s outrageous. Why, it’s almost as offensive as fanatics flying planes into buildings except we can’t do anything about that kind of behavior. Best concentrate on things that we personally find sinful in order to shine the light of truth – even if it harms the nation’s interests far more than it would ever harm the Bush Administration politically.
This was no reason to fire such a morally upstanding, conscientious intelligence officer with delusions of martyrdom:
But McCarthy’s friends, including former officials who support aggressive interrogation methods, resist any suggestion that she handled classified information loosely or that political motives lay behind her dissent and the contacts she has told the agency she had with journalists. She was, in the view of several who know her well, a CIA scapegoat for a White House that they say prefers intelligence acolytes instead of analysts and sees ulterior motives in any policy criticism.They allege that her firing was another chapter in a long-standing feud between the CIA and the Bush White House, stoked by friction over the merits of the war in Iraq, over whether links existed between Saddam Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda, and over the CIA-instigated criminal inquiry of White House officials suspected of leaking the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame.
Why should we believe her motives were anything but pure as the driven snow? After all, she was simply a dissenter who talked to the press. Why should we ascribe any but the most unalloyed of motives to someone who joined a cabal of Administration opponents at the CIA whose major disagreement rested on Democratic party talking points?
And why, pray tell, would the Administration see “ulterior motives” from this patriotic group of leakers? Just because their leaks were timed for maximum political effect – such as the leak of a contrary post war analysis two days before the first Presidential debate – doesn’t mean there was an ulterior political thought in their non-partisan little brains. The Administration really should get a grip on reality. Next thing you know, they’ll start to think there are people in the world who don’t like us very much and want to kill us all. And what a threat to American values and civil liberties that would be!
In the end, our Mary just couldn’t take it. Armed with knowledge known only to the CIA and those unimportant people who work on top of that big Washington, D.C.hill in that funny looking domed building, this just wasn’t enough. Due to her superior moral sense, our heroine just knew – she felt it in her bones – that absolutely everyone should know what she knows. Only then would her moral outrage be assuaged and goodness triumph over evil.
When I grow up, I want to be just like Mary. I wonder what Mary wants to be when she grows up?
UPDATE
AJ Strata takes down Jeffrey’s hagiagraphic portrayal of McCarthy and fills us in on what’s between the lines.
But we know from Democrat and Republican staffers McCarthy never once availed herself of the whistleblower status. There is no record of her once challenging the reports to Congress. She had all the opportunity, but she went to Dana Priest? If she was such a maverick, independent thinker, why not turn these people into Congress? She was retiring! There could be no retribution aimed at her for disclosing lies!
7:45 am
[...] Update:Â Rick Moran sees the same hypocrisy between McCarthy the maverick and McCarthy the partisan snitch. [...]
9:07 am
Just a little thought: Has anyone considered that maybe Ms. McCarty wasn’t just a leaker for the press, that perhaps she has had a little chat with Human Rights Watch or the ACLU as well.
Also, both Larry Johnson and Mellisa Boyle Mahle mentioned on their blogs long before this story was posted that by working at the IG, she would have had access to compartamentalized info.
So if you’re a VIP, and you really want ot get the president, what do you do? Have some low level operative make a trumped up charge claiming prison abuse, then through th IG, Mary gets to see the whole picture through the “investigation.” Mary then gets to leak it to the press and “human rights groups,” and before you know it not only is a valuable CIA “rendition” program busted to pieces, but the anti-Bush solcialists in the EU have red meat.
Let’s add, that the socialists in the EU have red meat even though there has never been any proof of “gulags” or secret CIA torture chambers—only sites where they hold top level Al Qada. Negroponte admitted that there are around three dozen.
With only a handful of exceptions, (and what do we expect in the fog of war?), during this conflict,the US has had the most remarkably clean human rights record in the history of warfare.
The first question I have is, who in the hell put Mary McCarthy in the IG.
By the way, did anyone notice Anthony Lake in the story? He has a long history with CIP.
9:14 am
Make that Negroponte has admitted that they are holding around three dozen high value, top level AlQada.
10:08 am
A LEGEND IN HER OWN MIND
Although Mary McCarthy has not come out of hiding, she has still been a busy.
MARY McCARTHY: HEROINE
In the end, our Mary just couldn’t take it. Armed with knowledge known only to the CIA and those unimportant people who work on top of that big Was…
12:09 pm
Yes, Rick, we are all awaiting the day, with bated breath, for you to grow up. And if you turn out like Mary, well then, a lot will be forgiven.
Heroine? Yes, I think so. Does she have the right to call the administration on illegality? Absolutely. I know you fantasize about a world in which everyone just lays down and allows the govmint to do what they want, irrespective of the laws – a sentiment arising out of your deep existential fear. But don’t worry lil Ricky, the grownups are on their way back. You will have your security, and your rights as well. Just be patient, and hope for the best come November, and Novembers to come.
12:31 pm
Times sure are achangin! In the good ole days of national security, there was instilled in the members of the CIA (OSS, for those over 70)or NSA, a sense of comraderie, ok, maybe it was elitism, but to receive a clearance of Top Secret meant membership in an organization that prided itself in Loyalty, Honor, Integrity and Truthfulness. Loyalty to Country and President, Honor not only to the flag and the Constitution but to each other in our closely woven community of trusted patriots dedicated to national security and to each other, we were keepers of the flame and endowed with the unblinking trust of our fellow citizens. It was a sacred trust and we wore it well.
Maybe it started with Daniel Elsberg and the NYT or maybe it just started recently with Valerie Plame, but the violation of the oath taken to protect the nation’s intelligence is (or was) a taboo akin to canabalism or even incest. To have been released from an intelligence organization for leaking to anyone, whether in a bar or even at home however innocently it was done, was cause for immediate dismissal and ultimate disgrace before your peers.
I am shocked at today’s rational for disclosing national secrets. “It’s my duty,” “I felt it morallly wrong,” or just that “the President and his administration are wrong.” All of these excuses reek of self aggrandizement and a pathological desire to draw attention to ones self. In days past, they would have been cause for immediate dismissal and a gag on the MSM. In today’s market as with Joe Wilson, national celebrity is bestowed. Shame on those who risk our national security for a few seconds of limelight.
1:38 pm
In the end the only thing you can call McCarthy is a traitor who should be arrested, tried, convicted, dragged out and shot.
The democratic terrorists enablers are responsible for 90% of the deaths in Iraq, both American and Iraqi. They can deny it til their last breath but everyone in the world knows it’s true. They will be 100% responsible for the next attack on America as they were the last two, no, make that three. They are all traitors.
If anyone is in the military, or thinking of enlisting make sure your discharge date is in the first quarter of 2009. If the democrats take the white house they will abandon you and get you killed. Refer to: The Bay of Pigs, Iran 1979, Black Hawk down for proof. I served 22 years and Dimmy Carter ran me out. I was on the way to Iran when they declared war on the U.S. by storming the embassy and Dimmy sat on his hands or as they say, he had one thumb in his mouth and the other up his butt waiting for someone to say switch.
1:53 pm
Even the “evil” Christians, know that Peter, the rock of the church, denied his own saviour, in fact, he did so three times. And most should know that Paul, who is the in fact founder of the church of rome, now the roman catholic church, was a pharasee, who persecuted christians while he was named “saul” so everyone who has any education in christian history should know just how intolerant christians are, with there whole manchurian candidacy of peter, and the red hearing of paul, should know that ms mccarthy is a hero JUST like judas.
hold a second, my mother is interupting me (“what?” “no, the libs keep saying. . . ” “what?” “no!? peter was absolved!” “BS he wasn’t? peter was TOO forgiven by christ!” “I don’t care about your lifetime of faith, then explain paul?” “NO!” “you are wrong mom, I know you had 18 years of training, but paul was just a virtuous sinner” “good so you aggree that he was a virtuous sinner” “How does his power establishment interfere with the teachings of christ!? explain THAT!?” “yeah, Saul in his own guilt forced martyrdom on his fellow christians, thats so typical” “Mom! I love you, and you know much more than I do about the christian faith but really, all of your arguments are ridic. . .”
“okay, yeah, constantine was only out for power, and he invoked the names of peter and paul, big deal? They still would have been saved.”
“Mary is no peter nor a paul? whys that you think? she did what she thought was right!”
“whats this crap about caeser and god?”
“she defied both?”
“okay whatever, I will figure it out during the next meet the press, you are clearly delusional”
1:54 pm
God forgives sinners, but his love is for all. And the only way to show YOUR love for god, is to not sin.
Mary is no peter, no paul, and DEFINATELY no john.
2:21 pm
My only regret is that she’s not been hauled up on charges of espionage and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
2:40 pm
Isn’t it true that this lady (person) somehow got elevated to her position and no one knows exactly how? Just maybe that the same people who promoted her had something to do in hiring Joe Wilson.
3:12 pm
They have become what they most hated about Nixon. That 70’s Show mentality will be their demise. They are using government agencies as a political weapon against their political opponents. The MSM are willing enablers, yellow journalism, it shows how negligent the editors have become. The very non-political transparency they demanded in the 70’s be dammed!
3:35 pm
In today’s NY Times: Both officials said they were speaking about the internal discussions because of the significant national security and civil liberty issues involved and because they thought it was important for citizens to understand the interplay between Mr. Cheney’s office and the N.S.A.
So “they” determined their personal views on secret internal deliberations by elected policy makers, the people elected to government, the very people held accountable by the democracy must be exposed to “their” determination as to what is important?
We at the Times are more than happy to throw this out there with no corroboration: And one government official, who had access to intelligence from the intercepts that he said he would discuss only if granted anonymity, believes that some of the purely domestic eavesdropping in the program’s early phase was intentional. No other officials have made that claim.
4:41 pm
Also, take a look at the last paragraph. McCarthy will still receive her pension…
5:50 pm
Tano:
And when the “grownups” come back, they will no doubt introduce new policy directives in this country. “Dhimmi” status will be secured in hopes our Muslim brothers will not be too mean to us when the Caliphate is re-established. God forbid we should bow down to our new lords and masters without an established policy directive from the “grownups”. Then you, Tano, can kneel down before your new masters and show then how you stood up for their “rights”. Just remember those rights and how you showed Rick the error of his ways when your head is lying apart from the rest of your body, your eyes twitching to and fro, and your last thought can be “Boy, I sure showed Rick!”
12:23 am
I actually thought this article by R. Jeffrey Smith was informative and fairly well balanced. Of course her friends are going to back her up, but I thought the reporter did a good job of making it clear it was her friends offering support. Usually we get Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern, former CIA agents, as the only explanation of who’s speaking on her behalf.
The article also mentioned she has a long history of feeling policy was overriding analysis- starting in the Clinton years. And finally, we get to see that she started in the IG office just shortly before she decided to throw her pennies at John Kerry.
Yes, it would have been nice for Smith to point out that McCarthy had other avenues open to her if she truly believed someone at the CIA lied. But I have to say this is the first time, since the story broke, that I felt the WaPo decided to actually act like a news source rather than McCarthy’s personal PR agency.
9:36 am
Tano –
Heroine? Yes, I think so. Does she have the right to call the administration on illegality? Absolutely. I know you fantasize about a world in which everyone just lays down and allows the govmint to do what they want, irrespective of the laws
Do you actually read the post before you start spouting? She was in the IG office. She, more than most, knew the proper channels for airing her concerns, but chose to not use them. You see, she took a job, swore an oath, and took what we in the employed world call “renumeration” in return. She willingly gave up her right to squawk to the partisan, shrill media when she did so. She’s not allowed to just change her mind and do whatever the hell she wants – that is the cost of being a grown-up. You probably won’t like it much, should you ever defy all odds and actually achieve it.
10:25 am
A lot of accusations but no evidence there Rick. You keep asserting that she is guilty of treason, but where is the hard evidence? Why hasn’t she been indicted? Is the Bush administration afraid of what the liberal press might say? If she is guilty she should be charged and sentenced.
I see you haven’t written about the raid on Dusty Foggo’s home and CIA office on Friday. Josh Marshal, at Talking Points Memo, has been following this story for months and has posed the question: Could there be a connection between McCarthy’s firing and the Foggo investigation?
From TMP: “...[A]t the time of her firing, McCarthy was working in the CIA’s Inspector General’s office, the same office that was then investigating Foggo and not more than a few weeks after McCarthy’s firing would participate in raids on Foggo’s home and office.”
My question is, if there turns out to be a connection between Foggo’s investigation and McCarthy’s firing, will you make a sincere apology?