A story appearing in Newsweek contends that according to Mary McCarthy’s patron at the National Security Council during the Clinton years Rand Beers, McCarthy “categorically denies” leaking classified information on the secret prison story to Dana Priest of the Washington Post. In fact, McCarthy denies leaking classified information at any time to any reporter according to her lawyer:
McCarthy’s lawyer, Ty Cobb, told NEWSWEEK this afternoon that contrary to public statements by the CIA late last week, McCarthy never confessed to agency interrogators that she had divulged classified information and “didn’t even have access to the information” in The Washington Post story in question.After being told by agency interrogators that she may have been deceptive on one question during a polygraph, McCarthy did acknowledge that she had failed to report contacts with Washington Post reporter Dana Priest and at least one other reporter, said a source familiar with her account who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. McCarthy has known Priest for some time, the source said.
This is only slightly disingenuous. The way that a reporter like Priest gets a story like the one on secret prisons is by piecing together a hint here, a whisper there usually leaked as office gossip from low level staffers or by some intelligent guesswork using open sources. Then, when they think they have the outlines of a story, they sit down and have a drink with a Mary McCarthy and say something like “This is what the CIA is doing, right?” at which point our leaker will nod their head or shake it vigorously. She reveals no classified information, she simply confirms what the reporter thinks they already have. In short, by confirming or denying information, the leaker keeps the reporter on the right track without technically violating their oath of secrecy.
What McCarthy doesn’t say is whether or not she steered Priest to other sources who were willing to be more forthcoming in their treachery.
Could the Administration be firing McCarthy in order to make an example of her? This is always a possibility, especially since word has leaked out from the CIA (natch!) that the Administration is interested in the political affiliations of some of its top intel people:
The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.
You’d think the White House could find that information out for themselves by using Google or going to Opensecrets.com. Laziness or stupidity? I report, you decide.
Does it matter if someone with access to agency secrets is a Democrat? Plame apologist Larry Johnson (who has been all over the pages of both the Times and the Post) doesn’t think so:
Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst who got into a dispute with McCarthy in the late l980s when she was his supervisor and remains critical of her management style, nonetheless says that he “never saw her allow her political [views] to cloud her analytical judgment.†Johnson maintains the Bush White House is “really damaging the intelligence community†by sending a message to career officials that “unless you are a partisan of the party in power, you cannot be trusted.†This message, Johnson says, is destroying the intelligence community’s “professional ethos.â€
Excuse me, but ever since this doltish braggart left a comment on this site threatening me by saying that he knew the guys who had killed drug kingpin Pablo Escobar and that I better watch what I say about Plame, I haven’t had the friendliest of feelings toward him.
And with that quote, Johnson doesn’t disappoint as far as showing how breathtakingly stupid he is. No one is concerned that her “political views cloud[ed] her judgement.” That aspect of McCarthy’s partisanship has never been brought up by the White House, by any member of Congress, by any conservative columnist, or by any conservative blogger. It is a strawman pure and simple. It’s not her analytical skills that are being questioned, Larry. It’s her loyalty. Not to Republicans but to the agency she served. This, of course, makes your other statement that “unless you are a partisan of the party in power, you cannot be trusted,” equally ridiculous.
But Johnson’s ignorance aside, if the McCarthy firing has a chilling effect on agency personnel talking to reporters, I would put that down as a definite plus. So if the Administration is actually trying to dampen the enthusiasm of CIA employees for talking to the press, McCarthy would seem to have been the perfect sacrificial lamb:
McCarthy, 61, a career CIA analyst who was working in the inspector general’s office, was then told on Thursday that she was being fired. She was not escorted out of the CIA building, the source said. She also had been assured that the CIA would protect her privacy—just one day before her name became publicly known as the agency official who had been dismissed for leaking to the press, the source said. Ironically, McCarthy, who previously worked as chief intelligence official for the National Security Council during Bill Clinton’s second term, was planning on retiring from the CIA soon to pursue a new career as a lawyer working on adoption and family cases.
Headed for retirement anyway and someone with several contacts in the news media:
After being told by agency interrogators that she may have been deceptive on one question during a polygraph, McCarthy did acknowledge that she had failed to report contacts with Washington Post reporter Dana Priest and at least one other reporter, said a source familiar with her account who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. McCarthy has known Priest for some time, the source said.
In other words, McCarthy may have been a kind of confirmation machine for the bevy of national security correspondents who prowl the halls of power in Washington. Need a story confirmed about some CIA secret program? Let’s call Mary and see if she’s free for dinner.
I’m being facetious, of course. But in sacking McCarthy, who even lefties have to admit was an easy target – Porter Goss and the Administration may finally be saying “You’ve been warned. The gloves are off.”
Welcome news, if true.
7:26 pm
Rick – I saw that paragraph about the “barrage” of questions about the party affiliations of the CIA folks, and doubt very much that it is true, for reasons I explained in . More likely that claim is just another counterattack from the anti-Bush people at the CIA.
7:29 pm
Jim:
I see your point because the WH doesn’t need to “ask” anyone – that kind of information is widely available these days as I pointed out.
7:30 pm
H’mm: Add “this post: http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/April2006_3.html#jrm4169” after the last “in”.
8:33 pm
After reading several accounts of this act of treason it is clear that she was not the Lone Ranger in the CIA. There are just too many ‘Clintonist’ still hanging around there and they are all connected in more ways than the CIA. Something to do with getting another criminal Clinton in the white house, which should have a red light and red door if she’s elected. There should have been one in the 90’s. If someone shakes the tree real hard a lot of traitors will fall out and all of them will have comitted treason for political purposes. This is not the first nor the only leak in the past 4 years that was an act of treason. ex: Socks Berger.
I expect the same rants and raves from the left wing that defended the slime regime when he was impeached. Naturally they haven’t done anything wrong, that is other than getting several hundred American Soldiers (disposable to the left) killed to serve their political purposes.
11:23 pm
Rick,
Its Opensecrets.ORG, not com. Com is sleazy ripoff ad site that has enough windowdressing up to fool someone who has never been to the real site.
11:24 pm
Should a “high CIA official” be talking with reporters?
Would it surprise anyone that a Kerry supporter would lie about leaking? Wouldn’t surprise me.
11:31 pm
Personally, I’m on the “peoples right to know” side. I would hang anyone who gave away info that could get our people killed, but revealing nefarious ops, like secret prisons is a good thing.
Its our country, and we have a right to know what is being done in our name, with our money. Not tactical details, but thats not the issue here. No doubt the administration is going to continue to try to crack down, but its probably useless. These are lifelong public servants, patriots, and they will probably continue to reveal things that their conscience tells that they must.
You are on the wrong side of this one Rick – your partisanship has landed you on the side of defending the indefensible, and lashing out at those who inform the citizenry of the things we have a right to know.
3:45 am
[...] VINCE AUT MORIRE VODKAPUNDIT WALLO WORLD WHAT ATTITUDE PROBLEM? WIDE AWAKES WIZBANG WUZZADEM CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: TY COBB AIN’T NO BENCHWARMER CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: THE BIRD THAT ISN’T SINGING EAT YOUR HEART OUT CINDY SHEEHAN DEFENDDISSENT: PUNISH THE LEAKERS CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: McCARTHY AND THE DC REVOLVING DOOR CIA VS THE WHITE HOUSE: THE LONE PARTISAN? CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: PROCEED WITH EXTREME CAUTION CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: WALKING BACK SLOWLY CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: GOOD LEAKS OR BAD? CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: THE LEAKER AND THE SQUEALER ARE YOU “OVER” 9/11 YET? CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS #41 THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN JOKE OF THE DAY ANOTHER MORAN TAKES UP THE PEN A DASTARDLY DEED J’ACCUSE: BERNSTEIN MAKES A SERIOUS CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT HARDBALL MORE “ANGER AND DESPAIR” FROM THE LEFT ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL? DON’T TELL THE DEMS THAT “STAY AT HOME” REPUBLICANS ANTI-AMERICAN? OR ANTI-BUSH? BILMON: A VERY SILLY PERSON SHOULD’VE FIRED RUMSFELD - AND THE GENERALS - LONG AGO RUMSFELD: LONG PAST TIME FOR A CHANGE “24″ (54) ABLE DANGER (10) Bird Flu (5) Blogging (80) Books (7) CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS (66) CHICAGO BEARS (9) CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE (16) Cindy Sheehan (12) Ethics (53) General (273) Government (32) History (51) IMMIGRATION REFORM (5) Iran (20) KATRINA (26) Katrina Timeline (4) Marvin Moonbat (14) Media (77) Middle East (24) Moonbats (45) Open House (1) Politics (164) Science (14) Space (12) Supreme Court (19) War on Terror (105) WATCHER’S COUNCIL (41) WORLD POLITICS (39) WORLD SERIES (14) Admin Login Register Valid XHTML XFN [...]
7:52 am
What Larry Johnson is saying is that because McCarthy is a Democrat she is immune. What a convenient argument.
My only question is, why isn’t she under inditement?
7:57 am
Red:
Newsweek pointed out that any evidence obtained through polygraph can not be admissable in court. DOJ has to start from scratch and try and prove a case without using anything they got from the lie detector.
8:53 am
All these commenters on this and other blogs need to realize that leaking is a strong tradition in both parties. The current President is the one in recent memory who’s attempted to totally quash them, which I do find admirable. As a member of the intelligence community, I don’t like leaks, but the hyperbole I read on so many blogs is getting ridiculous. The diatribes against “left wing†leakers indicate they don’t think the right wing or republicans ever leak, which obviously isn’t the case. Just look at 90% of the House and Senate if you want proof.
In principle, I’m against all leaks, no matter the source. Most people in the intelligence community, especially since 9/11, have internal pathways to register dissent. They don’t always work however. Even when they don’t, there are much better ways to address the problem McCarthy (and others apparently) saw than to talk to the press. Leaking is the easy and cowardly way out in my opinion, but it’s also a dangerous one, as Ms. McCarthy is now learning
9:05 am
Andrew:
I’d like to think that if the shoe were on the other foot here that I would act the same way but I’m not so sure. So in that respect, you’re probably right.
Having said that, if this is more than one woman with a conscience (a possibility that I accept as less than 50-50 at this point) than you would have to agree it is umprecedented.
I have been following politics for more than 30 years and have never seen so many “selective” leaks done with if not the intent, than the effect of hurting a sitting President. And given the fact that many of these leaks were perfectly timed during the 2004 election to do a maximum amount of damage to the Bush candidacy, the idea that they were non-partisan in nature strains credulity.
Yes Republicans leak especially Presidents and their staffs. Leaking, as you know, is an art form in the bureaucracy and is done for a wide variety of reasons including spite, boredom, partisanship, career advancement, and others. But to look at the body of leaks over the past 2 and a half years and say that they are all patriots with a conscience or that partisanship was not involved is just not believable.
That’s why this McCarthy case is so important. If, in fact, there is a loose confederation of CIA personnel who took it upon themselves to leak classified information to try and destroy the President, then they must be ferreted out and fired, prosecuted, and jailed. And if, per chance, they coordinated those leaks with outside facilitators like VIPS or even (not likely) former Clinton Administration officials, that would constitute a conspiracy of monstrous proportions and should be rooted out for the sake of the country.
1:17 pm
Members of the intelligence community are trained and instructed that when presented with written or verbal information as regards Agency activities, they neither confirm nor deny. The proper response is, “I don’t know”. Always.