McCarthy’s positions gave her plenty of influence to fix what she felt needed fixing. From those who would know:

Unlike the names associated with real or perceived IC fiascos (Tice, Edmonds, Shaffer, etc.) if Ms. McCarthy had a serious, legitimate gripe with what was going on at the CIA, she could have walked down the hall to the IG, she could have had lunch with someone at the FBI or Justice, or she could have made a phone call and been talking to members of Congress. In short she would have suffered almost none of the pain that most whistleblowers normally face.

This mirrors what another ex-intel blogger, Spook86, has reported:

You’ll note that many media accounts describe the leaker as an “analyst,” suggesting that she was, at best, a mid-level staffer. That was hardly the case; few analysts make the jump from a regional desk at Langley to the White House. A “National Intelligence Officer” is the equivalent of a four-star general in the military, or a cardinal in the Catholic Church. There are only a handful of NIOs in the intelligence community; they are in charge of intelligence community efforts in a particular area.

Any news media article you read that protrays little old Mary as an analyst or a ‘historian’ realize your are probably reading garbage. Either the reporters have no clue what they are reporting on, or they do and want to sell you propaganda.

Addendum:  And while we need to keep setting the record straight, McCarthy’s impressive political donations to the Democrats is one of those items the media also ignores or underplays – as Tom Maguire points out.