Apr 26 2006
*** Too funny: I see Nathan Tabor at The Conservative Voice used the same nysery rhyme title I did. Honest Nathan, I did not mean to copy you! ***
Lots of good stuff in blogosphere on Mary McCarthy. Kitty Litter has a great round up overall. Mind In The Qatar has a great diagram showing all the ties McCarthy has to key Democrats, scandal figures and the media. So does The Commissar. Hopefully these diagrams will help guide the poor misguided media to report accurately. Just keep following the links as the spread through a very focused and energized blogosphere.
So, where are we? It is clear Mary McCarthy has been provided one top-notch scandal attorney for someone who did not leak anything. This story had every indication of dying from lack of attention until Rand Beers, Kerry and the DNC’s Howard Dean started jumping into the fray. And WaPo is also hurting it’s cause and keeping this alive by NOT leaking like the CIA with regards to Dana Priest’s role in all this. As Tom Maguire so aptly noted yesterday, if there is no leak of classified data and McCarthy is not a Priest source, why are we have som much fun here? Why can’t Priest come out and say we are focused on the wrong person?
The comments from Priest and Cobb have an extreme odor of Clinton-speak to them. As I noted here earlier, no one said Mary McCarthy admitted to the phrase ‘leaked classified information’, as her lawyer carefully repeats.
Mac Ranger’s sources continue to paint a picture of a woman in serious trouble who could get out of trouble easily if she turns evidence. The question is whether she is an American or a Democrat first.
Mac points to The Prowler at American Spectator for some interesting, gossipy tidbits:
Outed CIA analyst Mary McCarthy is denying through her lawyers that she was the source for the Washington Post’s Dana Priest in revealing the secret prisons that housed terrorists overseas. McCarthy’s lawyers, though, aren’t throwing cold water on the notion that McCarthy may have had political inclinations and agendas that came into play with what even they termed unauthorized or undisclosed contacts with journalists.
There’s that Clinton-speak again. “The” source. Not “a” source. Same with the word-smything between a ‘leak’ (original exposure) verses a ‘contact’ or discussion. Ugh! Who do these yahoos think they are kidding? Is this distinction going to convince America to hand over national security issues to a Democrat party this fall? I think not!
Mac goes on to correct the notion in The Prowler that McCarthy is the first of 4 or 5 individuals in trouble. He says it is 6 and these include Durbin, Rockefeller and possibly even Schumer. I have seen hints that former Senator Graham from FL is also on the possible leak list.
Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker correctly highlights why McCarthy’s position in the CIA, after leaving the government three years ealier, was perfect for scandalizing. If there is muck to be found, it flows through the IG’s office:
…McCarthy served in the Clinton White House and then took a curious job in the Bush administration, in the Inspector Generalâ€™s Office of the CIA.
Such a move is not explicable by careerism. This is an Internal Affairs dead-end sort of job, one that wins enemies not friends. But it is a job in which complaints about irregularities (justified or not) come across the desk with regularity.
Career suicide, but perfect for a would-be leaker intent on undermining a presidency and getting the opposition party candidate elected president. If there was planning to this, who was involved?
This position taken in 2004, an election year in which the Democrats had prepared a plan of scandal mongering. Their only concern was where to get the muck. Mary’s job solved that problem nicely. Makes one wonder how many more McCarthy’s are planted in IG offices around the Federal Government?
Kerry seems to be one of the most animated Dems right now – and he should be. The list of scandals ringing his 2004 campaign makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout (Wilson, Berger,RaTHergate). Add McCarthy-Beers and you have quite a story.
In a bad sign for the left, Human Events seems to be echoing Mac Ranger’s sources an article out today:
Clearly, a culture of contempt for the current occupant of the White House has infected a number of people who work in the agency, some of whom have taken it on themselves to try to undermine the administration by leaking information to the press and unauthorized persons in Democratic circles on Capitol Hill.
Emphasis mine. If Mac is right, and I suspect he is, then we will see more and more reporting confirming the fact, like this. It will creep from the non-mainstream media into outlets like FOX, the Washington Times and NY Post. That will force the antique liberal media to finally report on it. One interesting note on the wording above: ‘democrat circles’ to me implies staffers were in the loop between the CIA and the Senators and Congressman.
This kind of MO would make sense if you want to hide the leak or any connection to the elected official. This DOES NOT make sense if you are a whistleblower. In the Whistleblower scenario you are trying to draw attention to yourself and elected officials so that you are protected from any institutional retribution. Just keep that in the back of your mind when things unfold.
Also important to remember is the reason FISA was brought into existence. When it was learned Nixon was using government agencies like the CIA, NSA,FBI, IRS to apply pressure on political challengers, Congress convened the Church committee and passed FISA to ensure these organizations could not be used for political gain. The Democrats seem to be on the verge of being exposed doing just that, this time from outside the President’s office. Doesn’t matter – we will not tolerate government take over of our political process. Whether Nixon did it from the Oval office or Dems did it from Congress and the CIA, it is still the same crime. Ironically, a leak about FISA may lead to uncovering a modern variation of Nixonian abuses of power. One big question to answer is will the media be accomplice or watchdog?