The Discerning Texan
All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
-- Edmund Burke
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Mary McCarthy leak story BLOWS WIDE OPEN: CIA vs. the Bush White House (continued)
Preface: You could do worse than to follow ALL the links in this post once you are done reading it... OK, let's dive right back in:
You may recall that from very early on, we've been of the opinion that the entire Plame affair was a CIA put up job against President Bush from the very beginning, designed to discredit him in an election year. One can recall MSM stories of the CIA trying to influence foreign elections since the 1950's, but this appears to have been rogue elements within the CIA attempting an electoral "coup d'etat" in the United States--which amounts to a "mutiny" against its own CinC and sitting President--and apparently the only place you can read about it is in the blogs. This to me is high treason, but the Times comes out in SUPPORT of this traitor? What is wrong with this picture?
And why is that do you think? Why would a paper whose circulation that is dropping like the 1990 Clinton Stock market continue to only print one-sided, partisan pap that 10 years ago would have only run in "The Nation" or "The New Republic"?
Now that we know that the leak of TOP SECRET information to the media--a leak that clearly has badly damaged the reputation of the United States worldwide and which has made terror counterintelligence much more difficult--came directly from one or more Democrat partisans working inside CIA, things are really starting to pop in the blogosphere. My, how just a couple of days and a discovery of a "mole" within the CIA can change one's entire outlook; not just on "current events", but also in the reporting of those events...
Just one day after we find out the leaker's identity, it suddenly seems very reasonable to ask: What were (fired CIA leaker) Mary McCarthy's ties to the Clintons? We already know she had connections to (National Archives bandit) Sandy Berger. [UPDATE: for more bio on McCarthy's background, see Spook86's excellent post]
We also knew that she was well acquainted with Joe Wilson, and is married to a man who gets Wilson speaking gigs. She is high up in the CIA pecking order, obviously she knew Plame as well. And she knows Patrick Fitzgerald as well! Suddenly the events around Plamegate and Mary McCarthy sounds like something right out of the film "Conspiracy Theory". Consider as "Exhibit A" this blockbuster post from Ace (and this one, and this one too, and this...and THIS) Bold emphases are mine:
Now this is getting re-goddamned-diculous:
Reader Topsecretk9 has links to many of the Plame players to McCarthy through [Center For Security and International Studies, where a lot of these very liberal CIA hacks worked for periods, often together). ...
This comment in particular is interesting:
"I do think it is interesting that Daniel Benjamin is “quoted” as a friend of [Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald] in the WAPO love letter bio story and then viola — he was on the NSC with Wilson And McCarthy, and well a member of CSIS with Mcarthy and on the NYU Security [symposium/debate] with McCarthy AND DANA PRIEST (and Hersh)."
Okay, let's not lose plot. A lot of people know a lot of other people in government, and in DC, and especially in the same area of government.
But still... interesting.
And: A few weeks ago the Washington Post unexpectedly came down against Joe Wilson, and in defense of the President, in calling the President's leaking of information about Iraq's nuke program a good leak.
I believe it was Just One Minute who first questioned the WaPo's motives for this welcome, but very surprising, stance.
Did the WaPo take this strange position because they knew in a few weeks they'd have to defend another leak, and didn't want to be seen as blatantly inconsistent on leaks?
Perhaps. If so, at least give the WaPo credit for attempting consistency. That doesn't seem to bother the "Paper of Record," the NYT, which has no problems at all demanding that Lewis Libby be thrown in jail for his fake ticky-tack leak but Mary McCarthy be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her REAL leak.
Oh, I know, the NYT's editorial page hasn't actually declared that yet. But what do you think tomorrow's lead editorial will be?
After a lot of throat-clearning crap like "Of course our nation's secrecy laws must be respected" will come the cowardly, dishonest liberal's favorite conjunction -- but -- and a demand that McCarthy be spared further investigation because she acted, doncha know, in the country's best interests.
Jeff Goldstein, meanwhile, thinks I've implied the press will "bury" this story, and he thinks it's too big to bury.
Well, I don't think they'll bury it outright; it is too big for an outright embargo. And of course they're all reporting on it... somewhat, even though the crack investigative staff at the NYT has a lot of trouble tracking down the full amount that Ms. McCarthy has donated to Democrats over the years.
I believe they will minimize the importance of the story and maximize the mitigating factors; I think Jeff agrees with that. Just like they did during Monicagate-- you can't exactly ignore the story, but you sure can defend Clinton by attacking the people prosecuting him, and noting that lying is in fact a very common and very human action (indeed-- it is our lies that make us uniquely human!), and run stories about Jefferson banging the help, and all that.
So, an anti-war official leaked anti-war type stuff. Isn't it true, they'll say, that pro-war officials have leaked pro-war stuff? Isn't it no different than the President legally declassifying information? Really, why should Bush be allowed to decide what the public will know, and a really super-smart and super-ethical CIA officer not be so permitted?
I think they will go full-out to rescue Wilson, Plame, and McCarthy; Jeff seems to believe they may not dare go as far as they could.
In fact-- he thinks they might actually PURSUE the story as if they were ACTUAL REPORTERS, rather than unofficial DNC communications staffers:
And if this story breaks like I’m starting to sense it will (for instance, McCarthy was Larry Johnson’s boss, and the connections between familiar players favored by the anti-war left are starting to pile up), the press calculus could play out in such a way that they see tough coverage of this scandal—an ACTUAL SCANDAL this time, mind you—as a way to rehabilitate themselves with the American public. That is, they could recognize that now is the best time to bury their ideological allegiances and attempt to show their bona fides as “objective” and “neutral” agents of information dissemination—knowing full well that if they do not, they will get swept away by the flood.
Sadly, Jeff had to type the rest of this interesting post with his nose, as he had badly burned his fingertips on his crack-pipe and smack-spoon.
Vengeance For Jeff "The Once And Future King" Gannon: JPod at National Review's The Corner suggests that "getting McCarthy" is a bigger story than the left taking down Jeff Gannon.
Absurd. Let us not let our partisanship blind us. Losing a male escort/stringer for Men's News Daily was a crippling blow for the entire conservative movement, whereas the present case is merely about a high-ranking Clinton-appointed CIA officer committing actions that border on treason. [Heh - DT]
So yes, it's all well and good that we've outed a major security risk at the CIA, but let's not sit here and pretend that this will bring Jeff Gannon back to us.
Nothing will.
And it's about time that some of us came to terms with that.
Rick Moran has also been writing about the CIA's war against Bush, since at least last July. Rick, of course, is all over this story too. Read all of his posts on this matter.
Other links of note on this breaking story:
Little Green Footballs
The American Thinker
Just One Minute
I think that--short of a major terror attack or War with Iran, this is the story of the year--and it has the potential into blowing into a Watergate-sized mushroom cloud.... and at the moment Ground Zero appears to be the Democratic Party and the disgraceful behavior of the "national media".
You may recall that from very early on, we've been of the opinion that the entire Plame affair was a CIA put up job against President Bush from the very beginning, designed to discredit him in an election year. One can recall MSM stories of the CIA trying to influence foreign elections since the 1950's, but this appears to have been rogue elements within the CIA attempting an electoral "coup d'etat" in the United States--which amounts to a "mutiny" against its own CinC and sitting President--and apparently the only place you can read about it is in the blogs. This to me is high treason, but the Times comes out in SUPPORT of this traitor? What is wrong with this picture?
And why is that do you think? Why would a paper whose circulation that is dropping like the 1990 Clinton Stock market continue to only print one-sided, partisan pap that 10 years ago would have only run in "The Nation" or "The New Republic"?
Now that we know that the leak of TOP SECRET information to the media--a leak that clearly has badly damaged the reputation of the United States worldwide and which has made terror counterintelligence much more difficult--came directly from one or more Democrat partisans working inside CIA, things are really starting to pop in the blogosphere. My, how just a couple of days and a discovery of a "mole" within the CIA can change one's entire outlook; not just on "current events", but also in the reporting of those events...
Just one day after we find out the leaker's identity, it suddenly seems very reasonable to ask: What were (fired CIA leaker) Mary McCarthy's ties to the Clintons? We already know she had connections to (National Archives bandit) Sandy Berger. [UPDATE: for more bio on McCarthy's background, see Spook86's excellent post]
We also knew that she was well acquainted with Joe Wilson, and is married to a man who gets Wilson speaking gigs. She is high up in the CIA pecking order, obviously she knew Plame as well. And she knows Patrick Fitzgerald as well! Suddenly the events around Plamegate and Mary McCarthy sounds like something right out of the film "Conspiracy Theory". Consider as "Exhibit A" this blockbuster post from Ace (and this one, and this one too, and this...and THIS) Bold emphases are mine:
Now this is getting re-goddamned-diculous:
Reader Topsecretk9 has links to many of the Plame players to McCarthy through [Center For Security and International Studies, where a lot of these very liberal CIA hacks worked for periods, often together). ...
This comment in particular is interesting:
"I do think it is interesting that Daniel Benjamin is “quoted” as a friend of [Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald] in the WAPO love letter bio story and then viola — he was on the NSC with Wilson And McCarthy, and well a member of CSIS with Mcarthy and on the NYU Security [symposium/debate] with McCarthy AND DANA PRIEST (and Hersh)."
Okay, let's not lose plot. A lot of people know a lot of other people in government, and in DC, and especially in the same area of government.
But still... interesting.
And: A few weeks ago the Washington Post unexpectedly came down against Joe Wilson, and in defense of the President, in calling the President's leaking of information about Iraq's nuke program a good leak.
I believe it was Just One Minute who first questioned the WaPo's motives for this welcome, but very surprising, stance.
Did the WaPo take this strange position because they knew in a few weeks they'd have to defend another leak, and didn't want to be seen as blatantly inconsistent on leaks?
Perhaps. If so, at least give the WaPo credit for attempting consistency. That doesn't seem to bother the "Paper of Record," the NYT, which has no problems at all demanding that Lewis Libby be thrown in jail for his fake ticky-tack leak but Mary McCarthy be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her REAL leak.
Oh, I know, the NYT's editorial page hasn't actually declared that yet. But what do you think tomorrow's lead editorial will be?
After a lot of throat-clearning crap like "Of course our nation's secrecy laws must be respected" will come the cowardly, dishonest liberal's favorite conjunction -- but -- and a demand that McCarthy be spared further investigation because she acted, doncha know, in the country's best interests.
Jeff Goldstein, meanwhile, thinks I've implied the press will "bury" this story, and he thinks it's too big to bury.
Well, I don't think they'll bury it outright; it is too big for an outright embargo. And of course they're all reporting on it... somewhat, even though the crack investigative staff at the NYT has a lot of trouble tracking down the full amount that Ms. McCarthy has donated to Democrats over the years.
I believe they will minimize the importance of the story and maximize the mitigating factors; I think Jeff agrees with that. Just like they did during Monicagate-- you can't exactly ignore the story, but you sure can defend Clinton by attacking the people prosecuting him, and noting that lying is in fact a very common and very human action (indeed-- it is our lies that make us uniquely human!), and run stories about Jefferson banging the help, and all that.
So, an anti-war official leaked anti-war type stuff. Isn't it true, they'll say, that pro-war officials have leaked pro-war stuff? Isn't it no different than the President legally declassifying information? Really, why should Bush be allowed to decide what the public will know, and a really super-smart and super-ethical CIA officer not be so permitted?
I think they will go full-out to rescue Wilson, Plame, and McCarthy; Jeff seems to believe they may not dare go as far as they could.
In fact-- he thinks they might actually PURSUE the story as if they were ACTUAL REPORTERS, rather than unofficial DNC communications staffers:
And if this story breaks like I’m starting to sense it will (for instance, McCarthy was Larry Johnson’s boss, and the connections between familiar players favored by the anti-war left are starting to pile up), the press calculus could play out in such a way that they see tough coverage of this scandal—an ACTUAL SCANDAL this time, mind you—as a way to rehabilitate themselves with the American public. That is, they could recognize that now is the best time to bury their ideological allegiances and attempt to show their bona fides as “objective” and “neutral” agents of information dissemination—knowing full well that if they do not, they will get swept away by the flood.
Sadly, Jeff had to type the rest of this interesting post with his nose, as he had badly burned his fingertips on his crack-pipe and smack-spoon.
Vengeance For Jeff "The Once And Future King" Gannon: JPod at National Review's The Corner suggests that "getting McCarthy" is a bigger story than the left taking down Jeff Gannon.
Absurd. Let us not let our partisanship blind us. Losing a male escort/stringer for Men's News Daily was a crippling blow for the entire conservative movement, whereas the present case is merely about a high-ranking Clinton-appointed CIA officer committing actions that border on treason. [Heh - DT]
So yes, it's all well and good that we've outed a major security risk at the CIA, but let's not sit here and pretend that this will bring Jeff Gannon back to us.
Nothing will.
And it's about time that some of us came to terms with that.
Rick Moran has also been writing about the CIA's war against Bush, since at least last July. Rick, of course, is all over this story too. Read all of his posts on this matter.
Other links of note on this breaking story:
Little Green Footballs
The American Thinker
Just One Minute
I think that--short of a major terror attack or War with Iran, this is the story of the year--and it has the potential into blowing into a Watergate-sized mushroom cloud.... and at the moment Ground Zero appears to be the Democratic Party and the disgraceful behavior of the "national media".
