Finally, a government.

The first democratically elected government since... well, ever, probably.

With video.

Posted by: Ace at 11:25 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Colleagues Say CIA Analyst Played By the Rules

And with that headline, we're off!

In 1998, when President Bill Clinton ordered military strikes against a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan, Mary O. McCarthy, a senior intelligence officer assigned to the White House, warned the president that the plan relied on inconclusive intelligence, two former government officials said.

Ms. McCarthy's reservations did not stop the attack on the factory, which was carried out in retaliation for Al Qaeda's bombing of two American embassies in East Africa. But they illustrated her willingness to challenge intelligence data and methods endorsed by her bosses at the Central Intelligence Agency.

She's a bipartisan, apolitical call-'em-as-she-sees-'em maverick independent!

On Thursday, the C.I.A. fired Ms. McCarthy, 61, accusing her of leaking information to reporters about overseas prisons operated by the agency in the years since the Sept. 11 attacks. But despite Ms. McCarthy's independent streak, some colleagues who worked with her at the White House and other offices during her intelligence career say they cannot imagine Ms. McCarthy as a leaker of classified information.

She didn't do it! (But if she did do it, it was due to her courageous independent streak and high patriotism! But she didn't. Just saying-- if she did. Which she didn't.)

Others said it was possible that Ms. McCarthy, who began attending law school at night several years ago, made a campaign contribution to Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004 and had announced her intention to retire from C.I.A., had grown increasingly disenchanted with the often harsh and extra-legal methods adopted by the Bush administration for handling Al Qaeda prisoners and felt she had no alternative except to go to the press.

If she did do it -- which she didn't -- she had no alternative!

Further, it was her patriotism and uncompromising integrity that caused her to donate to John Kerry-- she had no alternative there, either! Before Bush offended her morals with his vile, illegal torture regime, she was apolitical! It was Bush who forced her to donate to Kerry!

Now we see why the New York Times only mentions this one 2004 donation to Kerry-- because a long history of donating to liberal causes and politicians would tend to undermine their story that she only became a political supporter of Kerry because she was offended by Bush's secret prisons.

And not the other way around-- that she only became offended by Bush's secret prisons because she was a political supprter of Kerry (and other Democrats, of course).

She was known as a low-key during her time at the white house as professional who paid special attention to preventing leaks of classified information and covert operations, several current and former government officials said. When she disagreed with decisions on intelligence operations, they say, she registered her complaints through internal government channels.

She was perfectly willing to scrupulously follow secrecy laws, even when she opposed the policy-- that is, at least, until Bush so flagrantly violated the Constitution he left her with no other alternative!

And etc.

So.

Fucking.

God-Damned.

Predictable.

And So Fucking God-Damned Dishonest, Too: Funny that the NYT doesn't inform us that one of the chief defenders of McCarthy in that article was also a passionate supporter of John Kerry determined to change Bush's foreign policy by any means necessary.

As Marion Ravenwood said, "I guess it must have just slipped his mind."

Can't Find... Contributions from the various McCarthyites in the article. Maybe a reader will have better luck.

I'm looking for Rand Beers, Steven Simon, H. Andrew Schwartz. I'm not bothering with Larry Johnson, as I'm pretty sure I'll get hits on that one. Even if I didn't, he's an open partisan.

Maybe another reader or blogger will have better luck.

Dishonest... And Dumb, Too: So the New York Times herald's McCarthy for her "independent streak" and courage in defying the company line as regards the al-Shaifa bombing, which she strongly counseled against, huh?

Really?

Turns out that when Clinton's actions were questioned, she gladly signed her name to the company position:

The report of the 9/11 Commission notes that the National Security staff reviewed the intelligence in April 2000 and concluded that the CIA's assessment of its intelligence on bin Laden and al-Shifa had been valid; the memo to Clinton on this was cosigned by Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director for intelligence programs, who opposed the bombing of al-Shifa in 1998. The report also notes that in their testimony before the commission, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, George Tenet, and Richard Clarke all stood by the decision to bomb al-Shifa.

She's highly principled and above politics -- until a politician she favors is caught dirty, in which case principles go out the window and partisan interest is the watchword.

Thanks to Brad for that.

Posted by: Ace at 10:41 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 820 words, total size 6 kb.

Chris Rock fake-ad for new cereal.

Racist lanaguage content warning.

Then again, it's Chris Rock. He's allowed to.

This is actually a really old joke. I can't remember the details, but there was, I think, an SNL sketch featuring some strange name for a cereal, like "Shut Your Stupid Mouth" Bran flakes. That wasn't it; just something like that.

Still... old or not, the new spin, and new name of the cereal, makes it pretty damn funny.

Thanks to steve_in_hb.

Posted by: Ace at 10:14 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

As predicted, though that hardly makes me the Amazing Kreskin.

I am struck by the irony that Mary McCarthy may have been fired for blowing the whistle and ensuring that the truth about an abuse was told to the American people. There is something potentially honorable in that action; particularly when you consider that George Bush authorized Scooter Libby to leak misleading information for the purpose of deceiving the American people about the grounds for going to war in Iraq. While I'm neither a fan nor friend of Mary's, she may have done a service for her country. She was a lousy manager in my experience, but she is not a traitor and has not betrayed the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. That dirty work was done by the minions of George Bush and Dick Cheney. It is important to keep that fact in the forefront as the judgment on Mary McCarthy's acts is rendered.

Remember:

Lewis Libby leaked non-classified information about a non-covert agent. However, that is very, very bad, as it was against a Bush critic, and therefore wasn't in service of "The Truth."

Mary McCarthy leaked highly classified information about a very sensitive secret prison system. However, that is very, very good, as it was against Bush himself, and therefore was in service of "The Truth."

I didn't know our secrecy laws contained an "In service of a higher truth" exception. I guess I'll have to look those laws up again to see where the left is deriving this legislative caveat from.

Posted by: Ace at 09:51 AM | Comments (112)
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

Not a huge thing, but interesting. Obviously Dana Priest was reporting on what McCarthy told her, so it isn't shocking that Priest's original article about the black prisons is infected with McCarthy's viewpoint.

Still, it's interesting to see how a source's POV shapes the reporter's story. Compare and contrast-- first, McCarthy's 9/11 Commission testimony again:

The Congress, too, has a role in warning. Unlike other functions of democratic government, the conduct of intelligence is purposely-and with the consent of the public-carried out in secret, out of the view of public and without much public debate. Instead, Americans rely on their representatives in Congress to ensure that the intelligence function is performed, not only in a way that keeps us safe, but also in a way that is consistent with our democratic values.

Thus, the intelligence oversight committees have a heavy burden. Unlike other committees which regularly receive citizen input, and are assisted by the scrutiny of the public over "what the government is up to," the intelligence committees must depend on small staffs and input from the very agencies they are charged with overseeing.

Very concerned about Congressional oversight, and very skeptical of the regime of secrecy imposed by the Executive, eh?

Priest's article:

Most of the facilities were built and are maintained with congressionally appropriated funds, but the White House has refused to allow the CIA to brief anyone except the chairman and vice chairman of the House and Senate intelligence committees on the program's generalities.

...

Since [2001], the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives.

Priest's article echoes the same basic concerns as her star source/criminal McCarthy.

Debate is good, but a lot of CIA officials don't seem to grasp that they are employees, subordinates of the President, and while they can have debates and ethical qualms all the doo-dah day, it is the President, and not they, who gets to make the actual decisions.

A salesman at a company may "debate" whether or not his product is priced too high, or whether they're employing the right marketing strategy, but it's the CEO of the company who decides these questions. Often correctly, almost as often incorrectly. But he's still the boss; he has legal powers to decide the course of his company's business the mere employee simply does not. And an employee who forgets this and oversteps his authority is insubordinate and should be fired.

McCarthy, Wilson, Plame, and a bunch of other CIA officers/DNC moles we haven't heard of yet seem to forget that, or at least reject it. They're smarter than Bush, their values are better, and so the fact that Bush is the lawfully elected, constitutionally empowered foreign policy maker of the country is, by their lights, a minor technicality to be worked around.

Thanks to Jack Straw.

Posted by: Ace at 08:59 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

That's the scuttlebutt.

Via Gateway Pundit's round-up.

Posted by: Ace at 08:12 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

If both parties are equally guilty of, um, fraudulent fornication, why isn't she being charged with rape, too?

Paul John Chappell, 31, was invited back to [a female] editor's Bondi flat after they met during a night out.

The pair went to bed and Chappell later got up to use the bathroom.

But Chappell claims he mistakenly returned to the wrong bedroom, where the editor's 23-year-old flatmate was asleep.

He got into bed with the flatmate and initiated sex, allegedly believing she was the other woman.

The flatmate participated because she thought it was her own boyfriend who had come to bed after falling asleep in the loungeroom.

When she turned on the light, the "hysterical" woman saw Chappell in her bed and realised her boyfriend was still asleep on the couch.

Chappell intends to plead not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent.

"The defence case is he made a mistake," barrister Wayne Flynn told the Downing Centre Court Local yesterday. "He went into the wrong room and had sex with the wrong person.

"He thought he was having sex with the person he went home with.

"The (alleged victim) says she believed she was having sex with her boyfriend. She made a mistake as to who she was having sex with and so did the defendant."

In a statement to police on the morning of the incident on October 1, the alleged victim said she had gone to bed about 2am, leaving her drunk boyfriend asleep on the lounge.

...

In her statement to police, the magazine editor said Chappell was "pretty drunk" when they arrived home and they went to her bed but she refused to have sex.

As always, I am dumbstruck that alcohol played any role in this.

Posted by: Ace at 09:44 PM | Comments (36)
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

Plame suggested his name; but a higher-up at the CIA actually sent him.

Who?

Now, McCarthy has links to general-turned-Rumsfeld-resignation-demander Anthony Zinni. And Sandy Berger. And, of course, Richard Clarke.

Would you believe she was also on the NSC during the same period, and with the same portfolio (Africa), as... JOE F'N' WILSON?

It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see the vague outlines of a conspiracy here. We have a lot of like-minded people with the motive, means, and opportunity to subvert the democratically-elected foreign-policy official of this country when he dares to disrespect their superior enlightened liberal ideas.

FloppingAces says the name "Jay Rockefeller" seems to be popping up a lot, too. Wishful thinking, but hey, let's dare to dream.

Mary McCarthy was, at least at one time, the National Intelligence Offier for Warning. "Warning" is a branch of intelligence charged with, well, warning the President of potential threats-- collecting bits of data on a threat from all the different intelligence agencies and evaluating the level of the threat and presenting that information to the President.

Iraq was considered a threat in the early 2000's, of course.

It would seem that Mary McCarthy would have been one of the top CIA decision-makers as to what sort of person might be sent over to, say, Africa to investigate a particular threat-- the threat that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.

Now, that's how it seems to me. I don't know the NIO/W's exact responsibilities. But her testimony before the 9/11 commission describes the position as being about evaluating and analyzing threats specifically for consumption by the decision-making client (the President).

So: it seems likely she would be involved in investigating the threat of Iraq's nuclear program.

Did this lawbreaker and Kerry partisan ask Valerie Plame to ask Joe Wilson if he'd like to go on a secret public mission to Niger and come back with a report whitewashing any Iraq-Niger-uranium connection?

She would have known Joe Wilson. She knew his political leanings and that they agreed with her own. She would have been one of the people in the loop-- at the top of the loop, really -- for assessing the Iraq-Niger-uranium threat.

So-- was it Mary McCarthy who sent Wilson to Niger?

I'm sure the MSM will be right on top of that one.

The Forest of Mirrors: SheriJo tips that Captain's Quarters wonders...

if the story on CIA detention centers might not have been a sting operation to unmask leakers at Langley. The possibility comes up because on the same day that the CIA terminated Mary McCarthy for her communications to the press, the New York Times reports that European investigators cannot find any evidence that the detention centers ever existed.

Well, that sort of thing is done, at least in Tom Clancy books, and I assume he got that from real spooks. One book mentioned an Operation Canary Trap, where very sensationalistic information was leaked to Congressmen suspected of leaking-- stuff they couldn't resist leaking if it came across their desks.

But... no, I don't think so. I think the EU investigators simply couldn't find the sites. Such prisons exist, we know; we don't know they exist in Europe, necessarily, but I think McCarthy was senior enough to know pure bullshit from real stuff she knew was going on.

I think the prisons are real, the EU is incompetent (or else did us a favor in not investigating as diligently as it might of), and Mary McCarthy is simply the first conspirator to be unmasked.

Update: The NYT found some of the money Mary and Michael McCarthy donated to liberal Democrats, but not nearly all of it. Perhaps they just weren't really looking that hard.

Then again, the donations are all listed one after the other, so it's kind of hard to miss. Unless you want to miss it.

Posted by: Ace at 08:42 PM | Comments (54)
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

And meanwhile, a double-secret probation agent for the real spy agency in America, the DNC.

This woman was "Senior Director for Intelligence Programs on the National Security Council Staff. Prior to moving to the White House, Dr. McCarthy served on the National Intelligence Council as National Intelligence Officer for Warning, and Deputy NIO for Warning. " She served under both Clinton and Bush (the latter as a holdover).

She was not some minor flunky. She was a major officer at the CIA, holding a very high position in the National Intelligence Council, and all the while a strong political partisan.

She was one of the top apparatchik in the CIA's liberal-wing's war against the Bush Administration.

When Bush was warned away from divulging any information that would support the case for war in Iraq, this little partisan bitch was one of the people warning him he couldn't say anything in his own defense. And when he would give a CIA-approved narrow statement about Iraq, it was nasty little partisan hacks like her immediately leaking to the press that everything the President just said was a lie.

Except it wasn't a lie. It was the CIA consensus position on an issue. It's just that Kerry-supportin' Mary disagreed with it.

And why did the 9/11 Commission, despite powerful evidence, conclude with the fudged-up language that there was no "operational" partnership between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Because high CIA officials like McCarthy told the Democratic staffers she had their back and would leak like a sieve against any conclusion that allowed for some degree of cooperation between the two.

This is pretty big. The liberal cabal in the CIA just lost one of its top guns for subverting the government that nominally is in charge of it.

This, by the way, was a bit of a tip-off that she didn't really accept the whole "secret" part of the CIA's mission. From her 9/11 testimony:

The Congress, too, has a role in warning. Unlike other functions of democratic government, the conduct of intelligence is purposely-and with the consent of the public-carried out in secret, out of the view of public and without much public debate. Instead, Americans rely on their representatives in Congress to ensure that the intelligence function is performed, not only in a way that keeps us safe, but also in a way that is consistent with our democratic values.

Thus, the intelligence oversight committees have a heavy burden. Unlike other committees which regularly receive citizen input, and are assisted by the scrutiny of the public over "what the government is up to," the intelligence committees must depend on small staffs and input from the very agencies they are charged with overseeing.

And when Congress isn't holding Bush to account the way Mary McCarthy would like, she runs to the Washington Post to give the liberals in Congress the cover they need to go after him.

Dick Durbin wants to take on Bush over the prisons issues? Well, he can't, of course, at least not publicly. It's secret information, so Dick Durbin can't reveal it. He can argue about it behind closed doors, but what good does that do the liberals politically?

And so Mary McCarthy outs the information so that the Democrats can score their points without fear of being branded national-security leakers.

The game's up. You are now quite plainly out of your reckoning.

Posted by: Ace at 08:14 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

So, Patterico busts an LAT employee for expressing opinions to the public without identifying himself as an employee of the LAT, which is contrary to its ethics guidelines.

So, a poster calling herself "Masha" shows up and begins defending the LAT and ripping Patterico and calling him "worse than Pravda."

Without identifying herself as an LATimes employee.

I think it was Hugh Hewitt who said that these people are being put in a tough position by their institutions' rules. Their institutions require them to be very circumspect about expressing their opinions, because their institutions want to pose as politically neutral truth-tellers. So, in order to maintain the image of being truth-tellers, they impose a rule to prevent the truth from coming out at all, and sharply curtail reporters from expressing political opinions.

BUT, the thing is, these people are loaded with political opinions, 95% of them liberal. And they want to get their opinions out.

Actually, I think it's better they blow off steam by dishonestly posing under different names on blogs than stealthilly larding their liberal political slant into supposedly objective news stories.

FREE THE LIBERAL MEDIA!

LET THEM SPEAK THEIR MINDS!

STOP CHILLING THEIR RIGHT TO DISSENT!

FREE SPEECH, FREE EXPRESSION, FREE REPORTERS!

FREE THE LIBERAL MEDIA!

This dishonest regime of official institutional squelching of reporters' flagrantly liberal opinions in the interest of perpetuating an "objective news reportage" lie has got to end. It's untenable and unstable, and you have poor, psychologically-damaged jackasses like Michael Hiltzak being hurt by it.

It's like poor HAL in 2001: A Space Oddessey. We learn in the sequel that he went mad because his superiors (programmers) ordered him to lie, and we all saw how that turned out.

Allahpallooza.

Posted by: Ace at 07:01 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.