Posted on 04/22/2006 12:03:40 PM PDT by Uncledave
Who is Mary McCarthy?
Well, as of this morning (Saturday) most of the big media don't care. They're fixated with the weather and gas prices — and anything else that will divert the public's attention from the stunning revelation that a Sandy Berger crony has apparently been leaking top-secret information from her high post at the CIA. The media will continue to downplay this story as they cover-up their own role in exposing our nation's secrets, including the supposed existence of CIA prisons in Europe. She'll be called a "whistleblower" and praised as some kind of patriot (a patriot, in the eyes of the media, is anybody who undermines this administration and the war effort by leaking national security secrets to them). They will downplay that McCarthy was a Clintonoid who somehow managed to land a top post at the CIA, ultimately winding up in the CIA's Inspector General's Office, from where she could monitor CIA internal investigations of, well, leaks, among other things.
The news spin, to the extent attention is being paid to this by the big media outlets, is that McCarthy's firing is unprecedented! Or it's Bush's fault! In one of the most absurd comments by any newsman anywhere, Newsbusters.org notes that Bob Schieffer of CBS Evening News asserted that “it is no secret that the current administration does not like its people hanging out with news reporters without permission” and he described the firing as “a first — a dubious first, to be sure.” Here. Is this guy for real?
If she leaked she must be charged. I wonder what Schieffer would say then? I suppose he would urge that she receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. After all, the Washington Post's Dana Priest, who apparently served as McCarthy's stenographer, was just awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
I must say, however, that the media's sickening hypocrisy knows no bounds. They came to the defense of Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, who worked behind-the-scenes to get her husband that “fact-finding” trip to Niger. They demanded an investigation into who “leaked” Plame’s identity to Bob Novak — which ensnared their own reporters. They hoped they would critically wound the president, and they failed. Clearly Plame was not undercover and the revelation of her identity was not a crime. Lewis Libby now stands accused of lying about a crime that never occurred and the media think that’s a good thing.
Now comes Mary McCarthy, who apparently leaked real classified national-security secrets and the media largely dismiss it or defend it. They have no curiosity about McCarthy, the extent of her leaks, to whom she leaked (beyond Priest, did she leak to other reporters, members of Congress, other governments?), how she secured top security posts, and her ties to the Clinton administration. Surely there is every reason the government should pursue this investigation at least as vigorously as the Plame matter has been pursued. Dana Priest, among others, should have her day before a grand jury.
And watch the congressional Democrats follow the media’s lead. Long ago they put party and power above victory in this war. McCarthy’s ties to Clinton threaten to take attention from their unrelenting attack on the Bush administration and their claims of incompetence in the management of the war, which they see as their ticket to majority status in 2006.
Putting that aside, the discovery of McCarthy does make you wonder how many more of her ilk have squirreled themselves into the bureaucracy, from where they seek to undermine the country.
One big problem we have is that Republican "leadership" lives in such fear of angering Democrats and their media that they enable the behavior.
In the past an incident like this would have led to plea bargaining which would have led to a whole nest of rats being drowned, but after the Sandy Berger incident she can safely conclude that only empty threats will be made to persuade her to talk.
Thanks for the ping Fudd. We can count on Mark Levin to
keep this up front on his radio program etc.
"Clinton happens!"
LOL
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Martha: Truth and illusion, George. You don't know the difference.
George: No, but we must carry on as though we did.
BTTT
They don't want to.
Their nests are already feathered.
Our Republic is closer to the old USSR than anyone will admit. Granted, a different MO, but the same none the less.
Do you honestly think we couldn't stop the flow of drugs into this country in a heartbeat? Do you honestly think we couldn't stop the flow of illegals into this country in a heartbeat? Do you honestly think that the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court was some kind of accident? Do you honestly think that GWB signed CFR relying on the Supreme Court to strike it down as "unconstitutional"? Why the hell did he sign it in the first place? Do you honestly think that NAFTA and CAFTA are not further moves to remove or sovreignty as a nation?
I could go on and on, but I've got coffee brewing........I woke up and smelled it...Can you?
FMCDH(BITS)
LOL!!!
MY wife and I loved that movie.
And your bringing it up brings back a memory to me.
We had three books that offered very short and sometimes hilarious summaries of Hollywood movies through the years.
Here is what one of the books said about "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?".
****
"Two couples get together for an evening of bitter conversation."
ROFL Somehow, that strikes me as funny. We thought it was so funny, that we cut it out of the book and framed it. The words are in a very tiny 18th century antique frame, about 3" x 2", and the words themselves are even smaller inside it. But, every time we see it sitting on our den's mantle, it makes us laugh just a little.
;-)
Did you happen to see the way SeeBS just covered this story. It was a complete coverup, lies and a Bash Bush Festival. It was disgusting!!!
I never watch SeeBs. What happened?
I could really not believe what I was hearing. It was directly opposite of the truth!
If I run into more specific stuff on that "report" I will pass it along.
But honestly......... it was really disgusting and I am very angry at this media BIAS!.
****
The socialist/marxist/liberal media is the most destructive, relentless, and ruthless enemy of this Republic.
You know even though we know they are going to lie about anything they don't agree with it's still sickening when it actually happens.
Please post if you remember or hear anything else. Thanks.
Just remember they are hypocrites; Investigate the Bush administration because they THINK he leaked, but excuse the REAL leaker of operational material that could get someone killed. They have no credibility whatsoever. They also don't care what harm it does to this country which makes me sick!
bttt
Bush's first great push was to be filling his cabinet...that took the first 2 months of his administration. Gore's stalling in Florida over the election 2000 consumed half of the customary transition time new Presidents have before the inauguration.
For crying out loud, you make my point. The Clintons were scouring things down to the TRAVEL OFFICE! They asked every US Attorney to resign their office.
The Clintons hit the ground running. The Bush administration got caught sleeping. Distractions are no excuse.
bttt
It is also elmental to remember the context of 2000-2001.
A heated Court Battle in which Gore tried to steal the election that polarized the country. Time to prepare for transition was shortened considerably, Clinton kept the funds unavailable. When he was sworn in he was in a battle with the Congress to confirm his nominees for Cabinet positions. They were forced to clean up a mess left behind by Clintons and their staffers. Not the least of which was the childish removal of the letter "W" from keyboards. Let alone attempting to catch up on what the Clinton's had done (or didn't do) while in office and make sense of policies and right them where necessary. All this and then September 11th hits.
Under the circumstances while hindsight says he should have cleaned house, that hindsight is without benefit of the unusual challanges the Bush administration faced upon entering office vs the circumstances that awaited Clinton, 41, Reagan, and Carter. Firing Clinton appointees wasn't a high priority at the time.
This doesn't mean he couldn't have done so after the 2004 elections however. That would have been the ideal time, when events had settled somewhat and his election safely behind him.
Thank you. You said it best and most detailed. Well done.
(the lack of reaction of the MSM is rather amazing here, isn't it?)
They have to get their 'talking points' in place, just as soon as they have their marching orders you're probably going to hear a lot of the phrases 'Whistleblower', 'dutiful servant', 'servant of the people', 'devoted mother', 'victim of this administration', blah, blah and blah.
It should start tomorrow but it may take them longer because they'll have to be careful who they talk to and there is a lot of scrambling to be done by the affected politicians. It's going to be a hot summer and it's not about global warming.
No one was asleep. As the poster took you point by point to illustrate. And I love the fact you classify a terrorist attack and the 2000 election aftermath as a simple "distraction". It shows your mindset quite clearly.
It is absurd to even compare a peaceful transition of power between 41 and Clinton to what accompanied the transition of Clinton to 43.
"Distractions"?
Did you read my post? The "distractions" faced by the Bush team were unprecedented in scope and urgency. Maybe his urgency to keep a major campaign promise to cut taxes, to revamp the economy and head off recession before Congress went on summer break...was a bit indulgent. Maybe he should have been ordering his newly hired Cabinet to immediately fire every political appointee...and writing SOP for who got to check out the keys to the White House tennis court.
Especially 9-11 ...not 8 months after Bush took office....4 months after many of his cabinet were initially installed. One thing you don't have the luxury of doing when war strikes...is to fire and replace your intelligence and foreign policy experts. I guess most people have forgotten how in additon to other "distractions" faced in the first year in office, the Bush team had to avert a feared nuclear war between Pakistan and India, in addition to gearing up for a preemptive war to head off more terror attack on the US mainland.
Granted Clinton's team was ruthless and focused on rooting out "the opposition" (republicans) from his government.....or at least, the co-President Hillary was.
Remember Clinton's first priority and first major action when he took power? Instituting "dont ask, don't tell" in the Les Aspin military. Now there was manly leadership in personnel matters....
Thank YOU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.