Colleagues Say C.I.A. Analyst Played by Rules (NYT in Spin Mode over Mary O. McCarthy)

The New York Slimes ^ | 22 April 2006 | DAVID S. CLOUD

[demlosers]

WASHINGTON, April 22 — 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.

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.

As a senior National Security Council aide for intelligence from 1996 to 2001, she was responsible for guarding some of the nations most sensitive secrets.

"We're talking about a person with great integrity who played by the book and, as far as I know, never deviated from the rules," said Steven Simon, a National Security Council aide in the Clinton administration who worked closely with Ms. McCarthy.

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 go to the press.

[Dog]

And the Driveby media launches their much anticipated counter-attack..

[cardinal4]

As a senior National Security Council aide for intelligence from 1996 to 2001, she was responsible for guarding some of the nations most sensitive secrets.

Means nothing to a Democrat..

[newzjunkey]

It probably meant everything to her that a Democrat was in the White House during that time. Maybe she resented the apparent demotion?

[P-40]

I just posted something from the 9/11 Commission Report that will be of interest to this thread...

Page 117

Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director responsible for intelligence programs, initially cautioned Berger that the “bottom line” was that “we will need much better intelligence on this facility before we seriously consider any options.” She added that the link between Bin Ladin and al Shifa was “rather uncertain at this point.” Berger has told us that he thought about what might happen if the decision went against hitting al Shifa, and nerve gas was used in a New York subway two weeks later.44

Page 128

The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”109This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.”110This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.111

[FairOpinion]

Sure, she "played by the rules" when others were watching.

[mewzilla]

There are procedures for whistleblowers that protect them and the nation's security. She chose not to follow them.

And if she did this out of principle, why LIE about it when questioned? Especially since her LIES could've landed someone else's butt in a sling? Then again, why the heck would a woman who put the nation at risk by leaking operational info give a rat's behind about anyone else's keister.

Played by the rules...SNORT.

[MNJohnnie]

You do not get fired and removed from the premises under escort for "playing by the rules".

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I'll look forward to seeing her prosecuted to the full extent of the law and hustled off to prison. What a wonderful lesson for all the subversives throughout the government (CIA, FBI, State Department). The typical Demo response (what about the leaking of pre-war intelligence by the White House?) is so lame it doesn't even warrant a response.

[zeaal]

Well, it appears as though her colleagues are wrong about her.

[mcashman]

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 go to the press.

I suppose she had escalated her concerns up the chain of command and has documented responses on how hard she tried to be heard? (sarcasm off)

If she's such a "rule-book" fan, that would seem to be the way to go, followed by a conversation with the Intelligence Committee, followed by resigning in protest, while keeping this information secret forever. Am I missing something?

After all, the oath doesn't say, "you will keep secret everything except what you don't agree with", right?

[MNJohnnie]

There was no leak of pre war intelligence. For a group of people who scream about "the people's right to know" they sure have a selective sense of what information is to be reported. The Bush Admin released what info it felt could safely be declassified. Mary has no authority to release anything. It even funnier. "Played by the rules" by leaking fraudulent information? They are all dancing around the fact that the Junk Media STILL refused to admit it awarded a Pulitzer based on a LIE.

[Zeppo]

But they illustrated her willingness to challenge intelligence data and methods endorsed by her bosses at the Central Intelligence Agency.

That's a confusing statement. Was the CIA acting as Mary McCarthy's 'boss' in 1998? I don't think so. While the DCI is a member of the NSC, I would have thought that as a National Intelligence Officer she would not have reported to the CIA, but rather directly to the White House.

The New York Times couldn't be wrong, though, could it? They couldn't be shading their story to make her falsely appear to be a courageous womyn with a history of speaking truth to power, could they?

/sarcasm

[tazannie]

"you will keep secret everything except what you don't agree with",

I guess it depends on who's rules you play by.

[jazusamo]

Seems as though a negative polygraph and confession that she leaked classified info means nothing to her supporters. She lied but it was the truth.

[Doctor Raoul]

As a senior National Security Council aide for intelligence from 1996 to 2001, she was responsible for guarding some of the nations most sensitive secrets.<

So were the liberal media...

[popdonnelly]

"As a senior National Security Council aide for intelligence from 1996 to 2001, she was responsible for guarding some of the nations most sensitive secrets."

Is that supposed to be a laugh line. Sandy Berger was in charge of the National Security Council, and he thought nothing of carrying Top Secret documents out of the National Archives. To these people, I guess it all depends on what you think you can away with.

[Doctor Raoul]

She was CIA assigned to the NSC.

[Mo1]

As a senior National Security Council aide for intelligence from 1996 to 2001, she was responsible for guarding some of the nations most sensitive secrets.

And this leaker should scare the heck out of people

[BluH2o]

What gets lost in all of this ... a leaker at the CIA compromises other intelligence agencies allied with the USA. It makes them very reluctant to go out on a limb for the CIA, knowing there's a chance some disenfranchised upper echelon CIA type will be on the telephone, or e-mailing, the Washington Post or the NY Times with the latest operational details.