That wouldn't be the Juan Williams of the Brookings Institute, and the Washington Post, would it?
Posted on 04/24/2006 6:41:03 AM PDT by Quilla
"It isn't just the CIA that has problems with former politicals getting knee-deep into this Administration's policy and leaking materials," says a current Bush Administration aide. "We're talking about a situation that we haven't been able to deal with in a manner in which we'd want. But this Mary McCarthy case may help us."
The aide is referring to the firing last week of a CIA employee working in the agency's Office of Inspector General. One of McCarthy's jobs was investigating allegations of torture by CIA employees or contractors at Iraqi prisons. The CIA fired McCarthy on evidence that she was one of the sources for Washington Post reporter Dana Priest's report on so-called "Black Site" prisons in Europe and elsewhere that housed captured al Qaeda, Taliban, and some senior Iraqi military and intelligence individuals.
Unresolved is whether McCarthy also leaked material to the left-wing organization, Human Rights Watch, which clearly was also a key source to Priest. (Note this quote in Priest's now-Pulitzer Prize winning story: "'I remember asking: What are we going to do with these people?' said a senior CIA officer. 'I kept saying, where's the help? We've got to bring in some help. We can't be jailers -- our job is to find Osama.'" Was this McCarthy?)
McCarthy's background is just becoming increasingly fleshed out, including her ties to former National Security Advisor Sandy "Sox" Berger and the Clinton White House. McCarthy was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs by Berger in 1998. She replaced Rand Beers.
According to former Kerry campaign staffers, Beers, who served as a senior adviser to Kerry's campaign, spoke of having continued access to CIA and national security data from former colleagues still in government.
"He said he still had friends willing to help the Kerry campaign from inside," says a former staffer. "We always assumed that guys like Beers and Berger were in touch with these people. I'm not talking about having secure material leaked to us, but our national security folks always seemed to be in the know." The former staffer said he never recalled mention of any names.
But all of this is now past tense, and the White House, as well as senior staff at the Departments of Justice, State, and Defense, are attempting to identify possible leakers among their own career staffs with access to information that might be helpful to Democrats or the press.
Of greatest concern is the Department of Justice, the nexus of many terrorism and national security cases that would involve the White House, Defense and State Departments, as well as briefings on Capitol Hill to congressional leadership.
"We know we have people leaking materials. It's been an ongoing problem, but until someone has taken the first step, and the McCarthy case would appear to be the first step, it's hard to move against career staff," says a current Defense Department staffer. "We have an IG looking at all kinds of things right now. Perhaps we'll get some movement."
Don't kid yourself. It's naive to believe that with the GOP in charge of the Presidency, the House & Senate that it was the media or the dems that let Sandy Berger off. Some kind of deal was done, and it still stinks to high heaven. I'm convinced that some heavy duty blackmail and/or threats from Clinton's goon/hit squad are involved. And no, I'm not wearing a tin foil hat!
She needs to get the Rosenberg treatment.
Check out this post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1619050/posts?page=2693#2693
To: Mo1; Peach
Clinton Veto Statement (notice the date)
For Immediate Release November 4, 2000
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Today, I am disapproving H.R. 4392, the "Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001," because of one badly flawed provision that would have made a felony of unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Although well intentioned, that provision is overbroad and may unnecessarily chill legitimate activities that are at the heart of a democracy.
~~~~~SNIP~~~~~~~
Similarly, the legislation may unduly restrain the ability of former Government officials to teach, write, or engage in any activity aimed at building public understanding of complex issues. Incurring such risks is unnecessary and inappropriate in a society built on freedom of expression and the consent of the governed and is particularly inadvisable in a context in which the range of classified materials is so extensive. In such circumstances, this criminal provision would, in my view, create an undue chilling effect.
2,693 posted on 04/24/2006 9:54:14 AM EDT by JaneAustin
That wouldn't be the Juan Williams of the Brookings Institute, and the Washington Post, would it?
Juan looked like he was ready for the padded room yesterday. Did you notice the look on Brit's face when Juan was ranting? It was a "This guy is losing it" look.
I would agree, as long as when they're done they disband the ATF and offer all those ATF agents the opportunity to go patrol the border.
I fear you are correct. I don't understand why she wasn't arrested on the spot. It seems that this Admisistration just doesn't have the stomach for going after these traitors. I will NEVER understand the Berger wrist-slap.
BTTT
You don't want to expect a media, who has played footsie with subversive foreign communists since the twenties, to be any different.
It's not hatred for Bush, necessarily, it is hatred for democracy, capitalism, and freedom.
Bush us just the target de jour.
Execution. I'm serious. We are at war.
Did you see how they all jumped on him? Great!
If he was making a point about "following your conscience" and being willing to suffer the consequences of breaking the law (sounds like aiding our enemies in time of war to me!), he's on very dangerous ground. Anyone could use that as an excuse to do ANYTHING, if they are willing to suffer the legal consequences. I'm sure many domestic terrorists have said their acts of violence were "dictated by their conscience."
The hand over the mouth? I saw it.
I was probably doing the same thing, at home.
Will the Justice Department prosecute?
How about those Rosenbergs Juan?
"this HOT potato is being swept under the rug"
Yes, not a word this morning on the morning shows. F & F talked about it of, course, but nothing on the liberal msm.
Liberals are sickening and dangerous. Yes, I saw that pitiful Juan Williams appearance. He's a nut. I swear they are ALL nuts.
Any lie, wet dream or any violation of our secrets acts to weaken America and to continue their electronic coup against President Bush.
Why do you guys give credibility to this show by watching it. Don't you come away more distraught than before? Give it up. Let their ratings drop UNTIL they rid it of the likes of that leftist Juan.
Execution is indeed the punishment for espionage, as was given to the Rosenbergs. My question for Ms. McCarthy and her pals is this: if you now have the power to decide what national security secrets can be revealed to the media, no matter how much this aids and abets the enemies of the United States, and no matter your own oath of office or laws you are sworn to uphold, what is stopping any ordinary American citizen from meting out the proper punishment for such espionage to YOU? Laws are mere formalities, right? So anyone can shoot you on the street and be within his rights as an American protecting his country from traitors. See where this leads?
Why? Let the liberals like Juan express theirselves so that the people can see what they are like.
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.