OK .. here are all the links .. it's big
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620436/posts?page=197#197
Clinton Ignored CIA Opinion
He pardoned Navy analyst who leaked secret photos to media
Vernon Loeb, Washington Post
Sunday, February 18, 2001
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/18/MN46163.DTL
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620009/posts?page=29#29 To: MNJohnnie; Howlin; kcvl; Mo1
I’m wondering if McCarthy wasn’t a political appointee (short termer), who then got transformed into a permanent bureaucrat by Clinton, right before he left office?
It sure sounds like she might have been:
Her appointment by Berger:
News from the USIA Washington File
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/06/98061701_tpo.html Article on the Clinton miracle:
Insight on the News: Hey, Orkin Man! - political appointees becoming part of the bureaucracy
http://www.looksmartbonds.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_39_16/ai_66356292 “Between October 1998 and June of this year, 57 people appointed to their high positions by the White House, usually because of their ideological affinity with the president, underwent sudden, seemingly miraculous, transformations into professional civil servants, according to a General Accounting Office (GAO) study. Although not unknown during other administration changeovers, the practice of “burrowing-in” is being watched closely by some on Capitol Hill who worry not only about whether it’s unfair to career civil servants and violates merit-system protections but whether the lingering presence of such moles might not leave an indelible ideological stamp on the supposedly nonpartisan machinery of government.”
29 posted on 04/23/2006 4:52:23 PM EDT by Sam Hill
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