[...} fired Mary McCarthy ‘CATEGORICALLY DENIES’ being the source of the leak on agency renditions.

msnbc/ Newsweek ^ | April 24, 2006 | Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff

[Roscoe Karns]

WEB EXCLUSIVE

By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff

Updated: 5:43 p.m. ET April 24, 2006

April 24, 2006 - A former CIA officer who was sacked last week after allegedly confessing to leaking secrets has denied she was the source of a controversial Washington Post story about alleged CIA secret detention operations in Eastern Europe, a friend of the operative told NEWSWEEK.

The fired official, Mary O. McCarthy, “categorically denies being the source of the leak,” one of McCarthy’s friends and former colleagues, Rand Beers, said Monday after speaking to McCarthy. Beers said he could not elaborate on this denial and McCarthy herself did not respond to a request for comment left by NEWSWEEK on her home answering machine. A national security advisor to Democratic Party candidate John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign, Beers worked as the head of intelligence programs on President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council staff and later served as a top deputy on counter-terrorism for President Bush in 2002 and 2003. McCarthy, a career CIA analyst, initially worked as a deputy to Beers on the NSC and later took over Beer’s role as the Clinton NSC’s top intelligence expert.

[Miss Marple]

As far as I know, Tenet was the only one who was held over, and if you think about how contentious the confirmation prpocesses were (remember Mueller came on after Freeh resigned only a couple of days before 9/11) it makes sense that the President would delay replacing Tenet for a bit. Then after 9/11 he really couldn't do it for a while. Tenet is now gone, and Goss is doing a good job.

It's just that so many people think that the President could fire all democrats in the government. He can't. And most of the damage is coming from leaks from mid-level people whose names we wouldn't even recognize. And it isn't only CIA. Ashcroft dealt with it in the Justice Department, the EPA is full of greenie bureaucrats, and even the Pentagon has democrats who leak. BUT, unless they are cauught leaking or embezzling or something, they can't be fired.

[Taliesan]

You said that already, thanks.

However, it misses the point, which is: the pattern (observed by MANY conservative commentators) in the Bush administration of discovering at politically awkward times subversive hold-overs from the previous administration.

Explain the pattern.

You mentioned McCarthy and Plame.

Explain this to me:

1. In October 1998, President Bill Clinton appointed Rand Beers Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotic and Law Enforcement Affairs.

2. Beers was assigned to counterterrorism in the George W. Bush White House.

How does that happen?

How does Richard Clarke happen?

I like George Bush and would vote for him again today, but his administration has done a DEMONSTRABLY incompetent job of having people around him WHO SUPPORT HIS POLICIES.

[Miss Marple]

Beers and Clarke were held over in the NSC because during a transition you MUST have some sort of continuity. The same thing was done when Bill Clinton took over from Dad Bush.

You will note that neither Beers or Clarke were fired. Clarkle was a civil servant who resiiigned. Beers I think was in the same position at that time, although I would have to go back and look.

Also, hindsight's fine, but who would have thought that the Mr. Peepers-type Richard Clarke would suddenly, after PRAISING President Bush, go bonkers and side with the MSM and Kerry?

[Grampa Dave]

Kudos to Rush's people and thanks to you for posting them.

[XenaLee]

But then....aren't ALL leftist DemRats?

"Rand Beers is an admitted documented liar."

[XenaLee]

This stuff/bs has been going on for decades. What's ironic is that in THIS instance, the DemRats aren't even in control of the government, as they were in the past.

And yet....it appears that nothing, as usual, will be done about it other than the customary slap on the wrist for the leftists. Look how Teddy 'Hic' Kennedy got off without even a charge of manslaughter (at the very least).

The question we should be asking Bush and Co. now is...

WHY do we allow the leftist traitors to get off easily? What exactly is the reason for letting them off vs. throwing them in jail as the law demands?




"When these type things happen and our government doesn't come down on these people hard, it just tells others they can get away with it, IMO.

These people have to be made examples of, if they are it will turn a lot of this type behavior around."

[greyfoxx39]

This stuff/bs has been going on for decades. What's ironic is that in THIS instance, the DemRats aren't even in control of the government, as they were in the past.

Try telling that to Harry Reid, et. al.

[piasa]

Beers was appointed originally, but like a number of others Clinton's parting shot was to change his clingons - including Beers- from the status of mere appointees to that of civil servants [unionized, legally protected and ready to get lawyered up] in order to insure they couldn't be easily removed by the next president. Clinton did this for his special NSC personnel for a reason otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to get their designations changed.

About all you can do with such critters is to wait for them to screw up, or failing that evidence, promote them sideways to somewhere they can do less harm. You can also create parallel departments and offices in which to install your own people while leaving clingons in place, preventing them from having any justifiable complaints to use against you in court, a place they would take you if they were fired without reason or charged with something. They can squeal to the press if they are careful about what they squeal, but they won't have their accustomed access any more as they have been bypassed. Bush has indeed used the sideways promotion method and also created parallel departments- hence the transfer of much of our intel analysis to Feith's office at DoD, or the creation of a Homeland Security Department, bypassing a number of civil servant holdovers.

That's why we see so many "former officials" whining so much- they have been marginalized and couldn't stand it so they quit and are taking whatever handouts publishers and the DNC and others will offer for their testimony. [See the former ambassador Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, Beers, McGovern, Susan Rice among others] Those who didn't quit are being shunned, and some are reacting by doing stupid things that finally give the administration the opportunity to lawfully go after them and remove them. When this happens it ends up in the press as in the case of Mary McCarthy or Dickerson, etc.

[eureka!]

"Everyone, look at Macs Mind latest blog here about this story. He has some great inside sources, and he states she signed a confesson. "

Good blog. I see where your optimism comes from...

[piasa]

WHY do we allow the leftist traitors to get off easily? What exactly is the reason for letting them off vs. throwing them in jail as the law demands?

The same reason that some terrorists are deported to other countries rather than being charged and tried here- when you charge someone with a crime they have the right to defend themselves, and our court system can be strikingly lenient with defense attorney's requests.

Firing people gives them the opportunity to bring forward a lawsuit. Firing them and prosecuting them without heeding the timing of the charges and what other harm can be done most certainly result in a trial full of bigger leaks which could do even more harm than the person did as an employee.

One tactic defense attorneys use in situations involving national security is to claim they need to get the testimony of people with covert status - assets and agents, or claim they need access to an unlimited supply of classified documents to present a defense. [See the Sami al Arian case for examples] If their request is granted then this puts human assets at great risk of exposure, and that could get critical people killed. If their request is denied they can claim their client is getting railroaded.

In some cases the documented info's utility or the asset's useful employment is over anyway or has already been exposed; in this case it does no harm to let the defense try to make use of it if they will. But in many cases today, other investigations of equal or greater import could be harmed by release of info even in a secure court situation. Operations could be harmed. The release of information to possibly far-left defense attorneys could expose the assets of our allies as well as out own people. Sometimes justice only has to wait until there is a better time for a case to go to trial. Sometimes it just has to wait because there are greater matters. Remember, not only can lawyers be less than reliable when it comes to secrecy, thay can do great harm - see the case of the 1993 WTC bombing & lawyer Lynne Stewart, who became a conduit for a terrorist to use at will. We also have a justice system which is chock full of life-appointed judges who shouldn't have ever been appointed, much less be given access to classified evidence.

[cookcounty]

"Rand says she did not leak "

........and Rand Beers would KNOW because.............?

....He has a ready supply of leakers working in the CIA?????

[cookcounty]

"Just part of Hillary's criminal gang."

The Goober Gang, which subscribes to the theory that Iraqi nuclear scientists on a military trade mission to uranium-rich Niger are more likely to be shopping for peanuts than uranium.

.....which the dopes in the DBM (Drive-by-Media) believe completely.

[cookcounty]

" She failed a polygraph. Even if she isnt the one who told Priest, someone did with leaked information. If this was a sting, and that info was farmed out to individuals with variances in the story line, and hers was the version that came back, she's busted.."

I honestly believe the whole prisons thing may have been a sting. The whole story is so lacking in detail and the EU investigators (Are you kidding? The Gitmo complainers?) ----can't find any trace of this program.

[FormerACLUmember]

"The Goober Gang, which subscribes to the theory that Iraqi nuclear scientists on a military trade mission to uranium-rich Niger are more likely to be shopping for peanuts than uranium. .....which the dopes in the DBM (Drive-by-Media) believe completely."

The DMB (I love your term) are malicious and part of the endless Big Lie propaganda unit of the democrat party.

[cookcounty]

" Either Rand Beers is subbing for David Gergen, or the Clinton/Kerry Mafia has a 'batting order' for marching their liars in front of the TV cameras and this time it's his turn..."

Gergen, who is always troubled by the Republicans' "timing," but who is reliably never troubled by Democrats' "timing."

[the Real fifi]

I am interested in knowing when she returned to the Agency's IG office from CSIS. If anyone comes across any reliable information on that point, please mail it to me.

THANKS!

[tgslTakoma]

This first one is good, but could use some updates/additions...

[staytrue]

what are you referring to ?

[tgslTakoma]

Sorry about that. The "Democrats" banner in post #60. Kristinn was going to send you a Freepmail... I guess he hasn't yet.

[staytrue]

Nice banner in 60. I can print it, but it is only marginally media related.