Posted on 04/24/2006 8:26:36 PM PDT by STARWISE
Investigation 'not over yet,' officials say
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A U.S. official told CNN on Monday that the CIA officer fired for leaking classified information was accused of a "pattern of behavior," including multiple contacts with more than one reporter.
Sources also confirmed to CNN that the officer fired last Thursday is Mary O. McCarthy, who last worked in the CIA inspector general's office.
"It's not just about one story, it's a pattern of activity," the official said.
Officials said the investigation into leaking to Dana Priest of The Washington Post, and other journalists, is ongoing. "It is not over yet," said one.
McCarthy admitted to multiple unauthorized contacts with journalists after failing a polygraph test, one of "dozens" conducted at the CIA since January of personnel knowledgeable about compromised programs, sources said. Those who took polygraph tests included CIA Director Porter Goss and the agency's inspector general, John Helgerson, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
A congressional aide said that prior to the public revelation that a CIA employee had been fired, the intelligence committees were only told the person was a 61-year-old female in the inspector general's office.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Think Rocky's quaking .... just a teeny bit?
It sure is treason to me.
A leak here, a leak there, we don't care. Only if you keep leaking and leaking and leaking and leaking and...
Yup -
I'm big on "eerie" & "beautiful"
Just not in the same female.....
What is the keyword for these threads?
*Color me confused*
That's been their objective since the 1920s.
That's when they got enamored with communism and they have never abandoned the ideology since.
It fits very well with their quest for total power.
Starwise that is an excellent graphic, did you make it?
FOTFLOL!
Lord have mercy.
Poor woman's face reads like 40 miles of tough road.
Care to guess her age?
The dumbass dems screaming leaks leaks leaks has come back to BITE 'EM HARD....
Rockefeller did you "teller?"- XII- The Coming Storm for Democrats
As you read here first, this summer is going to be a bad one for a certain group of Democrats, the beginning of the end is the discovery of Mary O. McCarthy and her acts of treason. To answer some emails, yes according to sources Mary will be prosecuted. I doubt that she will actually see trial as she will most likely squeal and squeal loudly.
Now for the fallout.
Her capture is key because of her connections to other key democrats. As Washington insiders know, no one 'politics' in a vaccuum, just as it was impossible that no one in Washington circles didn't know of Valerie Plame's job, so too Mary Loose Lips didn't have to look too far for pass information to.
Read the complete post here....http://macsmind.blogspot.com/
61 but she has been ridden hard by her left wing friends and put away wet to dry in the wind too many times.
As you said the other thread. Just a little butchie, there, Mary.
The close up in the other post is just devastating.
"Mr. De Mille, I am NOT ready for my close-up" lol
No .. it's a snagged treasure .. ;)
Mary McCarthy. I sure miss the old subject headings at the top .. but her name is over at the right.
Wilsongate: Motive, Means, and Opportunity
Four days after his Nightline appearance with Levin, Wilson made his first public statement on the Niger forgeries, prompted by CNN’s David Ensor, who was investigating the origin of the forgeries.181
Ensor’s prompting was intended to get Wilson to comment on a quote the March 8 The Washington Post writer Joby Warrick attributed to an anonymous “U.S. official”.
Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away--including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said. “We fell for it,” said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.182
Several things are striking about Warrick’s quote. For one thing, six weeks earlier on January 26, 2003, another Post writer, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, had quoted someone else saying something remarkably similar to the March 8 statement of the anonymous “U.S. official”:
The Iraqi government believes it has done enough to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors and now regards a war with the United States as almost inevitable, a top adviser to President Saddam Hussein said today. Providing a rare glimpse into the strategic thinking of Hussein's secretive, authoritarian government, his chief adviser on weapons issues, Gen. Amir Saadi, suggested Iraq would not alter its policy toward the inspections and overall disarmament. Although U.N. and U.S. officials demand that the government work actively to resolve conflicts over the private questioning of scientists, the handover of documents and a host of other issues, Iraq believes that it is already "doing all the things we think can prevent war," he said. . .Administration officials also contend they have strong evidence that Iraq has active programs to manufacture chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. But Saadi dismissed those claims, noting that allegations advanced by the administration last year that Iraq was using imported aluminum tubes to enrich uranium have largely been dismissed by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
"It was a lie and they fell for it," he said.183
It is also interesting that although Warrick’s Post article does not name the anonymous official, Joseph Wilson is more specific. In his book he says it is a “State Department spokesman”:
. . .I was on the set of CNN, waiting to do an interview, when David Ensor, a CNN national security reporter, happened by. He was looking at the story with an eye out for the perpetrators of the forgeries and asked me what I knew about the Niger uranium business. I told him that as far as I knew, the State Department spokesman had not spoken accurately. . .As I sat there in the green room, I concluded that the U.S. government had to be held to account. It was unacceptable to lie about such an important issue.
I told Ensor that I would be helpful in his efforts to ferret out the truth, and offered to answer a question or two on the air and to provide leads to him. While I was not willing at that stage to disclose my own involvement, it was not a difficult decision to make, to point others in the right direction. The essential information--the forged documents--was already in the public domain; the State Department spokesman had purposely deceived the public in his response, or else he himself had been deceived. Whichever the case, in my mind it was essential that the record be corrected.
When I went on the air, the CNN newscaster, prompted by Ensor, asked me about the “We fell for it” line. . .184
Elsewhere Wilson names the State Department spokesman he has in mind:
Wilson says he let the matter drop until he saw State Department spokesman Richard Boucher say a few months later that the U.S. had been fooled by bad intelligence. It was then that Wilson says he realized that his report had been overlooked, ignored, or buried.185
Thus, Wilson’s first comments on the Niger forgeries represent a convergence of several curious items rolled into one:
1) Wilson’s fingering of Richard Boucher as the anonymous source for Warrick’s Washington Post quote;
2) Wilson’s prompting by CNN, a network which seems to have inherited its founder Ted Turner’s antiwar spin and anti-Israeli bias;186 and
3) Warrick’s attribution to an anonymous source of a phrase strikingly similar to that of an Iraqi spokesman quoted six weeks earlier by Chandrasekaran in the Post, a prime mover in the Watergate coup against Richard Nixon.187
If the public were not regularly assured that the Post and CNN like Joseph Wilson are non-partisan victims of a right-wing smear campaign, someone might begin to suspect the trio were up to something here--particularly in light of Walter Pincus’ revelation of the behind-the-scenes role of Bob Woodward, who coincidentally has recently released an insider account of the Bush administration along with his latest work of fiction about Deep Throat,188 in the wake of John Dean coming forward to declare that Plamegate is worse than Watergate.189
Was Wilson already playing “Deep Throat II” by the time of his March 8, 2003 CNN interview? If so, for information he purported to have about the Niger forgeries beyond his own personal knowledge of his February 2002 trip--made over half a year before Martino’s documents entered US intelligence files in October--he would have had to have had access to other sources of information about the Niger forgeries. By what means could Wilson have obtained such information?
SNIP
Wilson’s leaks did not occur in a vacuum. They were concurrent with the leaks to Britain’s BBC and Guardian that prompted Blair supporter John Reid to complain on June 3, 2003 that “rogue elements” in the intelligence community were out to smear Blair.201 Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, Ensor followed up his March 8, 2003 interview with Wilson with a March 14 interview of VIPS’ Ray Close, who had been writing on the Niger forgeries since March 10.202
SNIP
Bad link there ;).
No wonder liberal guys are so depressed. Can you imagine going to bed with one of those hags and waking up every morning with her looking even worse after the Gunnite makeup wore off.
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.