Replies

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013843.php

It's Hard to Keep Up...

...with the revelations coming out about Dana Priest, the Washington Post reporter who published the "secret prisons" story, and Mary McCarthy, the Democratic Party activist and now-fired CIA bureaucrat who leaked the story to Priest.

Sweetness & Light points out that Dana Priest is married to William Goodfellow, the Executive Director of the the Center for International Policy (CIP). At the top of its web site is CIP's mission statement: "Promoting a foreign policy based on cooperation, demilitarization and human rights." It appears that CIP's idea of "demilitarization and human rights" is best exemplified by Cuba.

Sweetness & Light goes on to hightlight connections among CIP, which operates The Iraq Policy Information Program, Joe Wilson, and Dana Priest. This is not just guilt by association: Priest herself participated in an anti-Iraq war program put on by her husband's group, CIP, along with Joe Wilson and other even more unsavory characters. (Via The Corner).

Then we have Ms. McCarthy, the CIA leaker, who turns out to be a substantial contributor to the Democratic Party. Andy McCarthy notes that the Washington Post has published a sympatetic portrait of McCarthy--who leaked, remember, to the Post, resulting in a story for which the Post won a Pulitzer Prize--which touts McCarthy as unbiased without ever mentioning that she was a Kerry supporter who has given up to $7,700 a year to Democratic candidates!

So we have a Democratic Party activist violating federal law by leaking classified information to an antiwar activist on the payroll of the Washington Post, which publishes the criminal leak and is awarded a prize by the left-wing Pulitzer committee.

Finally, several bloggers are speculating about the possibility that the whole "secret prisons" story might have been a sting operation by the CIA designed to catch a leaker. I don't think this can be true, based mosly on public statements that have been made by intelligence officials, but it is a curious fact that there doesn't seem to be any evidence for the existence of the secret prisons other than Dana Priest's story. Can it be that this is one secret the CIA has actually been able to keep, but for the leak?

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005051.htm

For all your latest Mary McCarthy updates, hit Flopping Aces, AJ Strata, The Belmont Club, Tom Maguire, Rick Moran, Thomas Joscelyn, Riehl World View, and Ace.

Ace points to an AP story on McCarthy getting fired...with a photograph of Lewis Libby:

Why Isn’t She in Cuffs?

MCCARTHY ON MCCARTHY: "Why isn't she in handcuffs?"

America's Red Army (Excellent list of organizations who will defend Mary McCarthy now)

Mary McCarthy and "Plastic Morality"

DOUBLE AGENT MARY M^cCARTHY

DEMOCRATS SELLING OUT AMERICA

Moves Signal Tighter Secrecy Within C.I.A.

Senators Rockefeller and Durbin May Take Polygraph Tests

The New McCarthyism

I was JUST reading "The New McCarthyism" (ref'd in your post) and went surfing around- and found this:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA366.html

If you scroll down to footnote #4 you will see William Goodfellow as one of the signers of this petition. The petition (must reading anyway) is an effort to persuade the administration NOT to use the military to go after bin Laden. This was in SEPTEMBER, 2001, within days of the terrorist attacks.

It's infuriating to read- but informative now to realize Goodfellow (husband of Dana Priest for those of you in Rio Linda) put himself squarely against not just Iraq, but Afghanistan as well.

Great job!!! You know that Sandy Burglar is the one who appointed McTraitor during the Clinton admin.?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1619296/posts

"Washington -- National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger announced June 16 the appointment of Mary O'Neil McCarthy as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs."

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/173170.php

"She was not some minor flunky. She was a major officer at the CIA, holding a very high position in the National Intelligence Council, and all the while a strong political partisan.

She was one of the top apparatchik in the CIA's liberal-wing's war against the Bush Administration.

When Bush was warned away from divulging any information that would support the case for war in Iraq, this little partisan bitch was one of the people warning him he couldn't say anything in his own defense. And when he would give a CIA-approved narrow statement about Iraq, it was nasty little partisan hacks like her immediately leaking to the press that everything the President just said was a lie.

Except it wasn't a lie. It was the CIA consensus position on an issue. It's just that Kerry-supportin' Mary disagreed with it.

And why did the 9/11 Commission, despite powerful evidence, conclude with the fudged-up language that there was no "operational" partnership between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Because high CIA officials like McCarthy told the Democratic staffers she had their back and would leak like a sieve against any conclusion that allowed for some degree of cooperation between the two.

This is pretty big. The liberal cabal in the CIA just lost one of its top guns for subverting the government that nominally is in charge of it.

This, by the way, was a bit of a tip-off that she didn't really accept the whole "secret" part of the CIA's mission. From her 9/11 testimony:

The Congress, too, has a role in warning. Unlike other functions of democratic government, the conduct of intelligence is purposely-and with the consent of the public-carried out in secret, out of the view of public and without much public debate. Instead, Americans rely on their representatives in Congress to ensure that the intelligence function is performed, not only in a way that keeps us safe, but also in a way that is consistent with our democratic values.

Thus, the intelligence oversight committees have a heavy burden. Unlike other committees which regularly receive citizen input, and are assisted by the scrutiny of the public over "what the government is up to," the intelligence committees must depend on small staffs and input from the very agencies they are charged with overseeing.

And when Congress isn't holding Bush to account the way Mary McCarthy would like, she runs to the Washington Post to give the liberals in Congress the cover they need to go after him.

Dick Durbin wants to take on Bush over the prisons issues? Well, he can't, of course, at least not publicly. It's secret information, so Dick Durbin can't reveal it. He can argue about it behind closed doors, but what good does that do the liberals politically?

And so Mary McCarthy outs the information so that the Democrats can score their points without fear of being branded national-security leakers.

The game's up. You are now quite plainly out of your reckoning."

Mind in the Qatar"