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."
Updates soon.