The Leftist Defense Continues In, Shock!, the NYT

Colleagues Say CIA Analyst Played By the Rules

And with that headline, we're off!

In 1998, when President Bill Clinton ordered military strikes against a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan, Mary O. McCarthy, a senior intelligence officer assigned to the White House, warned the president that the plan relied on inconclusive intelligence, two former government officials said.

Ms. McCarthy's reservations did not stop the attack on the factory, which was carried out in retaliation for Al Qaeda's bombing of two American embassies in East Africa. But they illustrated her willingness to challenge intelligence data and methods endorsed by her bosses at the Central Intelligence Agency.

She's a bipartisan, apolitical call-'em-as-she-sees-'em maverick independent!

On Thursday, the C.I.A. fired Ms. McCarthy, 61, accusing her of leaking information to reporters about overseas prisons operated by the agency in the years since the Sept. 11 attacks. But despite Ms. McCarthy's independent streak, some colleagues who worked with her at the White House and other offices during her intelligence career say they cannot imagine Ms. McCarthy as a leaker of classified information.

She didn't do it! (But if she did do it, it was due to her courageous independent streak and high patriotism! But she didn't. Just saying-- if she did. Which she didn't.)

Others said it was possible that Ms. McCarthy, who began attending law school at night several years ago, made a campaign contribution to Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004 and had announced her intention to retire from C.I.A., had grown increasingly disenchanted with the often harsh and extra-legal methods adopted by the Bush administration for handling Al Qaeda prisoners and felt she had no alternative except to go to the press.

If she did do it -- which she didn't -- she had no alternative!

Further, it was her patriotism and uncompromising integrity that caused her to donate to John Kerry-- she had no alternative there, either! Before Bush offended her morals with his vile, illegal torture regime, she was apolitical! It was Bush who forced her to donate to Kerry!

Now we see why the New York Times only mentions this one 2004 donation to Kerry-- because a long history of donating to liberal causes and politicians would tend to undermine their story that she only became a political supporter of Kerry because she was offended by Bush's secret prisons.

And not the other way around-- that she only became offended by Bush's secret prisons because she was a political supprter of Kerry (and other Democrats, of course).

She was known as a low-key during her time at the white house as professional who paid special attention to preventing leaks of classified information and covert operations, several current and former government officials said. When she disagreed with decisions on intelligence operations, they say, she registered her complaints through internal government channels.

She was perfectly willing to scrupulously follow secrecy laws, even when she opposed the policy-- that is, at least, until Bush so flagrantly violated the Constitution he left her with no other alternative!

And etc.

So.

Fucking.

God-Damned.

Predictable.

And So Fucking God-Damned Dishonest, Too: Funny that the NYT doesn't inform us that one of the chief defenders of McCarthy in that article was also a passionate supporter of John Kerry determined to change Bush's foreign policy by any means necessary.

As Marion Ravenwood said, "I guess it must have just slipped his mind."

Can't Find... Contributions from the various McCarthyites in the article. Maybe a reader will have better luck.

I'm looking for Rand Beers, Steven Simon, H. Andrew Schwartz. I'm not bothering with Larry Johnson, as I'm pretty sure I'll get hits on that one. Even if I didn't, he's an open partisan.

Maybe another reader or blogger will have better luck.

Dishonest... And Dumb, Too: So the New York Times herald's McCarthy for her "independent streak" and courage in defying the company line as regards the al-Shaifa bombing, which she strongly counseled against, huh?

Really?

Turns out that when Clinton's actions were questioned, she gladly signed her name to the company position:

The report of the 9/11 Commission notes that the National Security staff reviewed the intelligence in April 2000 and concluded that the CIA's assessment of its intelligence on bin Laden and al-Shifa had been valid; the memo to Clinton on this was cosigned by Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director for intelligence programs, who opposed the bombing of al-Shifa in 1998. The report also notes that in their testimony before the commission, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, George Tenet, and Richard Clarke all stood by the decision to bomb al-Shifa.

She's highly principled and above politics -- until a politician she favors is caught dirty, in which case principles go out the window and partisan interest is the watchword.

Thanks to Brad for that.

posted by Ace at 02:41 PM

| Access Comments