Sounds like another neocon strategy of getting rid of all the non-believers. They've already smeared Mary McCarthy's reputation beyond repair.
Posted by Shawn at April 24, 2006 03:44 PMWhen Bush's appointed hitboy Goss starts going after CIA agents, they may get their hands full of very vocal Drumhellers who know where the real facts are buried. They are kicking a hornets nest here.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 24, 2006 04:04 PMMy guess is that there are a lot of mid-level US and state government workers that are simply fed up with the hidden criminal activities of the government.
Perhaps we need a National Sunshine Day (good day would be the summer solstice) on which everyone who is privy to government felonies posts them to the web along with pdfs of the documents that prove the wrongdoing in one great whistling whoosh of truth and a great rush of patriots reclaiming our democracy. Hopefully so many facts would come out that it would simply overwhelm those who seek to turn our nation into a dictatorship.
Just a thought from a very perturbed patriot.
let them kick. I think they just might have misundersestimated the integrity and strength of the Intelligence and Military communities. You fuck with them long enough, and they will fuck you back. These are men and women of honor, strength, and courage, true heros who are willing to take a bullet for their country, and they don't take kindly to being screwed. So keep kicking dipshits, keep kicking.
Posted by oppressmenot at April 24, 2006 04:15 PMSoto:
Don’t be surprised if McCarthy’s firing last week was a political hit by this administration because she was a Kerry supporter and was a holdover from the Clinton Administration.
Okay, but at the very least, she exemplifies the rationale that future Administrations will adopt for purging the ranks when they take over from the opposite party.
From the report:
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.
Rand Beers, eh? Ha, ha.
Isn't he on Joe and Valerie's Xmas card list, too?
The most disturbing part of this story, though, is that McCarthy's attorney's name is Ty Cobb.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 24, 2006 04:59 PMOkay, but at the very least, she exemplifies the rationale that future Administrations will adopt for purging the ranks when they take over from the opposite party.
Let's hope and pray that bu$h ends every shred of hope the rupubli-con party had for the future!
Who's idea was a pre-emptive strike on the CIA?
There are alot of tough people there who would never take a monkey-medal to shut up and sit on the sidelines like that whimp Georgi T. did.
Looks like Bushco misjudged the insurgency again.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 24, 2006 05:02 PMPetzold: I agreed with most of your points in one post yesterday, simply because they were correct. However, I see you are back to moronically stupid again. Whew, I thought I might have to re-evaluate your ability to process complex thought, a long, drawn-out procedure. No fear.
There is no rational to purging the ranks solely for the sake of removing those outside of the properly indoctrinated. Anyone in a position which can be influenced by outside factors (ie. politics) has to be aware that their position cannot not be compromised by either their own opinions, or the opinions of the new management.
To remove a competent, experienced person based solely upon the fact that they do not conform to new management policy (belong to the party) is ludicrous. You will have the roadies playing in place of the band at this rate. Hold on, I think that’s what we have, and they are god awful...
Posted by tempus at April 24, 2006 05:23 PMDon’t be surprised if McCarthy’s firing last week was a political hit by this administration because she was a Kerry supporter and was a holdover from the Clinton Administration.
"McCarthy admitted to multiple unauthorized contacts with journalists after failing a polygraph test" according to not-so-right-wing CNN, and former CIA officers tell us that McCarthy, as a matter of policy, would have signed a confession before she was frog-marched (isn't that your word?) out of Langley Thursday afternoon.
The CNN didn’t directly address something else I noted elsewhere: McCarthy was in a better position than almost anyone in the CIA to follow the formal, legal whistleblower procedure, and instead, she leaked multiple stories to multiple reporters.
This leads to the million dollar question everyone is trying very hard not to ask:
Why would Mary McCarthy choose to illegally leak information instead of following established whistleblower protocols that her own office handles?
It simply doesn’t make sense for her to leak the way she did. Getting to the bottom of this is going to be ugly for the CIA, and perhaps, for the Democratic Party.
She was set to retire 4/30/06 but they fire her a week before?
Posted by goose1 at April 24, 2006 05:43 PMtempus:
There is no rational to purging the ranks solely for the sake of removing those outside of the properly indoctrinated.
But my point is that it now may become the rationale. Whether that will work to the detriment of our national security remains to be seen. But exposing the particulars of rendition in friendly allied countries (a practice authorized by Bush's predecessor, not incidentally) while it may still be going on is absolutely inexcusable.
Get it? Bush's disclosure of general information from an NIE (which he is inherently authorized to do) is one thing. The unauthorized disclosure of information about ongoing intelligence operations made because of some "act of conscience" is treason.
But I'm sure McCarthy will make the mo$t of her$.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 24, 2006 05:47 PMToby. Were you upset about Sen. Shelby or Hatch disclosing unauthorized info on about ongoing intelligence operations?....... IOKIYAR
Posted by goose1 at April 24, 2006 05:57 PMWhy would Mary McCarthy choose to illegally leak information instead of following established whistleblower protocols that her own office handles?
lmao. ya, we've seen how well that works, eh?
Posted by Simp at April 24, 2006 06:06 PMgoose:
Toby. Were you upset about Sen. Shelby or Hatch disclosing unauthorized info on about ongoing intelligence operations?
I don't know what you're referring to.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 24, 2006 06:07 PMhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40886-2004Aug4.html
Toby, here a link and thanks for proving my point.
Posted by goose1 at April 24, 2006 06:19 PMWhy would Mary McCarthy choose to illegally leak information instead of following established whistleblower protocols that her own office handles?
because all whistleblowers get swiftboated by this administration? just a guess.
Posted by benjoya at April 24, 2006 06:39 PMFrom the report (emphasis added):
Specifically, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron confirmed to FBI investigators that Shelby verbally divulged the information to him during a June 19, 2002, interview, minutes after Shelby's committee had been given the information in a classified briefing, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the case.
Cameron did not air the material. Moments after Shelby spoke with Cameron, he met with CNN reporter Dana Bash, and about half an hour after that, CNN broadcast the material, the sources said. CNN cited "two congressional sources" in its report.
Cameron didn't air the information. CNN, unsurprisingly, did.
Oh, and your characterization of the similarities between the two cases (i.e., their contemporaneity with ongoing practices) is inaccurate. That matters.
Excuse the bad tagging. First two grafs are from the source; last two are mine.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 24, 2006 06:41 PMRand Beers, eh?
yes, he used to be bush's head of anti-terrorism, but he quit for some reason.
Posted by benjoya at April 24, 2006 06:43 PMSo it's not a leak ifr it is not reported? It is exactly the same, I can't help that you refuse to see it but I knew you would try to hem and ha out of it. IOKIYAR
Posted by goose1 at April 24, 2006 06:45 PMToby, if Condi Rice says that there were no prisons in allied countries, how could McCarthy reveal a secret about something that didn't exist? You make my head hurt.
Posted by Jon Stopa at April 24, 2006 07:22 PMBush's disclosure of general information from an NIE (which he is inherently authorized to do) is one thing. The unauthorized disclosure of information about ongoing intelligence operations made because of some "act of conscience" is treason.
Of course I can't top Jon up there!
Toby, do you really think bu$h should be doing this as well because he gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Kinda of sets a precedent, eh? Of course that won't be the first or last one he will try to get out of.
"I'm the present-nut damnit!"
Get it? Bush's disclosure of general information from an NIE (which he is inherently authorized to do) is one thing. The unauthorized disclosure of information about ongoing intelligence operations made because of some "act of conscience" is treason.
But I'm sure McCarthy will make the mo$t of her$.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 24, 2006 05:47 PM
*****
You fuck logic like a necrophiliac fucks a corpse...hideously, grotesquely, and without shame.
Yeah, we get it. You're a disingenous prick and a shill for traitors, liars, and scum.
Got it.
Presumably leading to an unlawful dismissal lawsuit and more public airing of the dirty laundry?
Posted by bob h at April 25, 2006 04:29 AMGet it? Bush's disclosure of general information from an NIE (which he is inherently authorized to do) is one thing. The unauthorized disclosure of information about ongoing intelligence operations made because of some "act of conscience" is treason.
But I'm sure McCarthy will make the mo$t of her$.
Posted by Toby Petzold at April 24, 2006 05:47 PM
*****
You fuck logic like a necrophiliac fucks a corpse...hideously, grotesquely, and without shame.
Yeah, we get it. You're a disingenous prick and a shill for traitors, liars, and scum.
Got it.
Posted by God Of War at April 24, 2006 08:22 PM
***********
GoW, Well said my friend.
Posted by oppressmenot at April 25, 2006 05:33 AMActually, um, guys. The POTUS has inherent legal authority to declassify info. A CIA spook does not. And that’s what Toby was essentially saying.
Posted by cyr at April 25, 2006 06:22 AMActually, um, guys. The POTUS has inherent legal authority to declassify info. A CIA spook does not. And that’s what Toby was essentially saying.
Posted by cyr at April 25, 2006 06:22 AM
***************
Then why did the POT-ASS declasify the material AFTER he supposedly declassified it. And why did the POT-ASS carry on a charade about wanting to find the leaker, when he supposedly had the authority to leak whatever he wants. Why hide it if you have nothing to hide? Why waste all that time, and YOURs and my money to wind up finding that the Leaker-in-Chief is non other than the POT-ASS? That only makes sense if the POTASS knew he fucked up, and was about to get caught, so he kept it quiet until there was no way out. Then he comes out saying he did it, and he had the authority to do it, so go fly a kite. Even you gotta question the timeline of events.
Posted by oppressmenot at April 25, 2006 07:33 AMcyr:
Neither you nor Toby have any evidence that McCarthy declassified anything.
Posted by Steve Soto at April 25, 2006 08:11 AMThe POTUS has inherent legal authority to declassify info.
Aaaaaand that's why Scooter was shopping the info around requiring that it be attributed to "a former Hill staffer" instead of just speaking to the press on record? Right? Because the info had been declassified by Mr. Bush using his inherent authority to declassify it? Hogwash! They leaked it. And now that it's clear that they leaked it they are concocting a story that it was declassified by Bush.
For the life of me I can't understand why any of you continue to carry water for these criminals.
Posted by snark at April 25, 2006 09:00 AMcould it be that they continue to carry water because they're so fucking ignorant they don't know better?
Posted by headxray at April 25, 2006 09:06 AM