Open Topic Sunday ... McCarthy: The Political Angle
I see that Thomas did answer me back, and I appreciate it. I understand his answer, but I still stand by what I said.
He broke the Code of Ethics at the LA Times, so Michael Hiltzik should be fired.
But I would like to switch gears here, and head back to Mary McCarthy. We know that this woman has been fired for failing a polygraph in an apparent hunt for a leaker in the CIA. Sabrina called it a "mole hunt," and while it does not evoke the same idea as a traditional mole, it does fit. This mole was not feeding information to our enemies per se, but she was feeding it to the press.
What I have noticed is that the bloggers, especially Flopping Aces, and this morning by Hugh Hewitt that the political angle is being brought up regarding Ms. McCarthy. I am reluctant to address this side of the issue because of the calls from the Left that we are being too partisan.
They can call it that if they wish, but this issue has a level of partisanship within it. After all, it is an ideological bias that is likely to have caused this serious lapse in moral judgment. And make no mistake, that is precisely what this was. It was a matter of one person's seflish desire to either hurt the administration, or a desire to catch the limelight that led Ms. McCarthy down this road.
And by partisan, I mean precisely that, as is evidenced by what Curt from Flopping Aces posted on his site regarding her financial contributions to John Kerry and to the Ohio DNC; $2000 and $5000 respectively. Furthermore, we must look at the three people she worked with at CSIS.
Zbigniew Brzezinski — Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
General Wesley Clark USA (Ret.), Distinguished Senior Adviser
General Anthony Zinni USMC (Ret.), Distinguished Senior Adviser
Sabrina posted their names up yesterday. Each one of them has been a detractor of the war, and of President Bush's strategy and tactics in this war. As she did contribute to John Kerry's presidential campaign, I think it is safe to say that she, too, disliked the president. So much so that she was willing to take the classified information handed to her, and use it to hurt the administration. But this is not new. As Curt points out, the interneccine war between the administration and the CIA has been going since President Bush arrived in Washington, DC. Security Watchtower makes this observation:
"The CIA's war against the Bush administration is one of the great untold stories of the past three years. It is, perhaps, the agency's most successful covert action of recent times. The CIA has used its budget to fund criticism of the administration by former Democratic officeholders. The agency allowed an employee, Michael Scheuer, to publish and promote a book containing classified information, as long as, in Scheuer's words, "the book was being used to bash the president." However, the agency's preferred weapon has been the leak. In one leak after another, generally to the New York Times or the Washington Post, CIA officials have sought to undermine America's foreign policy. Usually this is done by leaking reports or memos critical of administration policies or skeptical of their prospects. Through it all, our principal news outlets, which share the agency's agenda and profit from its torrent of leaks, have maintained a discreet silence about what should be a major scandal."
Yes thay have, and it has only added to their culpability. The press, being it's normal, willing, and loathing self, licks it's chops everytime stories like these unfold. It casts the administration in an extremely bad light when the reports initially come out. We saw this with the NSA story. For months (and up until today, still) we are defending the program, and trying to untwist the truth of it. The MSM still continues to pass the program off as "domestic spying." That is not what the program does, and even if it did, the courts have sided with the president that he does not need a warrant when it comes to matters of national security. As long as we still have our enemies deep within the fabric of this nation, that program is a must in our war.
Between the CIA, State, the antiwar Left moonbat fringe, and the MSM, the president has numerous people out there with long knives drawn, and simply waiting for him to screw up. And while many may pooh-pooh the ideology angle of the story, it is far more compelling than any other excuse handed down thus far. And it shows just where the loyalty of these people lie. It is not with the administration--confident in the leadership of the nation. No, it goes back to the petty, selfish ideology spread by Bill Clinton. It is the "me first" and "I'm right, you're wrong" sort of mentality that has led us to the point where there are agencies within the government the administration just cannot trust or rely on right now. And if this were a minor cabinet position, it would not be as much of a problem.
But that is not the case. It is the CIA. It is the State Department. Both agnecies are integral to our war efforts, and this continued behavior shows that their selfishness takes precedent over national security. It is time for a thorough house cleaning. The MSM loves to beat on Sec/Def Rumsfeld for his "failures" yet they refuse to look at either State or CIA, and point out theirs. Of course not. "The enemy of my enemy is my ally" applies in all fights; whether there is bloodshed or not, and the MSM sees them both as allies in their continuing effort to bring down a president.
A president, I might add, whose only crime is being a Republican, and who believes that the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says when it comes to his powers.
The Bunny ;)
I see that Thomas did answer me back, and I appreciate it. I understand his answer, but I still stand by what I said.
He broke the Code of Ethics at the LA Times, so Michael Hiltzik should be fired.
But I would like to switch gears here, and head back to Mary McCarthy. We know that this woman has been fired for failing a polygraph in an apparent hunt for a leaker in the CIA. Sabrina called it a "mole hunt," and while it does not evoke the same idea as a traditional mole, it does fit. This mole was not feeding information to our enemies per se, but she was feeding it to the press.
What I have noticed is that the bloggers, especially Flopping Aces, and this morning by Hugh Hewitt that the political angle is being brought up regarding Ms. McCarthy. I am reluctant to address this side of the issue because of the calls from the Left that we are being too partisan.
They can call it that if they wish, but this issue has a level of partisanship within it. After all, it is an ideological bias that is likely to have caused this serious lapse in moral judgment. And make no mistake, that is precisely what this was. It was a matter of one person's seflish desire to either hurt the administration, or a desire to catch the limelight that led Ms. McCarthy down this road.
And by partisan, I mean precisely that, as is evidenced by what Curt from Flopping Aces posted on his site regarding her financial contributions to John Kerry and to the Ohio DNC; $2000 and $5000 respectively. Furthermore, we must look at the three people she worked with at CSIS.
Zbigniew Brzezinski — Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
General Wesley Clark USA (Ret.), Distinguished Senior Adviser
General Anthony Zinni USMC (Ret.), Distinguished Senior Adviser
Sabrina posted their names up yesterday. Each one of them has been a detractor of the war, and of President Bush's strategy and tactics in this war. As she did contribute to John Kerry's presidential campaign, I think it is safe to say that she, too, disliked the president. So much so that she was willing to take the classified information handed to her, and use it to hurt the administration. But this is not new. As Curt points out, the interneccine war between the administration and the CIA has been going since President Bush arrived in Washington, DC. Security Watchtower makes this observation:
"The CIA's war against the Bush administration is one of the great untold stories of the past three years. It is, perhaps, the agency's most successful covert action of recent times. The CIA has used its budget to fund criticism of the administration by former Democratic officeholders. The agency allowed an employee, Michael Scheuer, to publish and promote a book containing classified information, as long as, in Scheuer's words, "the book was being used to bash the president." However, the agency's preferred weapon has been the leak. In one leak after another, generally to the New York Times or the Washington Post, CIA officials have sought to undermine America's foreign policy. Usually this is done by leaking reports or memos critical of administration policies or skeptical of their prospects. Through it all, our principal news outlets, which share the agency's agenda and profit from its torrent of leaks, have maintained a discreet silence about what should be a major scandal."
Yes thay have, and it has only added to their culpability. The press, being it's normal, willing, and loathing self, licks it's chops everytime stories like these unfold. It casts the administration in an extremely bad light when the reports initially come out. We saw this with the NSA story. For months (and up until today, still) we are defending the program, and trying to untwist the truth of it. The MSM still continues to pass the program off as "domestic spying." That is not what the program does, and even if it did, the courts have sided with the president that he does not need a warrant when it comes to matters of national security. As long as we still have our enemies deep within the fabric of this nation, that program is a must in our war.
Between the CIA, State, the antiwar Left moonbat fringe, and the MSM, the president has numerous people out there with long knives drawn, and simply waiting for him to screw up. And while many may pooh-pooh the ideology angle of the story, it is far more compelling than any other excuse handed down thus far. And it shows just where the loyalty of these people lie. It is not with the administration--confident in the leadership of the nation. No, it goes back to the petty, selfish ideology spread by Bill Clinton. It is the "me first" and "I'm right, you're wrong" sort of mentality that has led us to the point where there are agencies within the government the administration just cannot trust or rely on right now. And if this were a minor cabinet position, it would not be as much of a problem.
But that is not the case. It is the CIA. It is the State Department. Both agnecies are integral to our war efforts, and this continued behavior shows that their selfishness takes precedent over national security. It is time for a thorough house cleaning. The MSM loves to beat on Sec/Def Rumsfeld for his "failures" yet they refuse to look at either State or CIA, and point out theirs. Of course not. "The enemy of my enemy is my ally" applies in all fights; whether there is bloodshed or not, and the MSM sees them both as allies in their continuing effort to bring down a president.
A president, I might add, whose only crime is being a Republican, and who believes that the Constitution says what it means, and means what it says when it comes to his powers.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home