The CIA vs. The Administration
Dramatic? Not quite, but most definitely true. We have yet to address this issue, and I was surprised that Thomas did not have this included in our question and answer session yesterday. I would have thought that this question would be most pertinent. But, he was the one who compiled the questions. Today, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard addresses this issue in relation to Mary McCarthy. (Hat-Tip: Hugh Hewitt.
ON APRIL 19, 2006, security personnel from the Central Intelligence Agency escorted a senior CIA official from her office, withdrew her Top Secret clearance, and terminated her employment. The CIA did not name the officer. She was fired after she "acknowledged having unauthorized discussions with reporters in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence, including operational information."
The CIA did not name her, but several news organizations reported that the official was Mary McCarthy, whose most recent position at the Agency was in the office of the inspector general. Two days later, when McCarthy denied disclosing classified information to reporters, she asked a former colleague, Rand Beers, to make the statement on her behalf.
It was an interesting choice. McCarthy had worked for Beers on the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. They had apparently remained close, even after Beers quit his position in the new administration and became a leading critic of the counterterrorism policies of George W. Bush. Or perhaps the two had remained close because Beers quit his position to criticize the Bush administration.
Beers was the senior foreign policy adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004. In March 2004, Mary McCarthy contributed the maximum amount allowed under campaign finance laws--$2,000--to the Kerry campaign. She increased her giving as the competitive campaign drew to a close. On October 5, 2004, she gave another $5,000 to the Democratic party in Ohio, a state that many observers believed (correctly, it turned out) would decide the election. And on October
29, 2004, McCarthy gave an additional $500 to the Democratic National Committee Service Corps. Federal records show that Michael McCarthy, of the same home address, gave an additional $2,000 to the Kerry campaign and $500 to Barbara Mikulski, a Democratic senator from Maryland. In all, the McCarthy household contributed some $10,000 to Democrats during the last election cycle.
The New York Times reported McCarthy's $2,000 contribution to the Kerry campaign (but not the others), and articles sympathetic to McCarthy by the Associated Press and Newsweek at least made mention of Beers's association with the Kerry campaign. But virtually none of the other press found the facts in the preceding paragraph worth reporting.
In the current political environment, that's an odd oversight. Hardly a day goes by that we don't hear about the war between the White House and the CIA over politicized intelligence. Administration critics claim the White House selectively uses intelligence to support its policies, and administration supporters complain about a rash of leaks from unelected bureaucrats at the CIA determined to undermine those policies.
Observe these battles through the prism of the mainstream press, however, and you get the distinct impression that only one side is fighting: the White House. Something closer to the opposite is true and has been since the summer of 2003.
Consider. On May 6, 2003, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote a column on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, focused on President Bush's allegation that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa:
"I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged."
The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted--except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.
We now know that Kristof's "person" was Joseph Wilson. And we know that it was not possible for Wilson to have concluded that the documents were forged in February 2002 because, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the U.S. government did not receive the forgeries in question until October 2002. It was the first--and most reckless--of many lies Wilson would tell. The column ran under the headline "Missing In Action: Truth." No kidding. The column would set in motion a chain of events that would lead to the indictment of Scooter Libby, then Vice President Cheney's chief of staff.
"A column earlier this month on this issue drew a torrent of covert communications from indignant spooks who say that administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and deceive the public. . . . These people are coming forward because they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world--that such work should be nonpolitical--and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propagandists."
Some of these "nonpolitical" intelligence professionals were so outraged, Kristof reported, that they had formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. The VIPS bought Wilson's claim that he had "determined that the Iraq-Niger report was a con-job" and his assertion that his "findings were duly reported to all concerned in early March 2002." False and false. At one point, the VIPS called for active intelligence officials to leak documents that would undercut the Bush administration and its claims on Iraq.
Not that some of these officials needed any encouragement. On June 9, 2003, New York Times reporter James Risen wrote under the headline: "Captives Deny Qaeda Worked with Baghdad." His article focused on two al Qaeda leaders, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and Abu Zubaydah:
Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals, according to an official who has read the Central Intelligence Agency's classified report on the interrogation. . . . The Bush administration has not made these statements public, though it frequently highlighted intelligence reports that supported its assertions of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda as it made its case for war against Iraq.
And those links are there. We have seen them. We have read about them. They are mentioned several times within the Saddam documents (the same documents that the Left is treating like it is a ghost--transparent, but virtually nonexistent), Richard Miniter has researched this in Disinformation. And tons of "citizen journalist" investigative reporters (read: bloggers) have uncovered connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda that range from the training aspect to the support aspects. No solid evidence has been presented as to a possible connection between al Qaeda and Saddam for the attacks on 9/11, but then again, the president never cited that. Going into Iraq was about two things specifically: WMDs and their programs, and al Qaeda connections.
A source described as "one official" made the accusation directly: "I remember reading the Abu Zubaydah debriefing last year, while the administration was talking about all of these other reports, and thinking that they were only putting out what they wanted."
You get the picture. The Bush administration selectively used intelligence to make its case, and nonpolitical intelligence professionals were simply setting the record straight. Only that's not what happened.
Whoever leaked the debriefing to Risen apparently gave him only part of it. Zubaydah did tell interrogators of bin Laden's reservations about being beholden to Saddam. (Newly released Iraqi documents demonstrate that despite these reservations, which date to at least 1992, bin Laden requested operational support from Saddam.) But the report also included this line, which contradicted the whole thrust of Risen's article: "Abu Zubaydah explained that [bin Laden's] personal goal of destroying the U.S. is so strong that to achieve this end he would work with whomever could help him, so long as al Qaeda's independence was not threatened." One other nugget from Zubaydah's March 2002 debriefing was omitted. He named a senior al Qaeda associate who did have good relations with the Iraqi regime: Abu Musab al Zarqawi, with whom Zubaydah had plotted attacks in Jordan.
We knew this. This was also reported by Mr. Miniter. Al Qaeda never wanted to lose its ability to remain independent. That is, no one was going to order al Qaeda and bin Laden around. But as we stated, as Mr. Miniter has stated, as Stephen Hayes has repeatedly stated, and as hundreds of bloggers stated--all of them accurate analysis on the al Qaeda/Saddam connection--"the enemy of my enemy is my ally" was a phrase that both sides adhered to. Saddam hated the US as much as, if not moreso, bin Laden did. Working together proved to be a fruitful relationship. And, of course the Left never wants to admit that the Zubaydah de-briefing contains any mention of Zarqawi. To do so would be an admission that Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion.
WHEN GEORGE W. BUSH chose Rep. Porter Goss, a former CIA officer, to succeed George Tenet as director of central intelligence, Goss was widely portrayed as a partisan intruder on an apolitical agency. Some Democrats said Goss "seems too partisan" for the job, the New York Times guilelessly reported. An editorial in the paper labeled Goss a "partisan Republican" and urged Bush to withdraw the nomination and let the CIA's acting director serve through the 2004 election.
While there may be a streak of partisanship within his political dealings, Mr. Goss is a former CIA operative, having served the organization from 1960 to 1971, for the Directorate of Operations. He was worked in Latin America, Europe, and the Carribean. He does know what he is doing, and his choice was due to his professionalism at the time. The president needed someone who understood that the intelligence community had to be nonpartisan, and unbiased.
On October 1, 2004, with Goss less than a week into the job, the Washington Post ran an article noting the concerns of intelligence professionals that Goss was bringing with him to the Agency four of his top staffers from the House Intelligence Committee. "Some also expressed concern that newcomers from the Republican-run House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would bring partisan sensibilities to their new roles. Concerns about partisanship and the CIA have been at the forefront of public debate over the agency's future in the past weeks."
And yet, when the partisanship runs the other way, with Beers, McCarthy, and Wilson, there is not one peep out of anyone. and if anyone did raise an issue about it, they were quickly shouted down. The CIA, for the past several years, has turned itself into a very political organization. No longer is it simply fighting for its fair share of the budget, but now it is undermining administrations and other organizations within the government hierarchy.
Two days later, one of those staffers, Michael Kostiw, was the target of a nasty leak about a shoplifting incident from the early 1980s. The story appeared in the Washington Post and cited "four sources who were familiar with the past events but who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information." Kostiw was to have been executive director of the CIA. Two days after the story ran, he withdrew from consideration.
Those leaks came shortly after another damaging leak, this one of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that challenged Bush's optimism and warned of possible civil war. The same day, John Kerry's presidential campaign incorporated the substance of this leak into its campaign message and charged that Bush was living in a "fantasy world of spin."
The leaks didn't stop after the election. The Washington Post ran its now-famous "secret prison" story on the CIA's handling of al Qaeda detainees in November 2005; the New York Times published its accusations of domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency the following month.
Was Mary McCarthy a source for any of these stories? We don't know. Her lawyer, Ty Cobb, has said that she denies discussing any classified information with reporters. CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, without naming McCarthy, says the official terminated last week acknowledged discussing classified information with reporters. A source that agreed only to be described as an "intelligence official," goes further. "There was a clear pattern of talking to the media."
The denial can continue, but it changes nothing. She was the one fired. She failed a voluntary polygraph. And then she supposedly admitted to CIA officials that she had spoken with Dana Priest of the Washington Post. By a simple act of "connecting the dots" (something that the MSM is fairly reluctant to do, and with good reason ... The picture is never the one they want to see) we can see that Ms. McCarthy is likely the one who gave Dana Priest this information. And as yet, no evidence has been released to clear Ms. McCarthy of any wrongdoing.
We may never know why and what precisely McCarthy leaked. The fact that she contributed significant sums of money to John Kerry and Democrats may mean little more than that she wanted a better job in a new Kerry administration than she had been able to get under Bush.
In the midst of a three-year CIA-Bush administration battle over politicized intelligence, how can it be that journalists find these contributions irrelevant?
Better question: How can they look at the pattern of information, and not conclude that there was a question of partisanship? Mary McCarthy and Joe Wilson served on the NSC, for African affairs no less, at the same time. Her campaign contributions show that she did not back the president. Her placement in the CIA during the Clinton administration was higher than it was under President Bush. And while many may say that these things are insignificant, I call it a pattern. I call it a clue to her reasoning.
She contends she did not leak the information to anyone, especially Dana Priest. As yet, Ms. Priest has said nothing in Ms. McCarthy's defense, and has skated around the issue when she has been confronted about it. So, the contention right now is whether or not Ms. McCarthy flapped her gums in Ms. Priest's direction. I believe she did. But what I believe and what I can prove are two different things altogether. So we will have to wait and see what happens. I stated yesterday, and we all agreed, that if Mary McCarthy did do this, she needed to be charged and prosecuted. We differed on Dana Priest, but we are three minds; not everyone will have the same opinion. But we agreed on that point.
This interneccine fight between the administration and the various organizations within the government needs to stop. These leakers need to be found, fired, and charged. This message can have no ambiguity. As long as we are at war, everyone does their part, and everyone keeps their mouths shut. And contrary to the Left's idea these people are not whistleblowers. They are leakers, and what they reveal severely undermines our ability to prosecute this war.
The Bunny ;)
Dramatic? Not quite, but most definitely true. We have yet to address this issue, and I was surprised that Thomas did not have this included in our question and answer session yesterday. I would have thought that this question would be most pertinent. But, he was the one who compiled the questions. Today, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard addresses this issue in relation to Mary McCarthy. (Hat-Tip: Hugh Hewitt.
ON APRIL 19, 2006, security personnel from the Central Intelligence Agency escorted a senior CIA official from her office, withdrew her Top Secret clearance, and terminated her employment. The CIA did not name the officer. She was fired after she "acknowledged having unauthorized discussions with reporters in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence, including operational information."
The CIA did not name her, but several news organizations reported that the official was Mary McCarthy, whose most recent position at the Agency was in the office of the inspector general. Two days later, when McCarthy denied disclosing classified information to reporters, she asked a former colleague, Rand Beers, to make the statement on her behalf.
It was an interesting choice. McCarthy had worked for Beers on the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. They had apparently remained close, even after Beers quit his position in the new administration and became a leading critic of the counterterrorism policies of George W. Bush. Or perhaps the two had remained close because Beers quit his position to criticize the Bush administration.
Beers was the senior foreign policy adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004. In March 2004, Mary McCarthy contributed the maximum amount allowed under campaign finance laws--$2,000--to the Kerry campaign. She increased her giving as the competitive campaign drew to a close. On October 5, 2004, she gave another $5,000 to the Democratic party in Ohio, a state that many observers believed (correctly, it turned out) would decide the election. And on October
29, 2004, McCarthy gave an additional $500 to the Democratic National Committee Service Corps. Federal records show that Michael McCarthy, of the same home address, gave an additional $2,000 to the Kerry campaign and $500 to Barbara Mikulski, a Democratic senator from Maryland. In all, the McCarthy household contributed some $10,000 to Democrats during the last election cycle.
The New York Times reported McCarthy's $2,000 contribution to the Kerry campaign (but not the others), and articles sympathetic to McCarthy by the Associated Press and Newsweek at least made mention of Beers's association with the Kerry campaign. But virtually none of the other press found the facts in the preceding paragraph worth reporting.
In the current political environment, that's an odd oversight. Hardly a day goes by that we don't hear about the war between the White House and the CIA over politicized intelligence. Administration critics claim the White House selectively uses intelligence to support its policies, and administration supporters complain about a rash of leaks from unelected bureaucrats at the CIA determined to undermine those policies.
Observe these battles through the prism of the mainstream press, however, and you get the distinct impression that only one side is fighting: the White House. Something closer to the opposite is true and has been since the summer of 2003.
Consider. On May 6, 2003, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote a column on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, focused on President Bush's allegation that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa:
"I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged."
The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted--except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.
We now know that Kristof's "person" was Joseph Wilson. And we know that it was not possible for Wilson to have concluded that the documents were forged in February 2002 because, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the U.S. government did not receive the forgeries in question until October 2002. It was the first--and most reckless--of many lies Wilson would tell. The column ran under the headline "Missing In Action: Truth." No kidding. The column would set in motion a chain of events that would lead to the indictment of Scooter Libby, then Vice President Cheney's chief of staff.
I would like to pause here and add that the singular lie perpetuated by Joe Wilson has spun completely out of control. He showed his partisan side shortly after his return from Niger. Furthermore, and I am unaware as to why it has not been done, the testimony he gave before the Senate Intelligence Committee had severe differences than what he printed in the New York Times piece. These differences were not an "oops, I missed that detail" sort of mistake. These were glaring oversights, and complete mix ups of dates, times, and paperwork. If one is to believe that he told the truth in his op-ed (highly unlikely given the partisan difference, and the newspaper in question), then he lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee. If he told the truth in front of the committee, then the Left has been living a lie from his op-ed. Either way one looks at it, Joseph Wilson is a liar, and he has been caught.
On May 30, 2003, Kristof wrote a follow-up called "Save Our Spooks":"A column earlier this month on this issue drew a torrent of covert communications from indignant spooks who say that administration officials leaned on them to exaggerate the Iraqi threat and deceive the public. . . . These people are coming forward because they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world--that such work should be nonpolitical--and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propagandists."
Some of these "nonpolitical" intelligence professionals were so outraged, Kristof reported, that they had formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. The VIPS bought Wilson's claim that he had "determined that the Iraq-Niger report was a con-job" and his assertion that his "findings were duly reported to all concerned in early March 2002." False and false. At one point, the VIPS called for active intelligence officials to leak documents that would undercut the Bush administration and its claims on Iraq.
Not that some of these officials needed any encouragement. On June 9, 2003, New York Times reporter James Risen wrote under the headline: "Captives Deny Qaeda Worked with Baghdad." His article focused on two al Qaeda leaders, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and Abu Zubaydah:
Abu Zubaydah, a Qaeda planner and recruiter until his capture in March 2002, told his questioners last year that the idea of working with Mr. Hussein's government had been discussed among Qaeda leaders, but that Osama bin Laden had rejected such proposals, according to an official who has read the Central Intelligence Agency's classified report on the interrogation. . . . The Bush administration has not made these statements public, though it frequently highlighted intelligence reports that supported its assertions of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda as it made its case for war against Iraq.
And those links are there. We have seen them. We have read about them. They are mentioned several times within the Saddam documents (the same documents that the Left is treating like it is a ghost--transparent, but virtually nonexistent), Richard Miniter has researched this in Disinformation. And tons of "citizen journalist" investigative reporters (read: bloggers) have uncovered connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda that range from the training aspect to the support aspects. No solid evidence has been presented as to a possible connection between al Qaeda and Saddam for the attacks on 9/11, but then again, the president never cited that. Going into Iraq was about two things specifically: WMDs and their programs, and al Qaeda connections.
A source described as "one official" made the accusation directly: "I remember reading the Abu Zubaydah debriefing last year, while the administration was talking about all of these other reports, and thinking that they were only putting out what they wanted."
You get the picture. The Bush administration selectively used intelligence to make its case, and nonpolitical intelligence professionals were simply setting the record straight. Only that's not what happened.
Whoever leaked the debriefing to Risen apparently gave him only part of it. Zubaydah did tell interrogators of bin Laden's reservations about being beholden to Saddam. (Newly released Iraqi documents demonstrate that despite these reservations, which date to at least 1992, bin Laden requested operational support from Saddam.) But the report also included this line, which contradicted the whole thrust of Risen's article: "Abu Zubaydah explained that [bin Laden's] personal goal of destroying the U.S. is so strong that to achieve this end he would work with whomever could help him, so long as al Qaeda's independence was not threatened." One other nugget from Zubaydah's March 2002 debriefing was omitted. He named a senior al Qaeda associate who did have good relations with the Iraqi regime: Abu Musab al Zarqawi, with whom Zubaydah had plotted attacks in Jordan.
We knew this. This was also reported by Mr. Miniter. Al Qaeda never wanted to lose its ability to remain independent. That is, no one was going to order al Qaeda and bin Laden around. But as we stated, as Mr. Miniter has stated, as Stephen Hayes has repeatedly stated, and as hundreds of bloggers stated--all of them accurate analysis on the al Qaeda/Saddam connection--"the enemy of my enemy is my ally" was a phrase that both sides adhered to. Saddam hated the US as much as, if not moreso, bin Laden did. Working together proved to be a fruitful relationship. And, of course the Left never wants to admit that the Zubaydah de-briefing contains any mention of Zarqawi. To do so would be an admission that Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion.
WHEN GEORGE W. BUSH chose Rep. Porter Goss, a former CIA officer, to succeed George Tenet as director of central intelligence, Goss was widely portrayed as a partisan intruder on an apolitical agency. Some Democrats said Goss "seems too partisan" for the job, the New York Times guilelessly reported. An editorial in the paper labeled Goss a "partisan Republican" and urged Bush to withdraw the nomination and let the CIA's acting director serve through the 2004 election.
While there may be a streak of partisanship within his political dealings, Mr. Goss is a former CIA operative, having served the organization from 1960 to 1971, for the Directorate of Operations. He was worked in Latin America, Europe, and the Carribean. He does know what he is doing, and his choice was due to his professionalism at the time. The president needed someone who understood that the intelligence community had to be nonpartisan, and unbiased.
On October 1, 2004, with Goss less than a week into the job, the Washington Post ran an article noting the concerns of intelligence professionals that Goss was bringing with him to the Agency four of his top staffers from the House Intelligence Committee. "Some also expressed concern that newcomers from the Republican-run House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would bring partisan sensibilities to their new roles. Concerns about partisanship and the CIA have been at the forefront of public debate over the agency's future in the past weeks."
And yet, when the partisanship runs the other way, with Beers, McCarthy, and Wilson, there is not one peep out of anyone. and if anyone did raise an issue about it, they were quickly shouted down. The CIA, for the past several years, has turned itself into a very political organization. No longer is it simply fighting for its fair share of the budget, but now it is undermining administrations and other organizations within the government hierarchy.
Two days later, one of those staffers, Michael Kostiw, was the target of a nasty leak about a shoplifting incident from the early 1980s. The story appeared in the Washington Post and cited "four sources who were familiar with the past events but who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information." Kostiw was to have been executive director of the CIA. Two days after the story ran, he withdrew from consideration.
Those leaks came shortly after another damaging leak, this one of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that challenged Bush's optimism and warned of possible civil war. The same day, John Kerry's presidential campaign incorporated the substance of this leak into its campaign message and charged that Bush was living in a "fantasy world of spin."
The leaks didn't stop after the election. The Washington Post ran its now-famous "secret prison" story on the CIA's handling of al Qaeda detainees in November 2005; the New York Times published its accusations of domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency the following month.
Was Mary McCarthy a source for any of these stories? We don't know. Her lawyer, Ty Cobb, has said that she denies discussing any classified information with reporters. CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, without naming McCarthy, says the official terminated last week acknowledged discussing classified information with reporters. A source that agreed only to be described as an "intelligence official," goes further. "There was a clear pattern of talking to the media."
The denial can continue, but it changes nothing. She was the one fired. She failed a voluntary polygraph. And then she supposedly admitted to CIA officials that she had spoken with Dana Priest of the Washington Post. By a simple act of "connecting the dots" (something that the MSM is fairly reluctant to do, and with good reason ... The picture is never the one they want to see) we can see that Ms. McCarthy is likely the one who gave Dana Priest this information. And as yet, no evidence has been released to clear Ms. McCarthy of any wrongdoing.
We may never know why and what precisely McCarthy leaked. The fact that she contributed significant sums of money to John Kerry and Democrats may mean little more than that she wanted a better job in a new Kerry administration than she had been able to get under Bush.
In the midst of a three-year CIA-Bush administration battle over politicized intelligence, how can it be that journalists find these contributions irrelevant?
Better question: How can they look at the pattern of information, and not conclude that there was a question of partisanship? Mary McCarthy and Joe Wilson served on the NSC, for African affairs no less, at the same time. Her campaign contributions show that she did not back the president. Her placement in the CIA during the Clinton administration was higher than it was under President Bush. And while many may say that these things are insignificant, I call it a pattern. I call it a clue to her reasoning.
She contends she did not leak the information to anyone, especially Dana Priest. As yet, Ms. Priest has said nothing in Ms. McCarthy's defense, and has skated around the issue when she has been confronted about it. So, the contention right now is whether or not Ms. McCarthy flapped her gums in Ms. Priest's direction. I believe she did. But what I believe and what I can prove are two different things altogether. So we will have to wait and see what happens. I stated yesterday, and we all agreed, that if Mary McCarthy did do this, she needed to be charged and prosecuted. We differed on Dana Priest, but we are three minds; not everyone will have the same opinion. But we agreed on that point.
This interneccine fight between the administration and the various organizations within the government needs to stop. These leakers need to be found, fired, and charged. This message can have no ambiguity. As long as we are at war, everyone does their part, and everyone keeps their mouths shut. And contrary to the Left's idea these people are not whistleblowers. They are leakers, and what they reveal severely undermines our ability to prosecute this war.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home