3
   

Mary McCarthy - Politics of treason?

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 06:16 am
She denies she did it, but if she did do it, good for her.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 07:02 am
Cal Thomas gives his opinion.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 07:02 am
Quote:
Quote:
So now you have convicted her of crime? That says a lot about your obsessional hatreds, but nothing about my opinions.


I don't hate anyone. I would like the people working for the CIA to not undermine the agency and the country to people that are out trying to kill us with our tax money. Seems like a reasonable goal doesn't it?


Here is an interesting interview from NPR last night with a former CIA agent who has since written An Insider's View of the CIA from Iran-Contra to 9/11. She is dead set against leaks and discusses the bigger ramifications of them. She also discusses other CIA issues.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 07:05 am
Quote:
As for the Valerie Plame - Joe Wilson fiasco, I haven't seen anything important come out of that since it started. An investigation into a crime that wasn't a crime --- now that tops them all.


I think there is a question about Libby lying to the grand jury. That is a crime, right?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 07:16 am


From that link...
Quote:
Imagine this scenario: A terrorist has information that, if revealed, could save tens of thousands of American lives. But interrogators cannot question him because leaks to the media prevent them from engaging in practices that would pry loose the critical information.


We've seen this hypothetical situation posted numerous times to condone torture, but this one has a media twist. How can leaks to the media ever preventing the government from doing its job? What is this referring to? If by "engaging in practices", he means "violating the laws of the United States", then I guess media oversight could prevent that. If you want the US government to have torture at its disposal, then legalize it. Until then, I think the government should stick to "engaging in practices" that fall within the law.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 07:18 am
okie wrote:
Parados, some career people have worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. Thats the way it should be if we can at least agree on some jobs being nonpartisan enough that we can agree they should be done.

Yes, a red flag went up on this case for some reasons I can explain. First of all, the CIA has had a few failures. I believe there has been some partisanship within the agency, possibly to soften the responsibility or blame that they might have in those failures. Regardless, an agency such as this is not supposed to be engaged in partisan efforts against the administration they work for. They are not politicians that make policy. They are to carry out the policy directed by the administration. McCarthy should resign her position if she can't work for the administration rather than carry on her politics against the president while working for the agency, and leak classified information, which is a crime.

Add the following possible connections with other people politically opposed to the current administration as making this story more interesting:
Possible connection with Joe Wilson and his activities.
Connection with Sandy Berger, the guy that was stuffing classified papers in his pants, remember.
Connection with John Kerry and his campaign.
Connection with Richard Clarke
William Goodfellow, husband of Dana Priestly (the reporter) is reported to get Joe Wilson speaking engagements.
Other investigations into leaks, ongoing, possibly including the NSA program, which could include people in Congress.
I'm sure I've missed a few, but plenty of information will blossom in the next weeks, possibly to connect a few dots.

Fascinating to say the least, and I am pulling for Porter Goss to connect a few dots and clean out the moles that are undermining the job the CIA is supposed to be doing, not running a political campaign for the administration's opponents.


Quick, lets make up connections where there aren't really any. Bush was President at the time McCarthy worked for CIA. Wilson was sent to Niger when Bush was president. Berger was allowed into the national archives when Bush was president. John Kerry ran for President when Bush was president. Richard Clarke worked for Bush. WOW.. everything ties back to Bush. I can only reach one conclusion. Bush is at fault. Lots of dots and all lead back to Bush. CONNECT THEM OKIE.

Just because someone works with someone doesn't make a connection okie. It is ridiculous to claim it does. Your connections okie are not really connections. It is false logic, something you tend to be very good at.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 09:19 am
This from Salon this a.m.:

"McCarthy says she didn't leak on prisons, but who said that she did?

Did journalists leap to a false conclusion, did Bush administration officials mislead them, or was it none of the above?

Those are the rather puzzling questions we're pondering today after reading reports that Mary McCarthy, who was fired from her job at the CIA last week, says that she didn't leak classified information and wasn't the Washington Post's source for its story on secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe.

As the Post reports today, McCarthy's attorney, Ty Cobb, says that she did not have access to the information about the secret prisons that she's accused -- in the press, at least -- of leaking to the Post's Dana Priest.

That's not how the story was first reported, of course. When McCarthy was fired last week, the CIA didn't say much -- officially. A CIA statement said only that an unidentified agency employee had been fired for having unauthorized discussions with the news media. It didn't take long for reporters to figure out that the fired official was Mary McCarthy, a longtime agency official who worked in the inspector general's office and was just 10 days from retirement. That part was true; McCarthy was, in fact, the employee who was fired last week.

But what made the press take the extra step of reporting -- and doing so pretty unequivocally -- that McCarthy had been fired specifically for leaking information about the secret prisons to Priest?

The CIA didn't make that allegation in its public statement. And we're having a hard time finding news stories in which even unnamed intelligence officials made such an allegation. Rather, it seems that unnamed intelligence officials told reporters last week -- including those at the Post -- that McCarthy had had unauthorized conversations with several reporters, and that Priest was one of them.

So, the questions: Did reporters simply make the leap from hearing the charge that McCarthy talked to Priest -- a reporter who has written lots of stories about lots of things over the years -- to concluding that she was Priest's source on the prisons story? Or did the "intelligence sources" who talked to reporters leave them with such an impression intentionally in order to make it look like the agency was making progress in its investigation into the prisons leak or to embarrass an employee who once worked for Bill Clinton and gave money to John Kerry?"
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 09:21 am
Frankly, the most fascinating part of this story is the name crossover.

Mary McCarthy. Her lawyer, Ty Cobb. What's next, unnamed source, Deep Throat?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 09:22 am
It's an interesting piece of information that she was fired ten days before retirement. She was obviously being punished for something. A more appropriate investigation of this incident would be to discover just what she was being punished for. Of course, i have no doubt that Okie will tell us that she was being punished for putting us in danger of being killed through the use of our own tax dollars.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 09:25 am
Okie's putting that double-nought spy hat back on to get to the bottom of this, that's fer danged sure! Whoo, doggies!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 09:39 am
Parados, you are at it again, reading more into my posts than what I said. I have not reached any conclusion. I am simply pointing out some overlap with some of the events and figures involved in some of the flaps concerning the CIA, leaks, etc. and I am interested in any possible linkage. In other words, there are some questions I would like to see answered. I am going to monitor the situation as it plays out. One question I would like more info on is who all in the CIA discussed Wilson going to Niger and had any input at all into that?

It is interesting the partisanship of some people here. In the Plame case, it has never been established that the leak was really an illegal leak. If there were and Fitzgerald knew who it was, how come he is not pursuing it? As I understand it, Engineer, the crime now being focused on Libby is that he supposedly lied about something during a grand jury investigation into a crime that has never been established as a crime. Does that not strike you as odd? Now, if he lied intentionally before the grand jury anyway, then he must bear the consequences, but why was his testimony even pertinent to begin with I am curious, and it seems like Fitzgerald is taking an awfully long time to do anything much with the case. I think Fitzgerald should answer some serious questions, such as why are you investigating this if the leak is not a crime? Was it a crime? If you think it is, where is your evidence? And given that, how come you are not indicting the leaker? The libs all want Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Bush all strung up at sunrise over it. In this case, we apparently have a clear case of a CIA person leaking classified information to the press, which may hinder our anti-terrorism efforts and which might endanger lives, and the libs are congratulating the person.

We see the same hypocrisy all the time here on this forum. Crime and corruption simply does not matter to the libs unless we're talking about their political opponents. This whole tactic of Democrats trying to get traction with their labeling the Republicans as the "party of corruption" is a joke in my opinion. We put up with corruption for 8 years and now all of a sudden its important again.

And now with McCarthy, leaking doesn't matter now according to some Democrats. She should be congratulated according to some.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 10:04 am
Umm, how about first establishing that she DID in fact leak and what, if anything, of consequence was imparted? I mean, before you start braiding the noose, Sparky.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 11:36 am
Okie wrote:

Quote:
And now with McCarthy, leaking doesn't matter now according to some Democrats. She should be congratulated according to some.


First of all she denies she did it but more importantly if we didn't have whistle blowers to inform the public when our government (agencies) does something wrong, how would we ever find out? Sending people to countries known to torture prisoners is wrong and the practice should have been leaked.

On the other hand with the whole Fitzerold investigation what we got is a bunch in the WH who decided to discredit a person because what they had to say didn't meet with their approval.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 11:38 am
And, in Scooter Libby, a guy who apparently lied to try and mislead investigators or cover up wrongdoing....
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 03:45 pm
Bush Should Polygraph Staff on Plame Outing: Dana Priest's Sources were Multiple and Were Most Likely in Europe http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001365.php
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 04:06 pm
This from Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/

It looks more like a politically motivated purge than anything else.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 05:23 pm
" By conducting these activities overseas, Bush's lawyers thought they might dodge the US criminal statute. Maybe so. But international sanctions also apply. Will Donald Rumsfeld be able to travel to Europe once he loses his Secret Service protection and that afforded by the office of secretary of defense? Will CIA operatives, like the notorious keystone-cops kidnapping crew in Milan, be able to vacation on the Riviera? Interpol knows who they are.

Those inside the government who become privy to - or, worse still, become responsible for - such criminal activity have a legal as well as a moral obligation to blow the whistle. So take heart, past or future truth tellers. With the polygraph, they may eventually track you down. But it is bound to be awkward indeed to take you to court for revealing war crimes. And you will have earned not only a badge of courage but also exculpatory evidence in the event there are prosecutions - here or abroad." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042506R.shtml
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 05:35 pm
okie wrote:
Parados, you are at it again, reading more into my posts than what I said. I have not reached any conclusion.
What was your purpose in referring to McCarthy as a "Clintonista" then? Do you have any evidence that she was a Clinton supporter or appointed by Clinton? or is it your lack of evidence that leads you to call her that? She held a position with Clinton but there is no reference whether it was appointed or civil service because of qualifications. We do know for certain that Bush appointed Richard Clarke to a position. Does that make Clarke a "Bushite?" Since Clarke is a Bushite and McCarthy knows Clarke and was fired for leaking. Wouldn't that make it just as likely that she is party to GOP corruption.
Quote:
I am simply pointing out some overlap with some of the events and figures involved in some of the flaps concerning the CIA, leaks, etc. and I am interested in any possible linkage.
Some of the overlap? Sure, "Clintonista" is only pointing out some overlap. Do you honestly expect us to believe you don't have an agenda with your choice of words?
Quote:
In other words, there are some questions I would like to see answered. I am going to monitor the situation as it plays out. One question I would like more info on is who all in the CIA discussed Wilson going to Niger and had any input at all into that?
It seems you made up some answers before you started asking your questions okie. I already pointed to all the people that did stuff when Bush was in office but you say I can't draw those conclusions because you don't. What a lot of nonsense from you okie. Defend "Clintonista" if you can somehow make it mean you drew no conclusions.
Quote:

It is interesting the partisanship of some people here.
Interesting how you accuse others of partisanship when the first post is by you and refers to McCarthy as a "Clintonista." Partisanship at its finest there okie.

The first question I would like answered okie is how you can possibly think you are not partisan?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 09:01 pm
I am partisan and proud of it. Did I ever claim to be non-partisan? I am a conservative through and through. I am drawing no conclusions concerning McCarthy except what has been reported. I am simply very curious about what else is involved thats all. This forum is for the purpose of opinions and I would hope some speculation as well. I read speculations all the time on here. If my speculations turn out to be off base, so be it. I just smell a rat here and think there might be alot more to it than meets the eye now. Based on news reports, leaking from the CIA and other parts of the administration has been a serious problem, and I am glad when it looks like something is finally being done about it. Lets just wait and see what happens, can we agree on that?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Apr, 2006 09:06 pm
Quote:
It is interesting the partisanship of some people here.


Yeah. it is interesting. Especially when they make statements above referring to the partisanship of others.

Of course. "Clintonista" has no meaning as a term but is simply a "curious" way of refering to CIA employees.

Why don't we wait and see what happens with Libby too instead of jumping on the "They hate Bush" bandwagon.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2020 at 01:10:18