April 26, 2006

Chamber Pot Pulitzer

Today's Washington Post editorial Bad Targeting was probably left unsigned with the primary goal of protecting the reputation of the wretch assigned to excrete it. You can hardly blame them. If a name were ever assigned to this dunghill of journalistic excuses, the author would forever lose what credibility he or she retains.

The Post sticks with septic certainty to its allegation that the United States has (or had) secret prisons in Europe, even after investigation have found no proof of illegal renditions, and no proof that such prisons ever existed. None.

The Post then has the audacity accuse CIA Director Porter Goss of a "questionable use" his authority, for firing an employee who concealed multiple instances of certainly unethical and possibly illegal acts. "Questionable use?" Brassy words coming from the newspaper that used its bully pulpit to release approximately three hundred articles and editorials on "Plamegate" with many of those calling for Karl Rove's head, with no actual evidence of wrong-doing.

But the most pathetic defense of all that the Post tries to mount is to suggest that Mary McCarthy had multiple illicit contacts with the press out of some sense of patriotism. They would spin this to suggest that Mary McCarthy, who worked in the Inspector General's Office of the Central Intelligence Agency, was unaware of the very real and legal options she would have had under federal whistleblower statutes, specifically the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998. Knowing the intricacies of such laws and the minutia of internal CIA policies regarding the same are among the responsibilities of her office.

If Mary McCarthy thought a real crime was being committed, she had the right—no, the duty—to report it directly to her superiors and/or Congress, and she knew that well. These is no evidence, not one Congressman, not one Senator, who has stepped forward and said that McCarthy attempted to contact them in this matter. Not One.

Instead, Mary McCarthy illicitly and perhaps illegally had contacts with multiple members of the press, including the Post. The Post seeks to uphold the honor of someone who disgraced her position and betrayed her oath as a CIA officer in what turned to be an empty and apparently partisan attack, in hopes of salvaging the reputation of their chamber pot of a Pulitzer.

The Post and McCarthy have failed to shift the blame their indefensible actions, and long may they wallow in their shame.

Note: Grammar mistakes corrected.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 26, 2006 09:11 AM | TrackBack

This is all very frustrating, because you know there are people who will, on not very deep consideration, accept the Post's point of view.

Also--sorry to seem so picky--please, please, PLEASE don't use an apostrophe in creating the possessive "its." The apostrophe is only used in creating the contraction for "it is." I know this makes the possessive of "it" a bit singular, but there you are. Of all the common mistakes in construction, this is becoming one of the worst and most common. Yikes!

Posted by: betsybounds at April 26, 2006 09:52 AM

Wait let me get this straight, ". . . investigation have found no proof of illegal renditions, and no proof that such prisons ever existed," yet Mary McCarthy is in trouble for telling about these nonexsistant places?

Posted by: Fred at April 26, 2006 09:54 AM

Trackback for you:

Posted by: Granddaddy Long Legs at April 26, 2006 09:57 AM

Fred, since she worked in the inspector general's office of the CIA, she had access to allegations of all kinds, proven and unproven, that the IG was supposed to check out and confirm or deny. So yes, she is in trouble for violating the secrecy of the whistleblowing part of the agency. If allegations will leak, who will bring problems to the attention of those responsible for dealing with them? Obviously, allegations may include the false, the fanciful, and the ill-intentioned, or combinations thereof, as well as the verifiable.

ON the matter of apostrophes, I agree. But the possessives of many pronouns do not take apostrophes: hers, yours, theirs, ours...etc.

B. Rambo Landmark, Manitoba

Posted by: Bill Rambo at April 26, 2006 10:05 AM


She can both lie about some things AND give up classified information.

Think, man, think.

Posted by: TWM at April 26, 2006 10:06 AM

You were in the service, weren't you Fred?

If a soldier in your unit gave the location, battle plan, and composition of one of our units to the enemy, and that information was accurate to the best of his knowledge, would he be any less guilty of attempting treason if that information turned out to be inaccurate?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 26, 2006 10:23 AM


What's important is that she broke her oath of secrecy. There have been many more CIA leaks than this one, which prompted the investigations into where they were coming from. It's highly likely that several different instances of disinformation were released in order to find some of the leakers. Why wait for more serious intelligence to be released through the press that could undermine the war effort when a few lies can be concocted and disseminated in a harmless manner to CIA personel, each lie slightly different and therefore traceable to a small collection of possible leakers. Tom Clancy described such a way to 'out' a leaker of intelligence in one of his fictions. It's not a terrible idea. It helps find the source of the leak and it avoids further compromising of intelligence. Anyway, that's why she can be in trouble even though no proof of the use of those foreign prisons could be found. Sorry if I rambled.

Posted by: paul at April 26, 2006 10:32 AM

Oh, people. Give it up. Fred (like most libs) is not interested in logic or truth, but in scoring what he sees as cheap political points.

Posted by: Grant Canyion at April 26, 2006 11:05 AM

No one has not produced a secret prison to prove the story false.

So, therefore, the story must be true. File this comment under "Ratherisms".

Posted by: Actual at April 26, 2006 11:26 AM

I hope it was a mole catcher operation with intentionally planted false, and oh so tempting, information for the CIA McCarthys to find and leak. That word, 'leak', is hardly the right one. Words derived from betrayal or treason would be better.

If the administration has finally acted on the undeclared war by CIA leftists and is fighting back, they should soon regain control of an incompetent and rogue organization.

Posted by: Fred Z at April 26, 2006 05:05 PM