April 27, 2006
David Broder, Stand and Deliver
In another WaPo editorial attempt to defend the indefensible, columnist David Broder makes a startling charge:
The firing of McCarthy, a veteran intelligence officer who had held sensitive administrative posts, came after CIA Director Porter Goss and his White House superiors had ordered an intensive crackdown on leaks to the press.McCarthy had already initiated steps toward retirement and was apparently only days away from ending her career when she and others were asked to take lie detector tests -- and then she was dismissed.
For the first few days after the action was announced, the agency and the White House let stand the impression that McCarthy had been a source for the stories about secret U.S. detention centers in Europe that won a Pulitzer Prize for The Post's Dana Priest on April 17. But when McCarthy's lawyer said she had no part in that transaction, CIA officials confirmed that was the case -- leaving it unclear exactly what she had done to bring down the punishment.
David Broder is being disingenuous here, and dishonest. He seeks to craft a sentence so that a less-than-thorough reader might infer that the CIA had no evidence that Mary McCarthy leaked information to the press at all (as opposed to the specific Priest story), therefore, "leaving it unclear exactly what she had done to bring down the punishment."
That is a demonstrably false assertion by Broder, and I'm calling him out on it.
Via the NY Times:
The Central Intelligence Agency on Tuesday defended the firing of Mary O. McCarthy, the veteran officer who was dismissed last week, and challenged her lawyer's statements that Ms. McCarthy never provided classified information to the news media…A C.I.A. spokeswoman, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, said: "The officer was terminated for precisely the reasons we have given: unauthorized contacts with reporters and sharing classified information with reporters. There is no question whatsoever that the officer did both. The officer personally admitted doing both."
And from the very top of the CIA this comes from Director Porter Goss, via ABC News:
In a statement to CIA employees, [CIA Director Porter] Goss said that "a CIA officer has acknowledged having unauthorized discussions with the media, in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence, including operational information."
The bold used in both quotes is mine.
Two named CIA officials have stated specifically and vehemently that the CIA officer fired last week (and later identified as Mary McCarthy) was fired for the specific offenses of having improper media contacts and leaking classified information. Furthermore, they change that she admitted to both offenses, and they contend that evidence of such offenses is apparently beyond dispute.
For David Broder to now try to rewrite history by attributing McCarthy's firing as anything other than what it was is dishonest. Broder either needs to apologize to his Washington Post readers for his intentional misdirection, or he must explain how he himself could so easily be fooled. In either event, his credibility is now almost as suspect as that of the disgraced McCarthy.
"Questionable polices" are afoot indeed, and it is time for the spin and misdirection at the Washington Post to stop.
But she doesn't like Bush so doesn't that make it ok? Shouldn't she be off the hook? I bet Carter thinks so.
Posted by: Retired Navy at April 27, 2006 02:19 PMWho is David Brock?
Anywho, David Broder made an ass of himself on Meet The Press this past Sunday morning too. He condemned the CIA for conducting polygraph exams on its employees. At the same time the bonehead blamed the leak on CIA's inability to manage their secrets. Huh?
We have been conducting polygraph exams on employees entrusted with national secrets since the machines were first invented. Now some twit like Broder is going to tell the CIA. DIA and the NSA how to protect national secrets? What an ass.
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 27, 2006 03:20 PMDaivd Brock is a Media Matters liberal. I can't believe that slipped though, but the comparison may have been subconscious.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 27, 2006 03:30 PMThe Second Amendment means nothing outside of hunting.
Our forefathers gave us that right to fend off a military takeover in the U.S. - by either the left or the right.
Apparently, since most gun owners are far right they didn't see fit to fight the far right takeover so here we are. On the verge of martial law.
You'll imitate your German counterparts of 70 years ago. You'll allow them to take away any weapon that gives you parity with the military. You know you barely made a peep when the Brady Bill took away your assault rifles, which is what you'll need to effectively combat troops.
What a bunch of cowards, and what a sore disgrace you are to our forefathers who gave their blood for the likes of you.
In Jesus' Glorious and Holy name,
Dean Berry -- Real American
http://www.deanberryministries.org
dinoberry@frontiernet.net
Posted by: DEAN BERRY -- REAL AMERICAN at April 28, 2006 02:43 AMUh, Dean, Brady was handgun (not assault weapon) related, and part of it was struck down as being unconstitutional in 1997, with the rest expiring in 1998. It led to the development of the NRA-sanctioned, FBI-run NICS "insta-check" system which had the effect of making most gun purchases safer and faster.
The 1994 "Crime Bill" which contained the "assault weapon ban" led to the largest spree of AW-type firearms purchasing in United States history, and never really banned anything but a handfun of specific accessories, not the guns themselves, which were available the whole time without islly little features a bayonet lug. The vast majority of firearms covered in the ban changed one or two cosmetic features and were back on the market within days. The AW "Ban" did more to spread military-style semi-autos through America than any law in history before expiring due to a sunset clause 2 years ago, though it make have prevented a drive-bystabbing somewhere first.
What any of that has to do with the subject at hand? You got me...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 28, 2006 06:18 AM"...what a sore disgrace you are to our forefathers who gave their blood for the likes of you."
Dean, what a sore disgrace you are to the One who gave his blood and in who's name you close.
Posted by: Old Soldier at April 28, 2006 06:18 AMRemember, if you say something loud enough and long enough, sooner or later people are going to start believing it. The WaPo is merely following their ascribed doctrine. Sad, isn't it?
Posted by: Old Soldier at April 28, 2006 06:23 AMLooking at the main statement and the followup comments I thought to throw a wrench in your analysis and complicate the process. Mainly the lie detector is bogus. That is right it is not a piece of objective machinery but one that is operator dependent and very much subjective in the results that you get. Before the feds began to take a role in how you employee someone, I had a friend that used these machines on a regular basis for pre-employment evaluation. He said that the results were pretty much predetermined based on the appearence and history of the person. The operator would then insert what he desired. Might put your analysis in a different light.
Posted by: David Caskey, MD at April 28, 2006 10:18 AMI'm not trying to sound harsh David, but from where I sit the lie detector is irrelevant except as a flag.
As C.I.A. spokeswoman Dyck said in the main article, Mary McCarthy admitted to disclosing classified information, and as Goss stated, it was operational information at that.
When someone confesses to a crime and apparently based upon the tone if CIA comments, confessed in some detail to multiple instaces, I am inclined to believe that they might just have committed the crime, independent of whatever may have tripped her up to begin with.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 28, 2006 10:42 AMAdmission is most certainly something that would suggest that you are guilty as charged, but not always. My point is that possibly the operator had a high index of concern that she was guilty or that she was picked at random to have a positive test and thus justify her actions. It would seem that someone in the CIA with as much experience as she has would know the tricks used in the lie detector situation and know not to confess. My thought is there is more to this than meets the eye.
Posted by: David Caskey, MD at April 28, 2006 11:07 AMCY is correct. The polygraph is just a flag. It cannot be used in a court of law because it so much depends on the examiner on the other side of the table. Having taken polygraphs a number of times during my NSA career, I can tell you that an examiner can be pretty effective - and intimidating - if he/she is a real pro. He/she can ask more probing questions as the exam moves forward. Nevertheless, no polygraph exam or examiner is flawless.
I suspect that the examiner across the table from Mary McCarthy may have been just intimidating enough and convincing enough - coupled with the test results - to get her to admit where and how she had violated the law. That is where the rubber meets the road on this issue.
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 28, 2006 11:18 AM
