McCarthy: A Real Leaker

CIA senior officer Mary O. McCarthy has been leaking classified information to the press.

While it's difficult to determine the impact of her actions, there's no question that what she did harmed our national interests.

From the New York Times:

The Central Intelligence Agency has dismissed a senior career officer for disclosing classified information to reporters, including material for Pulitzer Prize-winning articles in The Washington Post about the agency's secret overseas prisons for terror suspects, intelligence officials said Friday.

The C.I.A. would not identify the officer, but several government officials said it was Mary O. McCarthy, a veteran intelligence analyst who until 2001 was senior director for intelligence programs at the National Security Council, where she served under President Bill Clinton and into the Bush administration.

So, McCarthy's name was leaked?

There's an irony there.

...Ms. McCarthy's departure followed an internal investigation by the C.I.A.'s Security Center, as part of an intensified effort that began in January to scrutinize employees who had access to particularly classified information. She was given a polygraph examination, confronted about answers given to the polygraph examiner and confessed, the government officials said. On Thursday, she was stripped of her security clearance and escorted out of C.I.A. headquarters. Ms. McCarthy did not reply Friday evening to messages left by e-mail and telephone.

McCarthy obviously realized that she would be worse off by continuing to lie rather than coming clean.

"A C.I.A. officer has been fired for unauthorized contact with the media and for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information," said a C.I.A. spokesman, Paul Gimigliano. "This is a violation of the secrecy agreement that is the condition of employment with C.I.A. The officer has acknowledged the contact and the disclosures."

...Intelligence officials speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the dismissal resulted from "a pattern of conduct" and not from a single leak, but that the case involved in part information about secret C.I.A. detention centers that was given to The Washington Post.

"Speaking on the condition of anonymity"?

More leaks in a tale of leaking...

Ms. McCarthy's departure was another unsettling jolt for the C.I.A., battered in recent years over faulty prewar intelligence in Iraq, waves of senior echelon departures after the appointment of Mr. Goss as director and the diminished standing of the agency under the reorganization of the country's intelligence agencies.

That's funny.

I don't think busting McCarthy is bad for the CIA at all. I think it's a sign that the organization is getting its act together.

I'm sure it's an "unsettling jolt" for the lib media outlets that counted on McCarthy's loose lips for their anti-Bush, anti-American stories; but it's good for the country that she no longer can damage our interests by giving out classified information.

The C.I.A.'s inquiry focused in part on identifying Ms. McCarthy's role in supplying information for a Nov. 2, 2005, article in The Post by Dana Priest, a national security reporter. The article reported that the intelligence agency was sending terror suspects to clandestine detention centers in several countries, including sites in Eastern Europe.

Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor, said on its Web site that he could not comment on the firing because he did not know the details. "As a general principle," he said, "obviously I am opposed to criminalizing the dissemination of government information to the press."

With all due respect, Downie's statement is idiotic.

We're talking about LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, not "criminalizing the dissemination of government information to the press."

DUH!

It is positively disgraceful that McCarthy's actions, LEAKING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, are not being deemed as a serious breach and an abuse of her position by the lib media outlets.

The Times and the Post and the Dems went nuts over the "leaking" of the "covert" identity of Valerie Plame, even though SHE WAS NOT COVERT, AND THEREFORE HER NAME WAS NOT LEAKED.

That was considered to be such an egregious violation that the matter required an investigation by the Office of the Special Counsel.

Supposedly, the Plame bit put our lives and our national security at risk. It didn't. It was a non-story.

Now, what about McCarthy?

Her behavior REALLY did have an effect on Americans. The information she leaked to the Times and the Post certainly could be seen as putting our troops at greater risk, by inflaming insurgents and instigating more attacks.

Furthermore, by undermining the Administration's ability to monitor terrorist activity, she elevated the potential for harm to be done to Americans at home and abroad.

Why did McCarthy do it?

Public records show that Ms. McCarthy contributed $2,000 in 2004 to the presidential campaign of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.

Hmmm. That explains a lot, doesn't it?

From the Washington Post:

McCarthy began her career in government as an analyst at the CIA in 1984, public documents show. She served as special assistant to the president and senior director for intelligence programs at the White House during the Clinton administration and the first few months of the Bush administration. She later returned to the CIA.

I believe we have a motive.

I don't buy the spin of Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. He "said people who provide citizens the information they need to hold their government accountable should not 'come to harm for that.'"

Certain information is classified by the government for national security reasons. It just can't be open season on all information. There are limits. Was Downie sick the day that his journalism class discussed ethics?

LEAKING should not be taken lightly.

In an effort to stem leaks, the Bush administration launched several initiatives earlier this year targeting journalists and national security employees. They include FBI probes, extensive polygraphing inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.

Why is this being done?

It's being done to protect us.

McCarthy and the outlets that published the information she shared with the unauthorized individuals have worked together to undermine our safety, not enhance it. They need to be held accountable.

This is not about freedom of speech being squelched or secrecy on the part of the government. It's about keeping us safe from our self-professed enemies, the ones that have killed thousands of innocent Americans and vow to kill as many more as they can.

I'll sleep a little bit better knowing that McCarthy, an enemy within, will no longer be supplying the press with information that is intended to remain classified.

The American people should be protected from irresponsible, twisted types like McCarthy.

She is no hero.

Wait, I take that back. I guess she'd be considered a hero by America's enemies, the ones that want us dead.

___________________________________

This is an interesting bit of trivia.

Sandy Berger, the disgraced former Clinton national security adviser, appointed the leaker McCarthy.
That Dem Culture of Corruption runs deep.

Remember this shining moment?

The charging document states that between September 2 and October 2, 2003, Berger "knowingly removed classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration and stored and retained such documents at places ... including his place of employment."

An associate of Berger told CNN the former national security adviser admitted to the Justice Department he originally took five copies of an after-action report -- one during his September 2003 visit to the Archives and four during his October 2003 trip.

When he returned to his office and compared the copies he had, he believed several were basically the same, the associate said.

He admitted to officials that he then used scissors to cut up three copies that night while at his office, they said. At first he had said he had either misplaced or unintentionally thrown them away.

When Archives officials contacted him after they realized documents were missing, he told them about the two copies he had and returned them, along with the handwritten notes he had taken, they said. He did not say anything about the three copies he had destroyed.

The charging document states that between September 2 and October 2, 2003, Berger "knowingly removed classified documents from the National Archives and Records Administration and stored and retained such documents at places ... including his place of employment."

An associate of Berger told CNN the former national security adviser admitted to the Justice Department he originally took five copies of an after-action report -- one during his September 2003 visit to the Archives and four during his October 2003 trip.

When he returned to his office and compared the copies he had, he believed several were basically the same, the associate said.

He admitted to officials that he then used scissors to cut up three copies that night while at his office, they said. At first he had said he had either misplaced or unintentionally thrown them away.

When Archives officials contacted him after they realized documents were missing, he told them about the two copies he had and returned them, along with the handwritten notes he had taken, they said. He did not say anything about the three copies he had destroyed.

And this?

The most important document Berger took was a "highly classified" assessment, written by former National Security Council aide Richard Clarke, on Clinton administration counter-terror efforts, sources said.

...Berger admits he also took the notes he wrote from other documents he inspected - a violation of Archives policies - while vetting thousands of pages to be given to the 9/11 commission, his lawyer said.

An Archives staffer reported seeing the papers sticking out of a leg of Berger's pants, saying "it could have been white socks, except that [Berger] was wearing a dark suit," according to a government source.

Other reports had Berger also filling his pockets and jacket.

I wonder if in addition to using scissors to cut up classified documents from the National Archives, Berger also runs with scissors?
Corrupt and careless and very sloppy.