Apr 22 2006

NY Times Runs McCarthy Defense

I guess, if Mary McCarthy is a source for the NSA story investigation, the NY Times would best be served by trying to come to her defense in case she implicates them. And so they do:

On Thursday, the C.I.A. fired Ms. McCarthy, 61, accusing her of leaking information to reporters about overseas prisons operated by the agency in the years since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Somehow the vaulted NY Times missed the part were she confessed to leaking CLASSIFIED information to reporters. Details, details!

But despite Ms. McCarthy’s independent streak, some colleagues who worked with her at the White House and other offices during her intelligence career say they cannot imagine Ms. McCarthy as a leaker of classified information.

Well,they should talk to her because that is what she said she did! Obviously the NY Times sources don’t know Mary like Mary knows Mary.

“We’re talking about a person with great integrity who played by the book and, as far as I know, never deviated from the rules,” said Steven Simon, a National Security Council aide in the Clinton administration who worked closely with Ms. McCarthy.

How can the NY Times print this garbage with a straight face? I guess lots of people find it hard to believe Geoffry Dahmer is the monster he his, but what’s the point? The point is Steven Simon is part of the CSIS cabal, as was McCarthy, and is shilling for his buddy McCarthy:

Benjamin had an insider’s perspective on the War on Terrorism since before the term was even used. Now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), he has a new book with Steven Simon, a professor at Georgetown University and a former colleague at the NSC.

In The Next Attack, the pair tackle the questions of why the U.S. has not experienced another September 11th, why we are still at great risk for one, and, most crucially, what we can do to prevent the next one. Richard A. Clarke, who was Benjamin’s and Simon’s boss at the NSC, says “Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon were right about Al Qaeda in their top-secret analyses in the 1990s.

Funny, I don’t seem to see these connection in the NY Times article. And the apologists and enablers come out in force:

If in fact Ms. McCarthy was the leaker, Richard J. Kerr, a former C.I.A. deputy director, said, “I have no idea what her motive was, but there is a lot of dissension within the agency and it seems to be a rather unhappy place.”

So, if you don’t like the policy it is OK to break the law and tip off the terrorists. This is pure, partisan propaganda dressed up like news.

24 responses so far

24 Responses to “NY Times Runs McCarthy Defense”

  1. AJStrata says:


    there are 160 posts under the category Plame Game (look to the right column) full of citations from the indictments, filings, Senate Report, and articles. When you have learnt yourself come on back.

  2. jdm says:


    No, Fitz did not say as AJS claims. You throw #’s (160 posts!!!), do this “everybody knows” act, but Fitz said no such thing. If anything, his statements lately suggest Rove is next. What Fitz did say was Libby’s obstruction prevented his investigation from obtaining the precise information needed in Plame investigation. So he’s peeling the onion one layer at a time.

    Do you have a specific citation to back your claim?

  3. AJStrata says:


    You want to stay ignorant – fine. Why would I care? I did the homework and demonstrated it in my analysis. I am not here to educate you. Get off your backside and read up or be quiet! No one cares what you know or don’t know.  And no one is going to lift a finger for you.

  4. jdm says:

    Fitz said nothing of which you claim… nothing. Not a one.

    I read a 1/2 dozen or so of your Plame posts. Your “homework” is juvenile at best (and that’s being generous).
    For example, from this post on 4/21, you quote from Fitz’ indictment:

    20. On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson’s wife with Russert.

    and conclude:
    The argument I was having over at JOM with a delusional lefty was over my contention that Fitzgerald assumes Libby did not leak information to the reporters as part of the indictment. (snip)

    Fitzgerald is clearly claiming Libby was lying when he said HE DID TALK TO RUSSERT ABOUT PLAME! Got that?

    Taking all your self-agrandizing claim to “context” mastery, I point out to you that section you quote (20) makes no mention, as you say… “HE(Libby) DID TALK TO RUSSERT ABOUT PLAME”. Yet you somehow construe this (20) as “context” that Fitz substantiating the words you are putting in his mouth.

    Obviously, you haven’t read much regarding Fitz filing, various court opinions prior to indictment, and indictment itself. Here’s some context for you. From District Court of Columbia decision dated 2/15/05 regarding subpeona for Judy Miller:

    With respect to Miller, the special counsel seeks evidence regarding two exchanges with I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff and National Security Adviser: first, an in-person meeting in Washington, D.C. on July 8, 2003, and second, a telephone conversation on July 12, 2003. Before the grand jury, Libby testified that although he had previously learned about Wilson’s wife’s employment, he had forgotten it by July 8 and recalled no discussion of Wilson during his meeting with Miller. (I-105, 134-35, 279.) As to the July 12 conversation, Libby stated, “I said to her that, that I didn’t know if it was true, but that reporters had told us that the ambassador’s wife works at the CIA, that I didn’t know anything about it.” (I-208.) Because other testimony and evidence raises doubts about Libby’s claims, the special counsel believes Miller’s testimony is “essential to determining whether Libby is guilty of crimes, including perjury, false statements and the improper disclosure of national defense information.”

    The special counsel’s argument is persuasive. As Libby admits, in mid-June 2003, when reports first appeared about the Niger trip, the vice president informed Libby “in an off sort of curiosity sort of fashion” that the Niger envoy’s wife worked at the CIA’s counterproliferation division. (I-50-55, 245-46.) In addition, handwritten notes by Libby’s CIA briefer indicate that Libby referred to “Joe Wilson” and “Valerie Wilson” in a conversation on June 14. (8/27/04 Aff. at 12.) Nevertheless, Libby maintains that he believed he was learning about Wilson’s wife’s identity for the first time when he spoke with NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert on July 10 or 11 regarding coverage of the Niger issue by MSNBC correspondent Chris Matthews. (I-162-69; 8/27/04 Aff. at 9-10.) According to Libby, Russert told him, “[D]id you know that Ambassador Wilson’s wife works at the CIA? . . . [A]ll the reporters know it.” (I-166.) Claiming to have been “a little taken aback by that,” Libby testified, “I said, no, I don’t know that intentionally because I didn’t want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning.” (I-166.)

    Russert recalls this conversation very differently. In his deposition, describing Plame’s employment as a fact that would have been “[v]ery” significant to him –one he would have discussed with NBC management and potentially sought to
    broadcast–Russert stated, “I have no recollection of knowing that [Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA], so it was impossible for me to have [told Libby] that.” (I-43, 32.) Asked to describe his “reaction” to Novak’s July 14 column, Russert said, “Wow. When I read that–it was the first time I knew who Joe Wilson’s wife was and that she was a CIA operative. . . . [I]t was news to me.”

    So much for your insightful context construction. There’s timelines all over the web, should you ever decide to actually read what’s been done/said/discovered.

    You want to stay ignorant – fine. Why would I care? I did the homework and demonstrated it in my analysis. I am not here to educate you. Get off your backside and read up or be quiet! No one cares what you know or don’t know. And no one is going to lift a finger for you.

    yah, sure… ok. Pffft.