Excusing the Leakers and Blaming the "Liars"

Captain's Quarters has a couple of pieces taking the MSM and John Kerry to task for excusing the McCarthy leaks. I still don't understand how anyone can logically excuse these actions. Especially with the details of where she could have gone to protest the issue.

In fact, McCarthy had several options, none of which it appears she used. First, as Kerr mentions, she had the option of raising her concerns with senior CIA officials, up to Porter Goss. She could have then gone to the State Department to discuss it with their intelligence liaisons, especially since the information she revealed had the potential to damage relations with key allies -- which it did when she released it to the press. McCarthy could have gone to the White House as well. Perhaps she considered that a waste of time, but without having attempted it, she wouldn't have any idea whether the White House would have addressed her concerns.

At the end of all those options, if she still couldn't get her concerns addressed, she could have gone to the ranking members of the two Congressional committees on intelligence or the Armed Services committees. Congress has oversight responsibilities for intelligence and the military, and both houses of the legislature had been publicly bristling over the way the administration had supposedly sidelined them. The Democrats would have been especially receptive to McCarthy's entreaties -- especially given her financial support of John Kerry. The issue could then have been hashed out with the administration and the CIA behind closed doors.

The fact that the NYTimes goes to lengths to find excuses is as nauseating as the WaPo article justifying the actions. The Old Grey Mare works quite hard in finding people who swear that she worked by the rules, when there is very strong evidence that she didn't try at all. In fact, the whole article reads like a resume. Or a character witness. They end the article with a push to blame Bush for the whole thing.

But some former C.I.A. employees who know Ms. McCarthy remain unconvinced, arguing that the pressure from Mr. Goss and others in the Bush administration to plug leaks may have led the agency to focus on an employee on the verge of retirement, whose work at the White House during the Clinton administration had long raised suspicions within the current administration.

So does that mean that leakers who are near retirement and worked for Clinton are immune from the legal requirements on disclosure of secrets? How is an investigation of McCarthy illegitimate if she did illegally disclose information? Sorry, that just doesn't make sense.

I recommend reading both articles and the CQ piece. The perspective is a bit baffling, though the papers are obviously running blocker for their own interests rather than reporting the facts.

Then there is our second favorite Massachusetts wind-bag spouting off on Sunday on the topic. CQ again has a related piece.

ABC 'THIS WEEK' HOST GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: On another -- on another front, excuse me, CIA official Mary McCarthy lost her job this week for disclosing classified information according to the CIA probably about a WASHINGTON POST story which reveal revealed the existence of secret prisons in Europe. A lot of different views. Senator Pat Roberts praised action but some former CIA officers described Mary McCarthy as a sacrificial lamb acting in the finest American tradition by revealing human rights violations. What's your view?

SEN. KERRY: Well, I read that. I don't know whether she did it or not so it's hard to have a view on it. Here's my fundamental view of this, that you have somebody being fired from the CIA for allegedly telling the truth, and you have no one fired from the white house for revealing a CIA agent in order to support a lie. That underscores what's really wrong in Washington, DC Here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's one issue of hypocrisy but should a CIA officer be able to make decisions on his or her --

KERRY: ... Of course not. Of course, not. A CIA agent has the obligation to uphold the law and clearly leaking is against the law, and nobody should leak. I don't like leaking. But if you're leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you, you know, put on that person. Obviously they're not going to keep their job, but there are other larger issues here. You know, classification in Washington is a tool that is used to hide the truth from the American people. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was eloquent and forceful in always talking about how we needed to, you know, end this endless declassification that takes place in this city, and it has become a tool to hide the truth from Americans.

STEPHANOPOULOS: These --

SEN. KERRY: So I'm glad she told the truth but she's going to obviously -- if she did it, if she did it, suffer the consequences of breaking the law.

I love the attempt to make the statement on hypocrisy. That's just entertainment at it's best. Except that the facts show, over and over, that the release of information, not leak, related to Wilson's actions in Niger, were to disprove a lie, not support one. Not to mention that no one has yet proven that any illegal action was taken in revealing Plame. Kerry twists that one so out of shape that it's no wonder the public doesn't know up from down.

Mitigation of disclosure of classified information because it was the truth? I don't get that either. One would assume that revelation on any classified information would be release of the truth, that still doesn't make it right in any way.

And while we're on Kerry, his Huffington Post blog entry is hot-air at its finest. Not really on topic, but just read this bit:

In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders have publicly called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And from the ranks of this administration and its conservative surrogates, we've heard these calls dismissed as acts of disloyalty or as a threat to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That line of attack is shameful, especially coming from those who have never worn the uniform.

Is he trying to say that the General's public accusations aren't giving comfort to the enemy? I'd think this would be an obvious PR win in Vietnam style for the insurgents. How is an attack on the General's shameful? They can question and blame Rumsfeld for actions that many of them were actually part of, yet no one can question their tactics or motives? And then how is it that non-military personnel can't question their motives either? Sorry, a uniform does not an expert make. Nor does it make one above review.