April 27, 2006
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 mediaÂ…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.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:57 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Retired Navy at April 27, 2006 02:19 PM (elhVA)
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 27, 2006 03:20 PM (fMYGX)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 27, 2006 03:30 PM (g5Nba)
Posted by: DEAN BERRY -- REAL AMERICAN at April 28, 2006 02:43 AM (h/YSB)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 28, 2006 06:18 AM (0fZB6)
Posted by: David Caskey, MD at April 28, 2006 10:18 AM (6wTpy)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 28, 2006 10:42 AM (g5Nba)
Posted by: David Caskey, MD at April 28, 2006 11:07 AM (6wTpy)
Posted by: Retired Spy at April 28, 2006 11:18 AM (fMYGX)
54 queries taking 0.0976 seconds, 160 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.