Clinton Appointment to CIA Busted for Leaking Info. to Press

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12423825/


The officer flunked a polygraph exam before being fired on Thursday and is now under investigation by the Justice Department, NBC has learned.

Intelligence sources tell NBC News the accused officer, Mary McCarthy, worked in the CIA's inspector general's office and had worked for the National Security Council under the Clinton and and George W. Bush administrations.

[Vashner]

They are working on the charges to follow. The termination was just to stop the leaking. If you want to work as a Spy for America you should be able to support whatever the commander & chief orders. As a matter of fact they are sworn in under oath to do just that.

This is just another example of the disgusting attempts by the left and it's drive by media to help us loose the war.

[ChumpDumper]

We can win the war without secret prisons in eastern Europe.

[xrayzebra]

We can win the war without secret prisons in eastern Europe.

We can? How do you know that?
:smokin

[ChumpDumper]

We can torture people anywhere.

[xrayzebra]

We can torture people anywhere.

How do you know we do torture people? I have seen no proof of torture
of any people. You are talking out the top of your head.

[ChumpDumper]

Why else would you need a secret prison?

[xrayzebra]

Why else would you need a secret prison?

I don't know, you are the expert, you tell me. Do you mean we have
to have them just to torture people? How bout maybe we don't want
others to know who we have in custody, because, well maybe someone
in the CIA might want to tell a newspaper. Nah, that couldn't be it.
:lol

[ChumpDumper]

I don't knowWell, there you go.
Do you mean we have
to have them just to torture people?Why else?
How bout maybe we don't want others to know who we have in custody, because, well maybe someone
in the CIA might want to tell a newspaper.Nah, we didn't get the names of the Gitmo detainees until they wanted to tell us. Try again.

[exstatic]

The man is a HERO, and probably didn't want to make the transition from CIA officer to KGB, which is where the agency/country seems to be heading.

[boutons_]

This might be, yet again, a long, complicated, cloudy story, but it smells like the Repug political operative running the CIA is out for political revenge and scapegoatig, not increased security, or illegal activies.

Repug "intelligence", Repug "science". Whatever fits the Repug ideology, just like Communist Russia.

===========================

April 23, 2006

Colleagues Say C.I.A. Analyst Played by Rules

By DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON, April 22 — In 1998, when President Bill Clinton ordered military strikes against a suspected chemical weapons factory in Sudan, Mary O. McCarthy, a senior intelligence officer assigned to the White House, warned the president that the plan relied on inconclusive intelligence, two former government officials said.

Ms. McCarthy's reservations did not stop the attack on the factory, which was carried out in retaliation for Al Qaeda's bombing of two American embassies in East Africa. But they illustrated her willingness to challenge intelligence data and methods endorsed by her bosses at the Central Intelligence Agency.

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. 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.

As a senior National Security Council aide for intelligence from 1996 to 2001, she was responsible for guarding some of the nations most sensitive secrets.

"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.

Others said it was possible that Ms. McCarthy, who began attending law school at night several years ago, made a campaign contribution to Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004 and had announced her intention to retire from C.I.A., had grown increasingly disenchanted with the often harsh and extra-legal methods adopted by the Bush administration for handling Al Qaeda prisoners and felt she had no alternative except to go to the press.

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." Mr. Kerr called Ms. McCarthy "quite a good, substantive person on the issues I dealt with her on."

She was known as a low-key during her time at the white house as professional who paid special attention to preventing leaks of classified information and covert operations, several current and former government officials said. When she disagreed with decisions on intelligence operations, they say, she registered her complaints through internal government channels.

Some former intelligence officials who worked with Ms. McCarthy saw her as a persistent obstacle to aggressive antiterrorism efforts.

"She was always of the view that she would rather not get her hands dirty with covert action," said Michael Scheuer, a former C.I.A. official, who said he was in meetings with Ms. McCarthy where she voiced doubts about reports that the factory had ties to Al Qaeda and was secretly producing substances for chemical weapons.

In the case of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, her concerns may have been well-founded. Sudanese officials and the plant's owner denied any connections to Al Qaeda.

In the aftermath of the attack, the internal White House debate about whether the intelligence reports about the plant were accurate spilled into the press. Eventually, Clinton administration officials conceded that the hardest evidence used to justify striking the plant was a single soil sample that seemed to indicate the presence of a chemical used in making VX gas.

There is no evidence Ms. McCarthy was involved in any disclosure to the press about the incident, but she was concerned enough that she wrote a formal letter dissenting to President Clinton, two former officials say.

Over the last decade, Ms. McCarthy gradually came to have one foot in the secret world of intelligence and another in the public world of policy.

She went from lower-level analyst working in obscurity at C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va,. to someone at home "downtown," as Washington is called by agency veterans, where policy is more openly fought over and leaks are far more common.

Though she was a C.I.A. employee for more than 20 years, associates said, her early professional experience was not in the world of spying and covert operations.

After a previous career that one former colleague said included time as a flight attendant, she earned a doctorate in history from the University of Minnesota. She worked for a Swiss company "conducting risk assessments for international businesses and banks," Ms. McCarthy wrote in a brief biography she provided to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also called the 9/11 Commission. She testified before the commission in 2003. The biography notes that she once wrote "a book on the social history of Ghana."

Even after joining the C.I.A. in 1984, Ms. McCarthy, who was hired as intelligence analyst for Africa, was far from a covert operative. In the late 1980's, she was promoted to management, taking over as chief of the Central America and Caribbean section, though she had no previous experience in the region, said a former officer who worked with her.

By 1991, she was working as deputy to one of the agency's most senior analysts, Charles E. Allen, whose job as "National Intelligence Officer for Warning" was to anticipate major national security threats. Ms. McCarthy took over the job from Mr. Allen in 1994 and moved to the Clinton White House two years later.

Rand Beers, who at the time was Mr. Clinton's senior intelligence aide on the National Security Council, said he hired Ms. McCarthy to be his deputy. "Anybody who works for Charlie Allen and then replaces him has got to be good," said Mr. Beers, who went on to serve as an adviser to Mr. Kerry's campaign in 2004. She took over from Mr. Beers as the senior director for intelligence programs in 1998.

Though she was not among the C.I.A. officials who briefed Mr. Clinton every morning on the latest intelligence, she "worked on some of the most sensitive programs," a former White House aide said, and was responsible for notifying Congress when covert action was being undertaken.

The aide and some others who spoke about Ms. McCarthy were granted anonymity because they did not want to be identified as discussing her official duties because she may be under criminal investigation.

When the Bush administration took office in 2001, Ms. McCarthy's career seemed to stall. A former Bush administration official who worked with her said that, although she was a career C.I.A. employee, as a holdover from the Clinton administration she was regarded with suspicion and was gradually eased out of her job as senior director for intelligence programs. She left several months into Mr. Bush's first term.

But she did not return immediately to a new assignment at C.I.A. headquarters. She took an extended sabbatical at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington research organization. In late 2003, she testified publicly before the 9/11 Commission about ways to reorganize the intelligence agencies to prevent another major terror attack.

She served on the Markle Foundation's "Task Force on National Security in the Information Age," a group of academics as well as current and former government officials working on recommendations for sharing classified information more widely within the government, according to a report issued by the group. The report identifies Ms. McCarthy as a "nongovernment" expert.

H. Andrew Schwartz, a spokesman for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that Ms. McCarthy's relationship with the organization lasted from 2001 to 2003. Several associates of Ms. McCarthy say she returned to the C.I.A. in 2004, taking a job in the inspector general's office. That year, public records show, she contributed $2,000 to Mr. Kerry's presidential campaign, identifying herself as a "government analyst."

Married with one child, she also began attending law school at night, two former co-workers said, and talked about switching to a career in public interest law.

After an article last November in The Washington Post reported that the C.I.A. was sending terror suspects to clandestine detention centers in several countries, including some in Eastern Europe, Porter J. Goss, the agency's director, ordered polygraphs for intelligence officers who knew about certain "compartmented" programs, including the secret detention centers for terror suspects.

Polygraphs are given routinely to agency employees at least every five years, but special ones can be ordered when a security breach is suspected.

Government officials said that after Ms. McCarthy's polygraph examination showed the possibility of deception, the examiner confronted her and she disclosed having conversations with reporters.

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.

"It looks to me like Mary is being used as a sacrificial lamb," said Larry Johnson, a former C.I.A. officer who worked for Ms. McCarthy in the agency's Latin America section.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

============================

If it smells like extremely dirty, slimy politics, it's Repug.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

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, seeings someone in an article can't imagine her a leaker, I guess that settles it :lol

No one could imagine at the time that Aldridge Aimes was a spy, either...

[spurster]

Secret prisons brought to you by the land of liberty, the Bill of Rights, and justice for all. Can't the GOP find somebody who is a real Republican rather than a free-spending tyrant?

[Yonivore]

We can win the war without secret prisons in eastern Europe.
Can we win a war with a leaky CIA?

What I want to know is this: Was Mary McCarthy, who gave $7,500.00 to the Kerry Campaign (not being reported by MSM), personal friends with, an acquaintance of, or known to the Plame-Wilsons?

I think the leftist plot to undermine the Presidency and the war in Iraq is unraveling. Granted, the culture and expertise of entrenched CIA liberals is making it difficult -- but, it is indeed coming apart on them.

[Yonivore]

The man is a HERO, and probably didn't want to make the transition from CIA officer to KGB, which is where the agency/country seems to be heading.
Here's your hero, ex.

Flopping Aces (http://www.floppingaces.net/?p=1551) has a very large backgrounder on Mary McCarthy, the CIA operative who is being accused of passing classified information to the Washington Post. Nearly all of it is circumstantial, but startling nevertheless. Here are some snippets.


1998: Washington — National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger announced June 16 the appointment of Mary O’Neil McCarthy as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs.

2001: McCarthy joins the CSIS think tank. Three of her fellow experts are Zbigniew Brzezinski, General Wesley Clark, General Anthony Zinni

2001: McCarthy and Richard Clarke work on a plan to counter the Taliban in Afghanistan.
There's much more.

Since McCarthy had reached a fairly senior level it was only natural that she should interact with these individuals. Still, it looks like the start of a pretty interesting week.

In From the Cold (http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2006/04/leaker.html) has some opinions on Mary McCarthy's career. The key paragraph:


Equally interesting is her meteoric rise within the intelligence community. According to her bio, she joined the CIA as an analyst in 1984. Within seven years, she had rise to a Deputy NIO position, and reached full NIO status by 1994. To reach that level, she literally catapulted over dozens of more senior officers--and I'm guessing that her political connections didn't hurt. By comparison, I know a current NIO, with a resume and academic credentials more impressive than Ms. McCarthy's, who reached the position after more than 20 years of extraordinarily distinguished service. McCarthy's rapid advancement speaks volumes about how the Clinton Administration did business, and sheds new light on the intelligence failures that set the stage for 9-11. We can only wonder how many other political hacks climbed the intel food chain under Clinton--and remain in place to this day.
OK. It's an opinion. Then In From the Cold makes a prediction:


Within a few weeks, fired CIA officer Mary McCarthy will take her place in the pantheon of liberal heroes. Democratic politicians, left-leaning pundits and analysts in the drive-by media will hail her "courage" in exposing secret CIA prisons in eastern Europe, and providing that information to the Washington Post. There will almost certainly be a book and movie deal; I'm sure Joe Wilson's literary agent will be in touch, if he hasn't called already. However, timing for those media events will probably depend on whether Ms. McCarthy spends any time in jail for her "disclosures."
Which has already come true. The New York Times has a special on Mary McCarthy called Colleagues Say C.I.A. Analyst Played by Rules (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/washington/23mccarthy.html?hp&ex=1145764800&en=b2c0a9f955c9fcaa&ei=5094&partner=homepage). (Requires registration)


As a senior National Security Council aide for intelligence from 1996 to 2001, she was responsible for guarding some of the nations most sensitive secrets.

"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.
In the view of the Times, McCarthy was not somebody who 'rose meteorically' -- as In From the Cold believes -- but rather a hard working gal who rose by merit to the loftiest positions in intelligence.


Though she was a C.I.A. employee for more than 20 years, associates said, her early professional experience was not in the world of spying and covert operations. After a previous career that one former colleague said included time as a flight attendant, she earned a doctorate in history from the University of Minnesota. She worked for a Swiss company "conducting risk assessments for international businesses and banks," Ms. McCarthy wrote in a brief biography she provided to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also called the 9/11 Commission. She testified before the commission in 2003. The biography notes that she once wrote "a book on the social history of Ghana."

Even after joining the C.I.A. in 1984, Ms. McCarthy, who was hired as intelligence analyst for Africa, was far from a covert operative. In the late 1980's, she was promoted to management, taking over as chief of the Central America and Caribbean section, though she had no previous experience in the region, said a former officer who worked with her.
But "By 1991, she was working as deputy to one of the agency's most senior analysts, Charles E. Allen, whose job as 'National Intelligence Officer for Warning' was to anticipate major national security threats. Ms. McCarthy took over the job from Mr. Allen in 1994 and moved to the Clinton White House two years later." Yet her competence is established in the next paragraph by a glowing comment from Rand Beers:


who at the time was Mr. Clinton's senior intelligence aide on the National Security Council, said he hired Ms. McCarthy to be his deputy. "Anybody who works for Charlie Allen and then replaces him has got to be good," said Mr. Beers, who went on to serve as an adviser to Mr. Kerry's campaign in 2004. She took over from Mr. Beers as the senior director for intelligence programs in 1998.
And Rand Beers turns out to be, according to this cached news article (http://www.opednews.com/kerry031704_malaysia.htm), John Kerry's foreign policy advisor while on campaign.


Washington, DC – Kerry Foreign Policy Advisor Rand Beers issued the following statement today: "John Kerry rejects any association with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable. The world needs leaders who seek to bring people together, not drive them apart with hateful and divisive rhetoric."
He was also, according to this Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62941-2003Jun15?language=printer), adamantly opposed to OIF; believed that Afghanistan "was a job begun, then abandoned", and a believer in the primacy of multilateral and diplomatic effort in the War on Terror. The Post article closes in this way:


On a recent hot night, at 10 o'clock, Beers sat by an open bedroom window, wearing a T-shirt, his bare feet propped on a table.

Beers was on a three-hour conference call, the weekly Monday night foreign policy briefing for the campaign. The black, secure phone by his bedside was gone. Instead, there was a red, white and blue bumper sticker: "John Kerry -- President." The buzz of helicopters blew through the window. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it seemed, there were more helicopters circling the city. "And we need to return to that kind of diplomatic effort . . . ," Beers was saying, over the droning sound. His war goes on.

Now, for a laugh from the National Review (http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_04_16_corner-archive.asp#095645):


If you want a good sense of where the media's mind is in the wake of the Mary McCarthy story, check this (http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=060421&cat=news&st=newsd8h4kguo4&src=ap) out. . It's an AP story about McCarthy's firing. Guess whose picture is at the top? Not McCarthy. Not Dana Priest. Not anybody involved in the story at all, actually. It's a picture of Scooter Libby -- who's not even mentioned in the article. I won't be surprised if they end up fixing it soon. But it's there now.
It was there when I checked. But then, maybe the stories are related in some way.

This is from the ABC: Will CIA Firing Cloud Public Window on Government? Some See Media's Watchdog Function at Risk. (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Politics/story?id=1878286&page=1)


To supporters, McCarthy is a woman of conviction who exposed actions she believed were against the law. "This a matter of principle," said Ray McGovern, a former fellow CIA analyst, "where she said my oath, my promise not to reveal secrets is superceded by my oath to defend the constitution of the U.S."
Here comes the "higher loyalty" argument. Except in this case the higher loyalty may be to a political party.

Larry Johnson at TPM Cafe (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29098) has an interesting article on Mary McCarthy, the gist of which is that Ms. McCarthy was not in a position to know anything operational about the intelligence, but may have stumbled across it while at the Inspector General's. Johnson then goes on to distinguish McCarthy's "service to her country" leak to the despicable leaks engineered by the President of an undercover operator, presumably one Valerie Plame.


For starters, Mary never worked on the Operations side of the house. In other words, she never worked a job where she would have had first hand operational knowledge about secret prisons. She worked the analytical side of the CIA and served with the National Intelligence Council. ... Sometime within the last year she returned to CIA on a terminal assignment. I've heard through the grapevine that she was attending the seminar for officers who are retiring while working with the Inspector General (IG). Now things get interesting. She could find out about secret prisons if Intelligence Officers involved with that program had filed a complaint with the IG or if there was some incident that compelled senior CIA officials to determine an investigation was warranted. ...

I am struck by the irony that Mary McCarthy may have been fired for blowing the whistle and ensuring that the truth about an abuse was told to the American people. There is something potentially honorable in that action; particularly when you consider that George Bush authorized Scooter Libby to leak misleading information for the purpose of deceiving the American people about the grounds for going to war in Iraq. While I'm neither a fan nor friend of Mary's, she may have done a service for her country. She was a lousy manager in my experience, but she is not a traitor and has not betrayed the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. That dirty work was done by the minions of George Bush and Dick Cheney. It is important to keep that fact in the forefront as the judgment on Mary McCarthy's acts is rendered.
Thomas Jocelyn (http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2006/04/leaker-al-shifa.html) compares Mary McCarthy's position on the attack on the so-called Al-Shifa chemical weapons factory in the Sudan with that of Richard Clarke. Jocelyn brings up this bit of history from page 128 of the 9-11 Commission Notes:


On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had "reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq." This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was "probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement." Clarke added that VX nerve precursor traces found near al Shifa were the "exact formula used by Iraq."
Mary McCarthy did not at first support the decision to strike the chemical factory at al-Shifa, but she soon came on board.


The report of the 9/11 Commission notes that the National Security staff reviewed the intelligence in April 2000 and concluded that the CIA's assessment of its intelligence on bin Laden and al-Shifa had been valid; the memo to Clinton on this was cosigned by Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director for intelligence programs, who opposed the bombing of al-Shifa in 1998. The report also notes that in their testimony before the commission, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, George Tenet, and Richard Clarke all stood by the decision to bomb al-Shifa.
Jocelyn concludes by saying:


There was a time when Mary McCarthy knew about the connection between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Just as Richard Clarke did. Will The Washington Post explore this topic? Probably not. Why? That's not what Mary McCarthy was leaking to them.
So was there an Iraq-Bin Laden connection? Did Iraq have a chemical weapons program? It's like the Whack-a-Mole. Now you see it, now you don't.

Here's the problem as I see it. The leaky and politicized intelligence system has made it difficult to judge the truth value of any proposition. Did the Plame affair damage national security? Did Ms. McCarthy's actions damage national security? Is there someone lying dead in a gutter because somebody talked? The answer to those questions about the intelligence agencies is going to be answered by the intelligence agencies themselves. And so we come full circle to the modern version of the Cretan Paradox: which asserts that when a Cretan says 'all Cretans are liars' all logical roads lead to a contradiction. How then to know the truth about the lies? When intelligence agencies -- and I use that word broadly to encompass the press, which is the civilian intelligence system -- are politicized, then even our knowledge about our knowledge becomes uncertain. We are in a Wilderness of Mirrors indeed. ... in Washington politics, like the gravitational field of a massive Black Hole, distorts everything. In regions sufficiently close to the political event horizon truth and facts simply cease to exist.

[Yonivore]

...with the revelations coming out about Dana Priest, the Washington Post reporter who published the "secret prisons" story, and Mary McCarthy, the Democratic Party activist and now-fired CIA bureaucrat who leaked the story to Priest.

Sweetness & Light (http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/dana-priests-husband-gets-joe-wilson-media-gigs/) points out that Dana Priest is married to William Goodfellow, the Executive Director of the the Center for International Policy (http://www.ciponline.org/staff.htm) (CIP). At the top of its web site is CIP's mission statement: "Promoting a foreign policy based on cooperation, demilitarization and human rights." It appears that CIP's idea of "demilitarization and human rights" is best exemplified by Cuba.

Sweetness & Light goes on to hightlight connections among CIP, which operates The Iraq Policy Information Program, Joe Wilson, and Dana Priest. This is not just guilt by association: Priest herself participated in an anti-Iraq war program put on by her husband's group, CIP, along with Joe Wilson and other even more unsavory characters. (Via The Corner (http://corner.nationalreview.com/)).

Then we have Ms. McCarthy, the CIA leaker, who turns out to be a substantial contributor to the Democratic Party. Andy McCarthy (http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_04_23_corner-archive.asp#095652) notes that the Washington Post has published a sympatetic portrait of McCarthy--who leaked, remember, to the Post, resulting in a story for which the Post won a Pulitzer Prize--which touts McCarthy as unbiased without ever mentioning that she was a Kerry supporter who has given up to $7,700 a year to Democratic candidates!

So we have a Democratic Party activist violating federal law by leaking classified information to an antiwar activist on the payroll of the Washington Post, which publishes the criminal leak and is awarded a prize by the left-wing Pulitzer committee.

Finally, several bloggers are speculating about the possibility that the whole "secret prisons" story might have been a sting operation by the CIA designed to catch a leaker. I don't think this can be true, based mosly on public statements that have been made by intelligence officials, but wouldn't that be sweet? it is a curious fact that there doesn't seem to be any evidence for the existence of the secret prisons other than Dana Priest's story. Can it be that this is one secret the CIA has actually been able to keep, but for the leak?

[xrayzebra]

Well, there you go.Why else?Nah, we didn't get the names of the Gitmo detainees until they wanted to tell us. Try again.

Spoken like the true expert you aren't.

[exstatic]

Does she have a legal defense fund? Do they take PayPal? They hypocrisy of the "leaks are only bad when they're bad for us" crowd knows no bounds....

[clubalien]

we aren't teaching our intellegance people very good if they can fail a polygraph, unless you think we have so trained our people to detect peopel trying to fake them. then again maybe she didn't fail and they just said she did.

[ChumpDumper]

Can we win a war with a leaky CIA?Can we win a war when we diverted all our forces to someone who wasn't the enemy we should have been fighting?

I'm glad all those WMDs you knew Iraq had are safely under our control now.

[A-Train]

we aren't teaching our intellegance people very good if they can fail a polygraph, unless you think we have so trained our people to detect peopel trying to fake them. then again maybe she didn't fail and they just said she did.


Uh, she was an analyst and not clandestine.

[boutons_]

If McCarthy was a Repug contributor and leaked to a Faux News black-suits info the helped dubya, would McCarthy be scapegoated?

It depends on whose ox is being gored.

[Yonivore]

Can we win a war when we diverted all our forces to someone who wasn't the enemy we should have been fighting?

I'm glad all those WMDs you knew Iraq had are safely under our control now.
Okay, I know your head is in the sand and that nothing I say will dissuade you but, obviously, many other people are following developments and are coming to the realization that 1) al Qaeda and Ba'athist Iraq had a relationship, 2) Ba'athist Iraq was still very much in the business of developing weapons of mass destruction and probably had more than have already been found (and yes, they've been found), and 3) Ba'athist Iraq was supporting terrorist organizations to the extent it is reasonable to believe they would be more than happy to assist one in attacking the U.S. or it's interests.

I guess you've also missed the latest tranlated documents that show he admitted Arab Fedeyeen (code for al Qaeda) into the country, supported their training, and shortly before the invasion, ordered that they be paid just as were Iraq regulars.

And, this is after you ignored 12 years of UNSC violations, hostile acts against coalition forces enforcing the UN no-fly zones, the oil for food scandal, and the massacring of Shi'ites and Kurds.

Also, if we've diverted all forces, how do you explain recent operations in Afghanistan?

I'm not certain how you can make the claim that Iraq wasn't the enemy.

[ChumpDumper]

yes, they've been foundYeah, how many tons of gas?

How many nukes?

How much yella cake?

You'd think the administration might actually say something about that. Maybe a little mention by the President? I guess his head is in the sand too.

All you came up with was some halfbaked theory that the WMDs are now in Syria.

Wow that's safe!

[ChumpDumper]

the massacring of Shi'ites and Kurds.We've been over and over that. You can't use that as a reason if you are going to ignore the bigger massacres in Darfur, etc. I'm so glad we stopped all that killing, right? That's what we do.

[Vashner]

Iraq was found to be in violation. Saddams tapes we found reveal he was just waiting for the inspectors to leave before restart. Saddam ordered various plans hidden. Saddam also was storing large amounts of small U.S. bills in tin's of 100,000 each. 3 houses full for us in the new program.

Saddam ordered subversion of the inspectors. The only way to find out for sure is to invade. The program is now stoped and the threat neutralized.

Marines and soldiers are ASKING to re-enlist and go back for more. Why don't you get a job stocking at night at Wal Mart and let the Soldiers do there job?

Maybe you can sell used clothes or that baby superstore? You don't have to join the Army.

http://home.satx.rr.com/krograth/images/morons.jpg

[velik_m]

Okay, I know your head is in the sand and that nothing I say will dissuade you but, obviously, many other people are following developments and are coming to the realization that 1) al Qaeda and Ba'athist Iraq had a relationship,


Link?



2) Ba'athist Iraq was still very much in the business of developing weapons of mass destruction and probably had more than have already been found (and yes, they've been found), and


Link?



3) Ba'athist Iraq was supporting terrorist organizations to the extent it is reasonable to believe they would be more than happy to assist one in attacking the U.S. or it's interests.


Link?



I guess you've also missed the latest tranlated documents that show he admitted Arab Fedeyeen (code for al Qaeda) into the country, supported their training, and shortly before the invasion, ordered that they be paid just as were Iraq regulars.


He didn't admitted anyone, he (his son) organized "Fedayeen Saddam". (see wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedayeen_Saddam). This was a well known fact before the war. I don't see the Al Qaeda connection.



And, this is after you ignored 12 years of UNSC violations, hostile acts against coalition forces enforcing the UN no-fly zones, the oil for food scandal, and the massacring of Shi'ites and Kurds.


Yes, he was a bad guy. Regarding "hostile acts against coalition forces": the no-fly zone didn't extend over entire Iraq air space, if coalition violated their air space they had every right to shoot at planes. Also coalition forces often bombed Iraq sites which hasn't got anything with enforcing no-fly zone and is a violation of international laws and an act of war.



Also, if we've diverted all forces, how do you explain recent operations in Afghanistan?


Where is Osama? what is now... 5 years?



I'm not certain how you can make the claim that Iraq wasn't the enemy.

They were no threat to America. Israel probably, Europe perhaps, USA - no.

[Ocotillo]

The plot thickens.......

Kevin Drum says (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_04/008678.php) One of Dana Priest's sources for her Pulitzer-winning series of stories about the CIA's secret system of prisons in Europe was apparently CIA officer Mary McCarthy, who was fired last week for leaking to Priest. But how is it that McCarthy even knew about the agency's prison system, anyway? After all, she didn't work on the operational side of the house. She worked for the Inspector General's office.

The best guess floating around right now is that the only way someone in the IG's office could know about the prisons is if the IG's office was investigating the prisons. Juliette Kayyem comments:

So, here are the questions:

(1) Was there an IG investigation of the prisons? If yes, who authorized it? What happened to it?

(2) If no, did the CIA Director (goss) prohibit it from happening under the national security exception? Did he notify Congress as required by law?

Those are good questions. Here's another one: how did this program end up in the IG's office in the first place? Ken Silverstein offers a clue over at Harper's:

An ex-senior agency officer who keeps in contact with his former peers told me that there is a “a big swing” in anti-Bush sentiment at Langley. “I've been stunned by what I'm hearing,” he said. “There are people who fear that indictments and subpoenas could be coming down, and they don't want to get caught up in it.”

This former senior officer said there “seems to be a quiet conspiracy by rational people” at the agency to avoid involvement in some of the particularly nasty tactics being employed by the administration, especially “renditions” — the practice whereby the CIA sends terrorist suspects abroad to be questioned in Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan, and other nations where the regimes are not squeamish about torturing detainees.

The secret prisons may be another target of these "rational people." If enough of them are refusing to be involved with the prison system, that's something that's almost certain to eventually come to the attention of a body charged with agency oversight. Stay tuned.

[xrayzebra]

Hang the "lady". This leak isn't about Iraq, it is about the war on terror, dumbutts.
She is just one of the Libs left over from our wonderful President "Clinton". Just
like the perfumed prince Generals, Hackworth used to write about. Which all
you Libs love so much. Oh, you all are still for the war on terror aren't you. Or
just want the dimm-o-craps back in power.

[ChumpDumper]

The only way to find out for sure is to invade. The program is now stoped and the threat neutralized.:lmao Saddam was ALREADY neutralized, idiot. Why did he not use those vast stockpiles of WMDs to protect his own ass?
Marines and soldiers are ASKING to re-enlist and go back for more.And others want to leave.
Why don't you get a job stocking at night at Wal Mart and let the Soldiers do there job?I would've preferred we sent even more if we were going to go. Rummy sent in just enough to fail. The soldiers do their job - he's not doing his.
Maybe you can sell used clothes or that baby superstore?Nice ramble, old fart. Maybe you compare liver spots with X-ray.

[xrayzebra]

^^Well, the lib, Chump is doing his usual thing. Being a Chump. You would think
a young guy like him, with his pseudo intellect would learn. But they never do.

[ChumpDumper]

Learn what? Age does not necessarily provide wisdom.

Most of my posting here has been about the Iraq war. I have been called out about my political beliefs by smarter people than yourself, and after jumping through their hoops (politcal compass test) gave the results which I gave you as well. Now all you old folks can come up with when I ask where the WMDs are is socialist toenails and baby superstores?

What kind of men are you?

Men who don't know where any WMDs are.

[xrayzebra]

^^Hey dummy, he used them. That is where they were! Now what did he
do with them after he used them. That is the question. But you couldn't
figure that out for yourself. Had to have an old man explain it to you. But
maybe, if you pay attention to life, you might get a little wisdom.

[ChumpDumper]

I know he used them.

In the 80s.

I don't need an idiot to tell me that.
Now what did he
do with them after he used them. That is the question.No, that was MY question.

Quit telling me that Saddam was using WMDs when Reagan was in office. We didn't invade because of that. You know you were rooting for him back then against Iran and really didn't give a shit about WMDs, so don't get all retro-indignant about that.

Where are all the WMDs that the George W. Bush administration claimed were in Iraq on the eve of the invasion of March 2003?

That should be clear enough for even old men to understand that I'm not talking about a quarter century ago.

[xrayzebra]

^^Hey ask the dimm-o-craps that question too. They said he had them.
All the countries of the world said he had them. And it wasn't your question, it
is all our question. He only has umpteen square miles of dessert to hide things.
You know like scud missiles, remember those things, he was using them and we
couldn't find them either. It would be nice if just once one of you pseudo
intellects decided you are were part of this country and supported it and quit
taking the side of our enemies.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey ask the dimm-o-craps that question too.No,I'm asking you.
And it wasn't your question, it
is all our question.Then you are also a traitor for asking it.
He only has umpteen square miles of dessert to hide things.
You know like scud missiles, remember those things, he was using them and we
couldn't find them either.We didn't invade Iraq because we thought they had 40-100 SCUDs.
It would be nice if just once one of you pseudo
intellects decided you are were part of this country and supported it and quit
taking the side of our enemies.It would be nice if you could answer the question I gave you. I am completely justified in asking this question - just because you can't answer it and it makes you uneasy doesn't mean you can try calling me a traitor and get away with it.

Fuck you.

[Yonivore]

I know he used them.

In the 80s.

I don't need an idiot to tell me that.No, that was MY question.

Quit telling me that Saddam was using WMDs when Reagan was in office. We didn't invade because of that. You know you were rooting for him back then against Iran and really didn't give a shit about WMDs, so don't get all retro-indignant about that.

Where are all the WMDs that the George W. Bush administration claimed were in Iraq on the eve of the invasion of March 2003?

That should be clear enough for even old men to understand that I'm not talking about a quarter century ago.
It's starting to look like they were moved to Syria. There, straightforward enough for you?

But, back to the original thread issue...

McCarthy is not a courageous American hero citizen exercising her First Amendment rights against an outrageous government policy. If there are no restrictions enforced by law, then there are no secrets. McCarthy is a traitor, someone who leaked top secret information and damaged our national security, risked the lives of Americans fighting a war, and disrupted our relations with nations that had been working with us against a new kind of enemy. McCarthy was an employee, not a policy maker. She has never been elected by the American people or appointed by the President to a position that would have entitled her to disclose that information. (And neither have the senators and congressmen who have leaked facts just as sensitive as those McCarthy passed on to Dana Priest.) Comparing McCarthy’s crime to the President’s decision to reveal details of a National Intelligence Estimate is a political argument based on a falsehood. The PPresident is the ultimate classification authority. When he decides to reveal information he is exercising one of the powers of the office to which he was elected.

McCarthy took advantage of the position she had been entrusted and violated her legal obligations. Serving in the CIA’s inspector general’s office, she had a special responsibility. The IG’s office is legally authorized to be privy to compartmented information, the highest level of classification. Other CIA employees only see bits and pieces of such information because the compartmentalization system is designed to prevent all but a few top people to see all the pieces and know what they mean in the larger context. She violated her highest duty because her political beliefs were opposed to the policy that the President had established. Her disclosure was politically motivated. She wanted to thwart the policy of the President, and she achieved her goal by committing a felony. McCarthy should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent the law allows. As should her fellow CIA leakers and manipulators of policy.

[xrayzebra]

^^You don't know an answer when it is given. And 4Q2! Typical
Liberal.

[ChumpDumper]

"starting to look"?????

After three years?

Fabulous.

As for McCarthy, the CIA can certainly can her -- but I would take issue with your downplaying the secret prisons, and throw your "restrictions enforced by law" back at you for the prison policy itself. I'm sure your Nixonian Imperial Presidency doctrine will be in full effect.

[xrayzebra]

^^He's lost it completely. Full rant mode. Poor Chump he is in the Dumper

[ChumpDumper]

Is Nixonian too big a word for you, old man?

[Yonivore]

"starting to look"?????

After three years?

Fabulous.
With people like Plame, McCarthy, and Wilson in the intelligence loop, is it any wonder?


As for McCarthy, the CIA can certainly can her -- but I would take issue with your downplaying the secret prisons, and throw your "restrictions enforced by law" back at you for the prison policy itself. I'm sure your Nixonian Imperial Presidency doctrine will be in full effect.
Can her? I think she should be tried as a traitor and shot on the front lawn at Langley.

[ChumpDumper]

With people like Plame, McCarthy, and Wilson in the intelligence loop, is it any wonder?With people like Bush and Rummy in charge, it is no wonder at all.
I think she should be tried as a traitor and shot on the front lawn at Langley.Yes, and the Plame/Wilson indictments are being filed right now.

I appreciate your "no comment" on the prison issue. Good choice.

[Clandestino]

who cares about other bullshit.. fact is, she leaked secrets... that alone is grounds for firing.. no matter how small or big. she was supposed to not reveal secrets to anyone w/o the need to know, but she told reporters.. stfu... she is guilty...

[ChumpDumper]

who cares about other bullshit.More than a few.
fact is, she leaked secrets... that alone is grounds for firing.I said they were within their rights as far as that goes.

[Nbadan]

DEVELOPING: Another twist to the McCarthy story...


April 24, 2006 - A former CIA officer who was sacked last week after allegedly confessing to leaking secrets has denied she was the source of a controversial Washington Post story about alleged CIA secret detention operations in Eastern Europe, a friend of the operative told NEWSWEEK.

The officials, who asked for anonymity because they were discussing sensitive information, said that McCarthy had been fired after allegedly confessing during the course of a leak investigation based heavily on polygraph examinations that she had engaged in unauthorized contacts with more than one journalist regarding more than one news story. The only journalist so far identified by government sources as one of the unauthorized persons with whom McCarthy admitted contact is Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, who last week won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing details of a secret airline and prison network that the CIA operates to detain and interrogate high-level Al Qaeda suspects.

Priest’s most contentious story, published by the Post last November, alleged that the CIA had been “hiding and interrogating some of its most important Al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe.” Even though the Post said it decided, in response to administration appeals, not to identify the Eastern European countries involved in secret CIA detention operations, intelligence officials said at the time that the story caused potentially serious damage to agency activities. The officials said the CIA would filing a “crime report” with the Justice Department regarding possible leaks of classified information. (Eric C. Grant, public affairs director of the Washington Post, says none of the paper’s reporters has been subpoenaed or talked to investigators in connection with this matter.)

While acknowledging that information about the CIA operations was indeed available from unclassified sources, intelligence officials maintain that revelations like those made in the Post story about Eastern Europe could not have been put together without input from people who had access to classified information. These informants could confirm the stories and add detail to them. But the fact that McCarthy evidently is denying leaking the CIA prison story to the Post—and that other key information for stories revealing CIA detention and rendition operations originated with unclassified sources—does raise questions about how far the Bush administration will be able to press its crackdown on suspected leakers.

Two official sources familiar with the inquiry which led to McCarthy’s firing cautioned that news reports indicating that McCarthy was aggressively being pursued by the Justice Department for possible criminal violations were ahead of the facts.

---

The McCarthy case troubles some former U.S. intelligence officials, who note that the CIA, while aggressively pursuing leaks to the news media, has failed to take disciplinary action against any of its officials for the widely acknowledged intelligence failures of recent years. “Nobody got fired for September 11 and nobody gets fired for but they fire someone for this?” said one former U.S. senior intelligence official. In the case of the September 11 attacks, a report by the same Inspector General’s office where McCarthy worked recommended the convening of CIA disciplinary boards for a number of current and former officials. But CIA director Porter Goss rejected the recommendation and has refused to allow even an unclassified version of the inspector general’s report to be publicly released. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, sent the CIA two letters seeking a public disclosure of the inspector general’s findings—one only a few weeks ago—but has yet to get a response.

MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek)

[Yonivore]

I appreciate your "no comment" on the prison issue. Good choice.
I'm perfectly okay with secret prisons and renditions for enemy combatants or leaders taken from a field of battle or their homes in a foreign country.

Direct enough?

[ChumpDumper]

I am in no way surprised.

[Yonivore]

I am in no way surprised.
Good

[Ocotillo]

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/9222.jpg

[Yonivore]

"starting to look"?????

After three years?
Here's something for you to chew on Chump. Maybe you should become interested in all the regime documents being released and translated.

This document CMPC-2004-000167 (http://70.169.163.24/released/04-20-06/CMPC-2004-000167.pdf) talks about a project that started in early 2001 by the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) to use components from the previously destroyed TAMUZ (also known as OZIRAQ) Nuclear Reactor to build a Nuclear Simulator Reactor. The TAMUZ Nuclear Reactor was destroyed by an Israeli air attack in 1981. In September 2002, after almost a year and a half since the start of this Nuclear Project and when it became very clear to the Iraqi Regime that the UN inspectors were coming back to Iraq, a decision was made to stop this Nuclear Activity project. What is interesting in this document that the IAEC was warned by the Monitoring Directory within the IAEC that this Nuclear Project is prohibited by the UN resolutions however the IAEC went on with it until September 2002 only when the UN inspectors were on the verge of coming back to Iraq.

This document is yet another irrefutable proof that Saddam had never stopped his WMD activities and programs including Nuclear Program activities.

Beginning of Page 3 Translation of document CMPC-2004-000167


In the Name of God the Most Merciful The Most Compassionate

The Republic of Iraq

The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission

To: The Respected Mr. Chairman of the Engineering Department

Subject: Simulation Reactor

An inspection was made to the suggested hall to build the Simulation Reactor and that contain recently laundry equipments (Laundry) and the hall was closed and the location abandoned and neglected for a long time and based on this it requires the following:

1. Remove all the laundry equipments and machines.

2. The structural division should inspect the hall and to repair and remodeling and fortify the building after determining the cost of these works.

3.Transfer the equipments and systems specialized in the control of 14 TAMUZ Reactor from storage 14a to the location of the hall and by phases.

4. Distribute the engineering and technical staff proposed for work in the project to the days of the week where engineer will be dedicated for one day.

5. Dedicate one of the technicians to fully work in the location.

6. Prepare the timeline schedule to finish the project and for the duration of a full year.

Please review and comment

With regards

Signature…

Adnan Salim Girgis

director of the Electronic Support Division

29/1/2001
End of translation of page 3

Beginning of the translation of page 9


In the Name of God the Most Merciful The Most Compassionate

The Republic of Iraq

The Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission

The Engineering Department

Number: 10/2/1000

Date: 1/9/2001

To: The Respected Mr. Chairman of the Comission

Subject: Simulation Reactor

Previously you instructed to re-install the Simulation Reactor. Please approve the delivery of hall that was dedicated for it and currently occupied by the Laundry to the Electronic Support Division with the dedication of 15 millions Dinar for the purpose of starting the work.

Please review and comment… with regards

Signature

Doctor Hisham Mahmood Ahmad

Chairman of the Engineering Department
End of translation of page 9

Page 11 of the document memo dated September 9 2001 that talks about the approval of Chairman of the IAEC to build the Nuclear Reactor Simulator

Now in page 7 of the document ( the order of the pages is not chronological) there is a secret memo dated May 30 2002, the Monitoring Department within the IAEC warned the IAEC that this Nuclear Program is totally prohibited by the UN resolutions.

In page 5 of the document there is a memo dated September 12 2002 asking the IAEC Engineering Department to stop working on this project because it is prohibited by the UN.

It took the Iraqis almost a year and half to stop working on this Nuclear Project and only after they were absolutely convinced that the UN inspectors were returning to Iraq in matter of few months as they did indeed return in November 2002.

At the time, the US Congress had just started debate on the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq for its transgressions against UN Security Council resolutions and its ongoing efforts to build WMD.

The equipment discussed in the memo came from the ruins of Osirak, the nuclear facility built by Saddam in 1982 and destroyed by the Israelis before the reactor could come on line. The mere existence of this equipment violated UN sanctions, and the effort to put it into a simulator shows that the Iraqis had not lost their determination to develop nuclear weapons. Only the credible threat of military force, as requested by President Bush, stopped the Iraqis from completing their project. They had to get rid of the evidence so that Saddam could invite the inspectors to return as a political ploy that would derail US plans for military intervention. It worked, too; the UN decided to accept Saddam's offer, and ChumpDumper believed him too, thus snarling the previous consensus for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.

The memos demonstrate Saddam's intent to build nuclear weapons and his insistence on continuing research on their development even while supposedly "contained" by UN sanctions.

Another Shahda translation shows the effort Iraq made in procuring aluminum tubes (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620565/posts). These memos are less explicit and do not necessarily show that they were intended for nuclear-arms development. However, because of their dual-use capability -- both uses involve weaponry and both were banned by the sanctions -- and taken in context of the above it underscores the fact that Iraq was never going to cooperate and fully disarm under the terms required by UN sanctions and resolutions.

[ChumpDumper]

So your answer is "I still don't know where any WMDs are after three years of saying he was definitely going to use them on the US, but maybe Saddam would've had one in a decade or so."

Understood.

[Yonivore]

So your answer is "I still don't know where any WMDs are after three years of saying he was definitely going to use them on the US, but maybe Saddam would've had one in a decade or so."

Understood.
You're a simple-minded stooge. The evidence continues to pour in and you're stuck on stupid because there weren't huge stockpiles of WMD's with english-language signs posted by them saying so.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey dipshit.

Asked and answered.

Rummy said he knew where the WMDs were.

[Yonivore]

Hey dipshit.

Asked and answered.

Rummy said he knew where the WMDs were.
He probably did. 21 days is a long time.

[ChumpDumper]

Well thank God we secured the oil ministry and not the WMDs.

Good to know we had our priorites straight.

[Yonivore]

Well thank God we secured the oil ministry and not the WMDs.

Good to know we had our priorites straight.
Just curious. What do you make of the documents now being translated from the former Ba'athist regime?

[boutons_]

Documents aren't WMD.

Documents aren't an immediate, pressing risk to the USA that required a hurried, unplanned, undermanned war in 2003.

Keep reaching, YV, and watch out for those dangerous documents. You could hurt yourself.

There was NO case for the war. WHIQ cherry picked wild-assed stuff as "without a doubt", and suppressed all doubts in the intimidated, politicized intelligence community.

The policy was "invade Iraq", no matter what the evidence and counter-evidence were.

[Clandestino]

regardless, do you guys think it legal for a person to give out classified info.. that is the problem here...

[scott]

There seems to be a liberal use of the word "appointment" in this thread.

[Vashner]

You don't take a career in Intelligence if you can't handle the politics.

CIA breaks laws ALL DAY LONG.. this is why the FBI does not do foreign intel.

Radical Islam is trying to use our laws against us. If we can't stomach the Jack Bauers
of the world then we should close the CIA.

And I WANT to see the democrats say that it's time to shut down the whole CIA.

They don't even want them tapping phones much less using a .50 cal to snipe and blow someones head off or throw out some terrorists from a C130 over the ocean.

If anyone thought they sit around at CIA and like play Xbox or watch TV or give traffic tickets they are on crack.

For all we know SHE is the one that leaked Plume first to try to setup the President.

We can't give the enemy our 100% battle plan.. that includes what the CIA is doing.

[Clandestino]

the bitch leaked secrets... that is all... GUILTY.. lucky she doesn't receive the death penalty! she should get a long prison sentence to let the other fucking leakers know that this shit will not be tolerated

[boutons_]

Dismissed CIA Officer Denies Leak Role

Official Says Agency Is Not Asserting She Told of Secret Prisons

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, April 25, 2006; A01

A lawyer representing fired CIA officer Mary O. McCarthy said yesterday that his client did not leak any classified information and did not disclose to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest the existence of secret CIA-run prisons in Eastern Europe for suspected terrorists.

The statement by Ty Cobb, a lawyer in the Washington office of Hogan & Hartson who said he was speaking for McCarthy, came on the same day that a senior intelligence official said the agency is not asserting that McCarthy was a key source of Priest's award-winning articles last year disclosing the agency's secret prisons.

McCarthy was fired because the CIA concluded that she had undisclosed contacts with journalists, including Priest, in violation of a security agreement. That does not mean she revealed the existence of the prisons to Priest, Cobb said.

Cobb said that McCarthy, who worked in the CIA inspector general's office, "did not have access to the information she is accused of leaking," namely the classified information about any secret detention centers in Europe. Having unreported media contacts is not unheard of at the CIA but is a violation of the agency's rules.

In a statement last Friday, the agency said it had fired one of its officers for having unauthorized conversations with journalists in which the person "knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence." Intelligence officials subsequently acknowledged that the official was McCarthy and said that Priest is among the journalists with whom she acknowledged sharing information.

Priest won the Pulitzer Prize this month for a series of articles she wrote last year about the intelligence community, including the revelation of the existence of CIA-run prisons in East European countries. The Post withheld the names of the countries at the Bush administration's request, and it attributed the information to current and former intelligence officials from three continents.

The articles sparked a wide-ranging CIA investigation that included polygraphing scores of officials who worked in offices privy to information about the secret prisons, including McCarthy and her boss, CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson. Nowhere in the CIA statement last week was McCarthy accused of leaking information on the prisons, although some news accounts suggested that the CIA had made that claim.

Though McCarthy acknowledged having contact with reporters, a senior intelligence official confirmed yesterday that she is not believed to have played a central role in The Post's reporting on the secret prisons. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing personnel matters.

McCarthy, 61, who earlier held senior posts at the White House and the National Intelligence Council (NIC), has declined requests for comment. But Cobb said she was "devastated" that her government career of more than two decades will "forever be linked with misinformation about the reasons for her termination," and he said that her firing 10 days before she was to retire was "certainly not for the reasons attributed to the agency." His comments constituted the first statement from her camp since her firing became public last week.

A onetime Africa specialist who served in the early 1990s as the NIC's senior officer responsible for warning of imminent security threats to the country, McCarthy went on to help oversee U.S. intelligence programs on the National Security Council from 1996 to 2001. In that role, she had access to details of every covert intelligence action authorized by the president.

Cobb said McCarthy had planned for some time to leave the CIA to pursue a career in public interest law. She finished night courses for a law degree at Georgetown University and passed the bar exam in November, he said. She formally began her retirement process in December, stopped going to her office on Feb. 7, and was to complete a standard retirement training course and cease employment on April 30.

Cobb said that the polygraph tests and interviews that led to her firing came after she had initiated her retirement, and that she did not quit because she anticipated the agency's action. Although not addressing all these details, the senior intelligence official confirmed that McCarthy was preparing to retire and said she will retain her government pension despite the agency's decision.

"Firing someone who was days away from retirement is the least serious action they could have taken," said a former intelligence official who is friendly with McCarthy but spoke on the condition of anonymity because of speculation on the administration's motive. "That's certainly enough to frighten those who remain in the agency."

Where Cobb's account and the CIA's account differed yesterday is on whether McCarthy discussed any classified information with journalists. Intelligence sources said that the inspector general's office was generally aware of a secret prison program but that McCarthy did not have access to specifics, such as prison locations.

The investigation that led to McCarthy's firing is one of several probes initiated by the Bush administration into high-profile leaks. Another is underway into the New York Times' Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting on a warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency.

But it remains unclear whether any of the investigations will result in criminal charges. A law enforcement official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said yesterday that the FBI has not opened a formal probe into the prisons disclosure because the CIA has yet to send a formal criminal "referral" to the Justice Department on that issue.

"We do have investigations going," FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III said during a visit to the field office in Charlotte, the Associated Press reported. "Leaking of classified materials is a concern for those agencies that have classified materials."

Fredrick P. Hitz, who was inspector general at the CIA from 1990 to 1998, said his office was the subject of a leak inquiry after The Post wrote about a classified report he submitted to Congress on the Aldrich H. Ames espionage case. "I was polygraphed several times, as were some of my staff," Hitz said in an interview. No source for the leak was found and the investigation was terminated.

Several national security law experts said yesterday that, looking at what has been publicly disclosed so far, prosecutors would have a difficult time building a criminal case against McCarthy.

Any information obtained during polygraph examinations is essentially useless to prosecutors, since generally it is inadmissible in criminal courts.

In addition, federal espionage laws do not outlaw all disclosures of classified information, at least not specifically. Instead, a collection of separate statutes prohibits unauthorized disclosures of certain categories of information -- such as intercepted communications or codes -- and violations often hinge on important details that are still unclear in the CIA prisons case.

Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute at George Washington University, said he does not think the Post article includes the kind of operational details that a prosecutor would need to build a case.

"It's the fact of the thing that they're trying to keep secret, not to protect sources and methods, but to hide something controversial," he said. "That seems like a hard prosecution to me."

Kate Martin, executive director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that "even if the espionage statutes were read to apply to leaks of information, we would say the First Amendment prohibits criminalizing leaks of information which reveal wrongful or illegal activities by the government."

Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

===========================

The WH/Repugs smeared the intelligence community by blaming the lack of WMD on "bad intelligence", passing the buck like they always do. The Repugs parachuted a Repub political operative instead of a career professional to run the show, alienating many career professionals. Now, the intelligence community is very probably with the Repugs, so the Repugs have to resort to intimidation, rather the cooperation, to keep the leaks from really exposing the Repugs for the scumbags they are, for inhumane programs they run, for unending stream of lies.

[ChumpDumper]

Just curious. What do you make of the documents now being translated from the former Ba'athist regime?I think that they didn't have WMDs in any noteworthy amounts that they were wiling to use and they were working to have WMDs in perhaps a decade or so if they weren't under the constant pressure from the UN inspectors and the US flyovers. Iraq was under our thumbs and if Saddam had any appreciable WMDs like everyone said he had stockpiled and at the ready he would have used them to defend his own regime seeing as regime change was the stated goal of any military action against him.

This has been my position since the start. Notice I have not changed like the Bush supporters from saying they had tons of gas and nukes and yellacake to use against the US in a week's time to saying they must have moved them to somewhere else in Iraq since there is alot of sand in Iraq to saying he must have moved them to somewhere outside of Iraq since we checked all the sand in Iraq even though there is alot of it and we aren't even in control of all the sand in Iraq thanks to the "send just enough troops to fail" strategy Rummy dreamed up on the toilet one day. Of course this morphed into saying well Saddam didn't really have WMDs though he acted like he did which was worth a few thousand American soldiers' and countless Iraqi lives just to find out even though North Korea already has WMDs and Iran was much, much closer to getting them than Saddam could ever dream of in his wettest dream. Also nobody was currently being killed in Iraq but we had to pretend we were angry about folks Saddam gassed 25 years ago when he was our boy fighting the good fight against Iran (wow, Iran is coming up alot here, isn't it) and we were actually cheering Saddam and Rummy shook his fucking hand in the infamous vidcap that will remain on the internets for all eternity no matter how much the neocons bitch. No, now the WMDs were moved in RVs and commercial jets to Syria because Saddam is much more interested in preserving a few vials of sarin gas than his own fucking 40-year reign over Iraq, right? I mean that just stands to reason that Saddam would pass up two golden opportunities to use WMDs on US forced invading his country twice in the course of two decades AND Israel which was just sitting there within reach of the SCUD missles that he actually did lob at during the Gulf War but surprise - no gas or bioweapons. We haven't found any of the tons and tons of WMDs that Rummy said he knew the location of. "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat" he said on ABC. ABC motherfuckers! Bitches on this board keep bitching about roadsigns and maps not being available to Rummy. Well Rummy said it and you don't have the balls to hold him to it. "Well they moved it because 21 days is alot of time to move WMDs" they say, completely ignoring the fact that Rummy gave away our supposed knowledge of supposed WMDs and damaged the effort to contain supposed WMDs more than anyone in the CIA or State Department could ever dream to. Who the fuck would blab such a thing on ABC? A guy who knew they weren't there, that's who. A guy who would send in just enough troops to take over Baghdad and the secure the oil ministries but not any of the sites he said the WMDs were or convenientely any of the shipment routes out of the country that would stop the export of the WMDs that Saddam didn't use to protect his own ass when he sure as hell did use them to protect his ass 25 years ago. Rummy's failure to secure the borders or any escape route for the WMDs that Saddam didn't use twice to protect his own ass provided Bush supporters with their last hope that the tons and tons of WMDs were shipped out of the country on 737s to God knows whom God knows where because Saddam wanted to save them for later when he would REALLY need them. I mean, it's completely logical. I wished and wished that I would be proven wrong somewhere in the past three years and I could believe that the people controlling this great country actually knew what they were doing. It simply hasn't happened, and feeble cut-and-paste plagiarism from neocon blogs has done nothing in the face of the cold hard truth that no one can answer one simple question that I have asked over and over again.

Where are the WMDs?

And that, Xray, is ChumpDumper rant.

Patent pending.

All rights reserved.

I apologize for any spelling or grammar errors and the lack of paragraph breaks.

Good night, and God bless America.

[Yonivore]

So, what do you think of the Russians feeding them pre-invasion intelligence about our invasion plans?

Or the Russian, French, and German complicity in OFF?

Could that have played a role?

[Yonivore]

I think that they didn't have WMDs in any noteworthy amounts that they were wiling to use and they were working to have WMDs in perhaps a decade or so if they weren't under the constant pressure from the UN inspectors and the US flyovers.
What of the stockpiles of pesticides (a precursor to rudimentary nerve agent), more than could conceivably ever be used in an agricultural setting, situated in camoflaged bunkers, next to munitions depots? I know, there were not "WMD" signs.

What of the Iraq scientists who testified Iraq could field some chemical WMD's in 3 weeks, or less, not decades?

What of the translated memos regarding the movement of WMD's, pre-invasion, and of the Nuclear projects that I've already posted in this thread?

Those weren't decades away -- they were active.

Iraq was under our thumbs...
But, he apparently was getting plenty of support from France, Germany, and Russia in the form of OFF kickbacks and intelligence and maybe even arms and equipment.

...and if Saddam had any appreciable WMDs like everyone said he had stockpiled and at the ready he would have used them to defend his own regime seeing as regime change was the stated goal of any military action against him.
That is the big question. One of the translated memos speaks of moving "Special Ammunition" into position but, obviously it wasn't used. I remember early reports of finding the Tigris and Euphrates contaminated with WMD agents. In any case, I also believe Iraq believed Russian, French, and German obstinance at the U.N., on it's behalf, would effectively stop any U.S. aggression -- obviously a miscalculation. But one that wouldn't prevent Iraq from dispersing, destroying, moving, secreting, or otherwise hiding whatever WMD's he did have in an effort to make a show by an eleventh hour good-faith gesture to re-admit U.N. inspectors. Ooops, again.


This has been my position since the start. Notice I have not changed like the Bush supporters from saying they had tons of gas and nukes and yellacake to use against the US in a week's time to saying they must have moved them to somewhere else in Iraq since there is alot of sand in Iraq to saying he must have moved them to somewhere outside of Iraq since we checked all the sand in Iraq even though there is alot of it and we aren't even in control of all the sand in Iraq thanks to the "send just enough troops to fail" strategy Rummy dreamed up on the toilet one day. Of course this morphed into saying well Saddam didn't really have WMDs though he acted like he did which was worth a few thousand American soldiers' and countless Iraqi lives just to find out even though North Korea already has WMDs and Iran was much, much closer to getting them than Saddam could ever dream of in his wettest dream. Also nobody was currently being killed in Iraq but we had to pretend we were angry about folks Saddam gassed 25 years ago when he was our boy fighting the good fight against Iran (wow, Iran is coming up alot here, isn't it) and we were actually cheering Saddam and Rummy shook his fucking hand in the infamous vidcap that will remain on the internets for all eternity no matter how much the neocons bitch. No, now the WMDs were moved in RVs and commercial jets to Syria because Saddam is much more interested in preserving a few vials of sarin gas than his own fucking 40-year reign over Iraq, right? I mean that just stands to reason that Saddam would pass up two golden opportunities to use WMDs on US forced invading his country twice in the course of two decades AND Israel which was just sitting there within reach of the SCUD missles that he actually did lob at during the Gulf War but surprise - no gas or bioweapons. We haven't found any of the tons and tons of WMDs that Rummy said he knew the location of. "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat" he said on ABC. ABC motherfuckers! Bitches on this board keep bitching about roadsigns and maps not being available to Rummy. Well Rummy said it and you don't have the balls to hold him to it. "Well they moved it because 21 days is alot of time to move WMDs" they say, completely ignoring the fact that Rummy gave away our supposed knowledge of supposed WMDs and damaged the effort to contain supposed WMDs more than anyone in the CIA or State Department could ever dream to. Who the fuck would blab such a thing on ABC? A guy who knew they weren't there, that's who. A guy who would send in just enough troops to take over Baghdad and the secure the oil ministries but not any of the sites he said the WMDs were or convenientely any of the shipment routes out of the country that would stop the export of the WMDs that Saddam didn't use to protect his own ass when he sure as hell did use them to protect his ass 25 years ago. Rummy's failure to secure the borders or any escape route for the WMDs that Saddam didn't use twice to protect his own ass provided Bush supporters with their last hope that the tons and tons of WMDs were shipped out of the country on 737s to God knows whom God knows where because Saddam wanted to save them for later when he would REALLY need them. I mean, it's completely logical. I wished and wished that I would be proven wrong somewhere in the past three years and I could believe that the people controlling this great country actually knew what they were doing. It simply hasn't happened, and feeble cut-and-paste plagiarism from neocon blogs has done nothing in the face of the cold hard truth that no one can answer one simple question that I have asked over and over again.
You're right Chump, you've remained constant, unwavering, and stubborn -- even in the face of ever more damning revelations about Iraq's WMD capabilities, plans, and assets. Good for you.


Where are the WMDs?
I don't know. But, I bet we find out eventually. Of course, you'll be standing by your original position.


And that, Xray, is ChumpDumper rant.
Poor effort


Patent pending.
I wouldn't worry, no infringement is anticipated.


All rights reserved.
I'm sure there'll be a line for licensing


I apologize for any spelling or grammar errors and the lack of paragraph breaks.
It's not your spelling or grammar for which you need to apologize.

[xrayzebra]

I think that they didn't have WMDs in any noteworthy amounts
Of course this morphed into saying well Saddam didn't really have WMDs though he acted like he did which was worth a few thousand American soldiers' and countless Iraqi lives just to find out even though North Korea already has WMDs and Iran was much, much closer to getting them than Saddam could ever dream of in his wettest dream. Also nobody was currently being killed in Iraq but we had to pretend we were angry about folks Saddam gassed 25 years ago when he was our boy fighting the good fight against Iran (wow, Iran is coming up alot here, isn't it) and we were actually cheering Saddam and Rummy shook his fucking hand in the infamous vidcap that will remain on the internets for all eternity no matter how much the neocons bitch. No, now the WMDs were moved in RVs and commercial jets to Syria because Saddam is much more interested in preserving a few vials of sarin gas than his own fucking 40-year reign over Iraq, right? I mean that just stands to reason that Saddam would pass up two golden opportunities to use WMDs on US forced invading his country twice in the course of two decades AND Israel which was just sitting there within reach of the SCUD missles that he actually did lob at during the Gulf War but surprise - no gas or bioweapons. We haven't found any of the tons and tons of WMDs that Rummy said he knew the location of. "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat" he said on ABC. ABC motherfuckers! Bitches on this board keep bitching about roadsigns and maps not being available to Rummy. Well Rummy said it and you don't have the balls to hold him to it. "Well they moved it because 21 days is alot of time to move WMDs" they say, completely ignoring the fact that Rummy gave away our supposed knowledge of supposed WMDs and damaged the effort to contain supposed WMDs more than anyone in the CIA or State Department could ever dream to. Who the fuck would blab such a thing on ABC? A guy who knew they weren't there, that's who. A guy who would send in just enough troops to take over Baghdad and the secure the oil ministries but not any of the sites he said the WMDs were or convenientely any of the shipment routes out of the country that would stop the export of the WMDs that Saddam didn't use to protect his own ass when he sure as hell did use them to protect his ass 25 years ago. Rummy's failure to secure the borders or any escape route for the WMDs that Saddam didn't use twice to protect his own ass provided Bush supporters with their last hope that the tons and tons of WMDs were shipped out of the country on 737s to God knows whom God knows where because Saddam wanted to save them for later when he would REALLY need them. I mean, it's completely logical. I wished and wished that I would be proven wrong somewhere in the past three years and I could believe that the people controlling this great country actually knew what they were doing. It simply hasn't happened, and feeble cut-and-paste plagiarism from neocon blogs has done nothing in the face of the cold hard truth that no one can answer one simple question that I have asked over and over again.

Where are the WMDs?

And that, Xray, is ChumpDumper rant.



Now Chump, I want you to read what everyone knew in
Washington, or thought they knew, and elsewhere in the
world. Read and heed. And go rant to someone who really
cares what you think.

Taken from you favorite news source, CNN.

Transcript: David Kay at Senate hearing


(CNN) --Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay testified Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee about efforts to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Following is a transcript of Kay's opening remarks before committee members began questioning him.

KAY: As you know and we discussed, I do not have a written statement. This hearing came about very quickly. I do have a few preliminary comments, but I suspect you're more interested in asking questions, and I'll be happy to respond to those questions to the best of my ability.

I would like to open by saying that the talent, dedication and bravery of the staff of the [Iraq Survey Group] that was my privilege to direct is unparalleled and the country owes a great debt of gratitude to the men and women who have served over there and continue to serve doing that.

A great deal has been accomplished by the team, and I do think ... it important that it goes on and it is allowed to reach its full conclusion. In fact, I really believe it ought to be better resourced and totally focused on WMD; that that is important to do it.

But I also believe that it is time to begin the fundamental analysis of how we got here, what led us here and what we need to do in order to ensure that we are equipped with the best possible intelligence as we face these issues in the future.

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here.

Sen. [Edward] Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq indeed had weapons of mass destruction.

I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, [Jacques] Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.

The Germans certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing.

We're also in a period in which we've had intelligence surprises in the proliferation area that go the other way. The case of Iran, a nuclear program that the Iranians admit was 18 years on, that we underestimated. And, in fact, we didn't discover it. It was discovered by a group of Iranian dissidents outside the country who pointed the international community at the location.

The Libyan program recently discovered was far more extensive than was assessed prior to that.

There's a long record here of being wrong. There's a good reason for it. There are probably multiple reasons. Certainly proliferation is a hard thing to track, particularly in countries that deny easy and free access and don't have free and open societies.

In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441.

Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities -- one last chance to come clean about what it had.

We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

I think the aim -- and certainly the aim of what I've tried to do since leaving -- is not political and certainly not a witch hunt at individuals. It's to try to direct our attention at what I believe is a fundamental fault analysis that we must now examine.

And let me take one of the explanations most commonly given: Analysts were pressured to reach conclusions that would fit the political agenda of one or another administration. I deeply think that is a wrong explanation.

As leader of the effort of the Iraqi Survey Group, I spent most of my days not out in the field leading inspections. It's typically what you do at that level. I was trying to motivate, direct, find strategies.

In the course of doing that, I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed and that they had estimated. Reality on the ground differed in advance.

And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, "I was pressured to do this." The explanation was very often, "The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it."

And each case was different, but the conversations were sufficiently in depth and our relationship was sufficiently frank that I'm convinced that, at least to the analysts I dealt with, I did not come across a single one that felt it had been, in the military term, "inappropriate command influence" that led them to take that position.

It was not that. It was the honest difficulty based on the intelligence that had -- the information that had been collected that led the analysts to that conclusion.

And you know, almost in a perverse way, I wish it had been undue influence because we know how to correct that.

We get rid of the people who, in fact, were exercising that.

The fact that it wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem of understanding what went wrong, and we've got to figure out what was there. And that's what I call fundamental fault analysis.

And like I say, I think we've got other cases other than Iraq. I do not think the problem of global proliferation of weapons technology of mass destruction is going to go away, and that's why I think it is an urgent issue.

And let me really wrap up here with just a brief summary of what I think we are now facing in Iraq. I regret to say that I think at the end of the work of the [Iraq Survey Group] there's still going to be an unresolvable ambiguity about what happened.

A lot of that traces to the failure on April 9 to establish immediately physical security in Iraq -- the unparalleled looting and destruction, a lot of which was directly intentional, designed by the security services to cover the tracks of the Iraq WMD program and their other programs as well, a lot of which was what we simply called Ali Baba looting. "It had been the regime's. The regime is gone. I'm going to go take the gold toilet fixtures and everything else imaginable."

I've seen looting around the world and thought I knew the best looters in the world. The Iraqis excel at that.

The result is -- document destruction -- we're really not going to be able to prove beyond a truth the negatives and some of the positive conclusions that we're going to come to. There will be always unresolved ambiguity here.

But I do think the survey group -- and I think Charlie Duelfer is a great leader. I have the utmost confidence in Charles. I think you will get as full an answer as you can possibly get.

And let me just conclude by my own personal tribute, both to the president and to [CIA Director] George Tenet, for having the courage to select me to do this, and my successor, Charlie Duelfer, as well.

Both of us are known for probably at times regrettable streak of independence. I came not from within the administration, and it was clear and clear in our discussions and no one asked otherwise that I would lead this the way I thought best and I would speak the truth as we found it. I have had absolutely no pressure prior, during the course of the work at the [Iraq Survey Group], or after I left to do anything otherwise.

I think that shows a level of maturity and understanding that I think bodes well for getting to the bottom of this. But it is really up to you and your staff, on behalf of the American people, to take on that challenge. It's not something that anyone from the outside can do. So I look forward to these hearings and other hearings at how you will get to the conclusions.

I do believe we have to understand why reality turned out to be different than expectations and estimates. But you have more public service -- certainly many of you -- than I have ever had, and you recognize that this is not unusual.

I told Sen. [John] Warner [chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee] earlier that I've been drawn back as a result of recent film of reminding me of something. At the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the combined estimate was unanimity in the intelligence service that there were no Soviet warheads in Cuba at the time of the missile crisis.

Fortunately, President Kennedy and [then-Attorney General] Robert Kennedy disagreed with the estimate and chose a course of action less ambitious and aggressive than recommended by their advisers.

But the most important thing about that story, which is not often told, is that as a result after the Cuban missile crisis, immediate steps were taken to correct our inability to collect on the movement of nuclear material out of the Soviet Union to other places.

So that by the end of the Johnson administration, the intelligence community had a capability to do what it had not been able to do at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.

I think you face a similar responsibility in ensuring that the community is able to do a better job in the future than it has done in the past.


Now does this help you small mind to comprehend what
has been said here time and time again.

[DarkReign]

IF she indeed leaked ANY information that contributed to loss of life or anything comparable thereof, that is treason and should be dealt with accordingly.

Quit the WMD talk. Its getting old. Everything in life is about results. Last time I checked, there werent any on the WMD front. Spin it all day, either they never were there or they were moved. Either way, there arent any in American hands. Therefore, there werent any.

Question: She leaked info to the press, not a foreign power, right? Really, it doesnt matter, but if she leaked sensitive operational info to foreign powers, thats a death penalty.

Organizations like the CIA dont abide by the same rules as other federal institutions (nor should they). I dont agree with wire-tapping American citizens without a warrant (illegals are fine). I dont care how they 'get it done' on the foreign front. Send prisoners to 3rd world countries that torture for info. Fuck these fucking bleeding hearts.

Info in the CIA should not be leaked. Period. I cant seriously think of one situation where it is ethically correct to to do it even.

[Yonivore]

I love the new CIA logo

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/leaky.jpg

[Yonivore]

IF she indeed leaked ANY information that contributed to loss of life or anything comparable thereof, that is treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
The revelations exposed the cooperation of countries that would have rather not the world know they were assisting the United States. In that sense, we may never know the consequences to cooperative people in those countries where human rights are -- shall we say -- less valued than here.

Plus, it probably told al Qaeda where some of their "disappeared" comrades had gone.


Quit the WMD talk. Its getting old. Everything in life is about results. Last time I checked, there werent any on the WMD front. Spin it all day, either they never were there or they were moved. Either way, there arent any in American hands. Therefore, there werent any.
There's been plenty of evidence discovered since the invasion to point to the existence of WMD's and the intention of the Ba'athist regime.


Question: She leaked info to the press, not a foreign power, right? Really, it doesnt matter, but if she leaked sensitive operational info to foreign powers, thats a death penalty.
Because, of course, foreign powers don't read the New York Times, right?


Organizations like the CIA dont abide by the same rules as other federal institutions (nor should they). I dont agree with wire-tapping American citizens without a warrant (illegals are fine). I dont care how they 'get it done' on the foreign front. Send prisoners to 3rd world countries that torture for info. Fuck these fucking bleeding hearts.
Amen to that!


Info in the CIA should not be leaked. Period. I cant seriously think of one situation where it is ethically correct to to do it even.
Nor can I.

[Yonivore]

A lot of the arguing, in here, over the whole Iraq question tends to begin when someone like me challenges an article of faith held by someone like ChumpDumper. The Chumpy-type usually disregards all other evidence pointing to that fact -- particularly if the original poster didn't reference all the other evidence when making the assertion (probably because all the other evidence has been a settled matter -- or so the original poster thought.).

Anyway, by way of an example, I raise the idiotic article of faith that "there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" and offer the following information as proof there was (at least in the minds of the Clinton Administration) a significant relationship between al Qaeda and the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein as early as 1998.

So, when I say al Qaeda and Iraq had a relationship going into the invasion, don't argue with me, argue with Bill Clinton.

Thomas Joscelyn's latest Daily Standard column (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/145uivdz.asp?pg=1), concerning the whole Mary McCarthy matter, is an interesting read that brings up some old Clinton ghosts.

While there is some doubt surrounding the exact reasons for the CIA's termination of Mary McCarthy at this point, there is no doubt that the media has been quick to lionize her. On Sunday, for example, The New York Times ran a ridiculous piece that argued McCarthy had an "independent streak" because she challenged the Clinton administration on its decision to destroy a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant named al-Shifa.

I say that the Times piece was ridiculous because the Old Grey Lady left out or spun nearly every salient fact surrounding the matter. Now, I realize that the strike on al-Shifa was controversial. Many public commentators to this day insist that the strike was a mistake. Christopher Hitchens made this argument (http://www.slate.com/id/2140496/) for Slate yesterday. But, as Joceslyn points out in his Daily Standard piece, the public discussion of the events in August 1998 has been quite lacking. The New York Times, in particular, has made no real attempt to understand the facts of the matter at all.

He lays out some of the facts in the article but, I'll summarize and add to the evidence here:

(1) Several Suspected Facilities. Most importantly, al-Shifa was not the only facility in Sudan where Iraqi chemical weapons scientists were suspected of collaborating with al Qaeda. John Gannon, a former director at the CIA, told Stephen Hayes that there were "several" facilities that were suspected. Contemporaneous open source accounts confirm this as well. According to those same accounts, the Clinton administration chose al-Shifa, instead of other possible targets, because it was not close to any residential buildings. The Associated Press reported that the Pentagon decided not to strike another suspected facility because of “its proximity to residential neighborhoods, including a diplomatic enclave. Instead, strike planning focused on the Shifa plant in an industrial section of Khartoum.”

(2) NSA Intercepts. Much of the criticism of the al-Shifa strike centers on a soil sample taken outside the facility that purportedly contained traces of EMPTA, a precursor used in the production of VX nerve gas, which is a particularly nasty weapon. If you read the Times account you would think that this was the strongest, or even the only, piece of evidence used to justify the strike.

That's not the case. As Joscelyn points out, President Clinton authorized the intelligence community to discuss the multiple threads of evidence used to justify the strike. One thread, in particular, was more important than the others. The NSA intercepted communications between the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program, Emad Al Ani, and the plant's management. Thus, the soil sample was not the only, nor even the strongest piece of evidence used.

Something that caused me to drop my criticism of Clinton over the "Aspirin Factory" strike...unless I was feeling particularly perturbed at Clinton apologists.

(3) CIA's Declassified Reporting to Congress. For years after the strike, the CIA reported to Congress that Iraq was working in Sudan on chemical and possibly even biological weapons. You can read those reports for yourself via the links provided here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/887nvenc.asp). I continue to wonder why this reporting was, apparently, never futher investigated by the CIA's own Iraq Survey Group or any other official government body.

(4) The CIA's Michael Scheuer. Before his own flip-flop on the issue of Iraq-al Qaeda, Michael Scheuer cited open source reporting on the Iraq-Sudan-al Qaeda connection in his book Through Our Enemies Eyes (2002). The CIA's first bin Laden hunter wrote:


Whatever progress bin Laden made in Sudan toward arming al Qaeda with CBRN weapons appears to have had Turabi’s approval and was supported by the Khartoum factories of the Military Industrial Corporation (MIC) - where bin Laden had a private office – or other NIF-controlled facilities. A Sudanese military engineer named Colonel Abd-al-Basit Hamza – who now builds military factories and once built roads for bin Laden’s Al-Hijra Company – reportedly manages a ‘group of companies…run by NIF in cooperation with Iraq and bin Laden. The operation of this program is led by Iraqi scientists and technicians, led by Dr. Khalil Ibrahim Mubaruhah, and by Asian and foreign experts. The New Republic quotes a Sudanese military defector as saying that “up to 60 Iraqi military experts rotate through Sudan every six months, and that some of these experts are involved in some kind of munitions development” at the MIC. In addition, Sudanese oppositionists – not the most unbiased sources – claim Iraq’s technicians are helping Sudan build chemical weapons at MIC facilities in Khartoum and, in return, Iraqi chemical weapons have been hidden by Sudan at the Yarmuk Military Military Manufacturing Complex in Sheggara, south of Khartoum.

(Chapter 9, p. 125 of "Through our Enemies Eyes" by Michael Scheuer)

Other laboratory and production facilities available to bin Laden are reported in the Khowst and Jalalabad areas, and in the Khartoum suburb of Kubar. The latter facility is said to be a ‘new chemical and bacteriological factory’ cooperatively built by Sudan, bin Laden, and Iraq, and may be one of several in Sudan. In January 1999, Al-Watan Al-Arabi reported that by late 1998, ‘Iraq, Sudan, and bin Laden were cooperating and coordinating in the field of chemical weapons. The reports say that several chemical factories were built in Sudan. They were financed by bin Laden and supervised by Iraqi experts.’

(Anonymous, pp. 188-189 of "Through our Enemies Eyes" by Michael Scheuer)
There are lot more quotes to choose from, but you get the picture...at least, you would think you'd get the picture.

(5) The State Department's Explanation. State Department deputy spokesman James Foley addressed the press after the strike. He described the plant as part of the Sudanese military-industrial complex that was operated by bin Laden and that “we believe there were links between the Sudanese and Iraq on this issue.” Foley told reporters that “hundreds of Iraqi experts have worked in Sudan since the war, including in the manufacture of munitions.” He added, “we have evidence of ties between Sudan's chemical weapons aspirations, the Shifa facility and other chemical weapons actors” and “there is evidence that Sudan sought help in the pursuit of a CW (chemical weapons) capability from other countries, principally Iraq.”

(6) The Clinton Administration's Original Indictment of Osama Bin Laden. The Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation at several facilities in Sudan may have been what Clinton administration prosecutors were thinking of when they included this allegation in the original indictment of bin Laden:


"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
The original indictment of bin Laden, including the language above, was filed just a few months before the strike on al-Shifa. Critics (such as you -- although I question that you ever were even aware of this language to begin with) have tried to argue that since this language was dropped from the new indictment of bin Laden months later that it has no merit. But, the updated indictment of bin Laden focused narrowly on the August 1998 embassy bombings. That indictment contained facts directly relevant to the embassy bombings, as opposed to the more generic earlier indictment. In short, just because it was dropped it doesn't mean it was wrong.

(7) Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy's fellow NSC staffers. Richard Clarke, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have all defended the intelligence surrounding al-Shifa from the beginning. The indictment referenced above was unsealed in November 1998. The 9-11 commission report notes that when Clarke read the passage above it "led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger [National Security Advisor] that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was ‘probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qida agreement.’ Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the ‘exact formula used by Iraq.’”

So, Clarke was clearly familiar with the broader set of intelligence surrounding Iraq's activities in Sudan. Clarke also publicly defended the intelligence in the pages of The Washington Post on January 23, 1999.

One of the points of my piece in the Daily Standard is to ask why the press has not challenged Richard Clarke and his fellow NSC staffers on this issue. They now claim that none of this means that Iraq and al Qaeda were really working together. How do you explain that?

(8) The Iraqi Regime publicly praises bin Laden just one week after the strike on al-Shifa. As Stephen Hayes reported in his The Connection:


“On August 27, 1998, twenty days after al Qaeda attacked the U.S. embassies in Africa, Babel, Uday Hussein’s newspaper, published a startling editorial proclaiming bin Laden ‘an Arab and Islamic hero.”
It is also worth noting that senior level Iraqi officials traveled to Sudan in the aftermath of the strike to publicly condemn the U.S. There were, actually, a number of visits back and forth between Sudanese and Iraqi officials.

(9) An "increase" in the Iraqi presence in Sudan following the strike. The New York Times reported in November 1998 that, according to the Clinton administration, there was an “increase in the Iraqi presence in Sudan” in the wake of the strike. This one additional piece of evidence that the Clinton administration used to bolster its argument that it had made the right decision.

(10) Former Clinton Administration officials defend the decision to stike al-Shifa to this day. Self-explanatory.

These are 10 quick facts concerning August 1998. There are dozens more. It takes willful ignorance to pretend that none of this happened. And so goes almost every other argument raised by opponents to President Bush.

In fact, the only thing that changed from August 1998 to March 2003 WAS the American Presidency; from one the liberals loved to one the liberals hated.

I think the article of faith that there were no WMD's in Iraq prior to the invasion is another example that will, with time, prove to be as false as the no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda canard.

You continued to ignore that Iraqi regime change was stated U.S. policy under the Clinton Administration. You continue to ignore that following the invasion large stockpiles of CHEMICALS that could be assembled into CHEMICAL WEAPONS, with a moments notice, were found...regardless of the fact that Iraq chose, for whatever reason, not to use them.

Just like you're ignoring the translations of documents from the former regime that all but spell out the fact they possessed "prohibited weapons" and were actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

Just when we think we've established a fact, such as there was indeed a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, people like ChumpDumper cause the whole damn thing to be argued all over again. It's ridiculous.

[ChumpDumper]

Look Yoni, neither Fox News nor the Bush administration use your cut-and-paste plagiarism from right wing blogs to prop their outright failure to procure any appreciable WMDs and they aren't trying to pass off bug spray that could give you a nasty cough if someone had three weeks lead time to mix it up right as a WMD, even though they did have three weeks to mix it up and deploy it and use it on the invading US forces or Israel right?

Your best guess (and it's only a guess, you admitted it) is that all the tons and tons of non-bug spray WMDs you claim Saddam had are in the hands of an unknown party (hey, they could be terrorists who will use them on us next week - that has to be better than Saddam who never ever used them on us, right?) in an unknown location (possibly down the street to be used at Fiesta since our southern border is so poorly guarded, right?) in unknown amounts (enough to kill some bugs? or hundreds of thousands of Americans?) -- and we don't know any of this thanks to the battle plan of the Bush administration that really didn't seem to care about securing the borders of Iraq to stop any possible export of any possible WMDs.

I feel so much safer now that we have no idea where anything is and can't do anything about it. Don't you?

[Yonivore]

Look Yoni, neither Fox News nor the Bush administration use your cut-and-paste plagiarism from right wing blogs to prop their outright failure to procure any appreciable WMDs and they aren't trying to pass off bug spray that could give you a nasty cough if someone had three weeks lead time to mix it up right as a WMD, even though they did have three weeks to mix it up and deploy it and use it on the invading US forces or Israel right?

Your best guess (and it's only a guess, you admitted it) is that all the tons and tons of non-bug spray WMDs you claim Saddam had are in the hands of an unknown party (hey, they could be terrorists who will use them on us next week - that has to be better than Saddam who never ever used them on us, right?) in an unknown location (possibly down the street to be used at Fiesta since our southern border is so poorly guarded, right?) in unknown amounts (enough to kill some bugs? or hundreds of thousands of Americans?) -- and we don't know any of this thanks to the battle plan of the Bush administration that really didn't seem to care about securing the borders of Iraq to stop any possible export of any possible WMDs.

I feel so much safer now that we have no idea where anything is and can't do anything about it. Don't you?
So, did al Qaeda and Iraq have a relationship?

And, don't you think it's possible Russia, Germany, and France conspired to help Iraq -- unbeknownst to the U.S. -- and that that could be the reason nothing was where it was supposed to be when we got there?

Hell, we find out Russia was giving them our battle plans and shipping them equipment; is it such a stretch to believe they helped them get rid of their stockpiles? And, the pesticides are what remained. Who knows how much and what was destroyed, moved, or hidden before we invaded.

You're going from a skeptic to a Hussein apologist. There is plenty of evidence to support Iraq has an active WMD program and that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda -- to deny that simply because the weapons weren't where we believed they were is idiotic.

I'd still like for you to admit there was a relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq dating from at least 1998. Will you do that for me?

[xrayzebra]

Look Yoni, neither Fox News nor the Bush administration use your cut-and-paste plagiarism from right wing blogs to prop their outright failure to procure any appreciable WMDs and they aren't trying to pass off bug spray that could give you a nasty cough if someone had three weeks lead time to mix it up right as a WMD, even though they did have three weeks to mix it up and deploy it and use it on the invading US forces or Israel right?

Your best guess (and it's only a guess, you admitted it) is that all the tons and tons of non-bug spray WMDs you claim Saddam had are in the hands of an unknown party (hey, they could be terrorists who will use them on us next week - that has to be better than Saddam who never ever used them on us, right?) in an unknown location (possibly down the street to be used at Fiesta since our southern border is so poorly guarded, right?) in unknown amounts (enough to kill some bugs? or hundreds of thousands of Americans?) -- and we don't know any of this thanks to the battle plan of the Bush administration that really didn't seem to care about securing the borders of Iraq to stop any possible export of any possible WMDs.

I feel so much safer now that we have no idea where anything is and can't do anything about it. Don't you?

Errrahhhh, Chump, you didn't like CNN's little article from the
inspector himself. You are such a turnip. Admit once in awhile you
are wrong as two left feet and really are a chump.

[ChumpDumper]

So, did al Qaeda and Iraq have a relationship?Did they? They had very low level contacts if anything. Nobody, not even the Bush administration is using your plagiarized blogs to support their policies -- you'd think they'd be shouting this from the rooftops considering their poll numbers. There simply is nothing like the "Saddam was behind 9/11" fallacies that the administration was all too happy not to discount. Ultimately, AQ and the Ba'athists are so diametrically opposed that the kind of cooperation you are dreaming of could never happen.
You're going from a skeptic to a Hussein apologist.Fuck you and your trying to make this about me. This war was about WMDs and we failed to get them or even prove they existed.

If there was this Grand Alliance between Iraq, AQ and Sudan, why the living fuck have we not done one thing about Sudan EVER. It fits all your criteria - WMDs and AQ contact -- oh and they just happened to have an active genocide of hundreds of thousands of people in the past couple of years - not a few hundred two decades ago?

Why have you not clamored for regime change there?

EVER?

[ChumpDumper]

Errrahhhh, Chump, you didn't like CNN's little article from the
inspector himself.The one that says everyone's intel about WMDs sucked?

That also makes me feel safer.

[Clandestino]

chump, did sadamm deserve to remain in power?

[xrayzebra]

^^Another Liberal rant by the Chump!

[DarkReign]

Because, of course, foreign powers don't read the New York Times, right?

True, but I dont know exactly what was allegedly leaked. Operational intelligence would be treasonous.

If she was just whistle blowing on this Administration's misappropriation of CIA Intelligence to suit its own needs, so what. That doesnt endanger anyones lives. She should be fired, probably charged (maybe convicted), but it didnt reveal any tactical info.

Again, thats an assumption. Could be wrong....dont know.

Oh yeah, stop the WMD crap. Do we have Iraqi WMD's in our possesion? No. If they were moved and had recorded evidence to support such claims, I would think this administration would be trumpeting that around every major news organization in the world.

[ChumpDumper]

chump, did sadamm deserve to remain in power?Try to change the subject again. Nice try.

If we're going to remove every leader we think is a bad guy out there, let's be consistent about it.

I ask you, does the Sudanese government deserve to have the US do absolutely nothing about everything they are known to have done and Yoni is claiming they have done?

Does 'lil Kim deserve to be in power?

Does the Chinese government deserve to be in power?

Do all the corrupt African govenments deserve to be in power?

If you are going to put on the white hat -- keep it on or STFU.

[Clandestino]

this thread started out about the cia bitch leaking info.. she was wrong.. you chose to derail the topic and make it out wmds... regardless, unless you think sadamm should still be in power, then stfu about wmds... as far as the rest, give it time.. it took 12 years to get rid of sadamm.. they didn't do it overnight you stupid fuck...


Try to change the subject again. Nice try.

If we're going to remove every leader we think is a bad guy out there, let's be consistent about it.

I ask you, does the Sudanese government deserve to have the US do absolutely nothing about everything they are known to have done and Yoni is claiming they have done?

Does 'lil Kim deserve to be in power?

Does the Chinese government deserve to be in power?

Do all the corrupt African govenments deserve to be in power?

If you are going to put on the white hat -- keep it on or STFU.

[ChumpDumper]

then stfu about wmdsWhere are they?

[Clandestino]

Where are they?

:lol you're a joke... that is your only comment to anyone.. where are the wmds.. you're like a wind up doll..."where are the wmds?" pull, "where are the wmds?" pull :blah

[ChumpDumper]

That wasn't an answer.

Since WMDs are the main reason we removed Saddam and considered him a threat, it has everything to do with your question to me.

So where are they, Clan?

Who has them?

In what amounts?

Which types?

Are you telling me you don't care about any of this?

[Yonivore]

Did they? They had very low level contacts if anything.
Did you even read my post that quoted Clinton officials describing a SIGNIFICANT relationship? Iraqi scientists in Sudan helping al Qaeda develop weapons? Did you read any of it? I intentionally left out everythingn BUT the Clinton administration evidence on this.


Nobody, not even the Bush administration is using your plagiarized blogs to support their policies -- you'd think they'd be shouting this from the rooftops considering their poll numbers. There simply is nothing like the "Saddam was behind 9/11" fallacies that the administration was all too happy not to discount. Ultimately, AQ and the Ba'athists are so diametrically opposed that the kind of cooperation you are dreaming of could never happen.Fuck you and your trying to make this about me. This war was about WMDs and we failed to get them or even prove they existed.
You're an idiot and this paragraph proves it. Hell, the evidence is starting to point to the possibility -- although no on in this administration has ever made the assertion (as you untruthfully claim) -- that Iraq was, indeed, involved in the events of 9-11.

Salmon Pak, Iraq scientists in Sudan, al Qaeda fleeing Afghanistan to Iraq before we invaded Iraq, supporting other terrorist organizations, seeking uranium from Niger probably buying it from the Congo, and on and on and on.

Not to mention the words of his own officials in the posted translated memos talking about moving "special weapons" and setting up nuclear facilities in the years, months, and weeks leading up to the invasion.

You're just a fucking idiot and now I remember why I had you on ignore. Welcome back.


If there was this Grand Alliance between Iraq, AQ and Sudan, why the living fuck have we not done one thing about Sudan EVER. It fits all your criteria - WMDs and AQ contact -- oh and they just happened to have an active genocide of hundreds of thousands of people in the past couple of years - not a few hundred two decades ago?
Well, aside from destroying the relationship between Sudan and al Qaeda by (probably) threatening to bomb their asses back to the stone age, what possible strategic value is the place? Besides, I'd be asking Bill Clinton why he didn't accept delivery of Osama bin Laden when the Sudanese offered to hand him over...three times.

Ever? Bill Clinton bombed the "Aspirin Factory." And, as it apparent in the post below as well as bin Laden's quick departure from the country, I'd say we probably did some significant ass-kicking in Sudan. You don't read very well, do you? You get an idea in your head and not even facts will dislodge it. Amazing.

Why have you not clamored for regime change there?

EVER?
One fucking evil regime at a time. Let's deal with those that actually pose a risk to our security first, shall we? I'm willing to talk about Sudan...just as soon as the mad mullahs of Iran and that idiot in North Korea have reached room temperature.

[Clandestino]

no, the 10+ years of un violations, attacking us and british planes, etc didn't have anything to do with anything.. dude, what fucking planet are you from??? and besides, everyone believed he was dangerous, from demos to repubs, to foreign countries... not just the u.s.....

so, did it not bother you that sadamm fired on us and british planes?

did it not bother you that iraq was paying off the un so sadamm could be rich and continue to kill anyone who disagreed with him?


That wasn't an answer.

Since WMDs are the main reason we removed Saddam and considered him a threat, it has everything to do with your question to me.

So where are they, Clan?

Who has them?

In what amounts?

Which types?

Are you telling me you don't care about any of this?

[Yonivore]

Well, that sucks! I can't put ChumpDumper on ignore because of his Mod status.

[xrayzebra]

Well, that sucks! I can't put ChumpDumper on ignore because of his Mod status.

Why would you want to. Everyone needs a little humor in life and he is
a riot. Not everyone gets to see a liberal in full rant mode. :lol

[Yonivore]

Here's another thing (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200604231348.asp) to consider about this McCarthy traitor.


Mary McCarthy's position--the post from which she is likely to have learned the most sensitive information at the heart of the leak controversy--was inside the CIA's inspector general's office. This is the unit that investigates internal misconduct. This is the unit to which government employees are encouraged to report government abuse or illegality so it can be investigated, potentially reported to Congress, and prosecuted if appropriate.

That is, it is the legal alternative to leaking national secrets to the media.

It is, therefore, the process that has to be protected if our intelligence community is to have credibility with the public and with the foreign intelligence services on which we are so dependent. If it becomes just another Washington sieve--a place where people who comply with their oaths and exercise professional discretion may nevertheless expect to find the information they confide trumpeted on Page One of the Washington Post--we are guaranteed to have much more leaking. And much less security.
If Mrs. McCarthy leaked information that came her way as part of an inspector general's investigation, there also is no reason to assume that it--or the Pulitzer prize-winning story it helped produce--is true. Investigators often gather material that does not pan out or that turns out to be false or exaggerated. And indeed, before her firing last week, the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/world/europe/21rendition.html?ex=1303272000&en=039e409dd7ddfc67&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) was casting doubt on the secret-prison tale:


The European Union's antiterrorism chief told a hearing on Thursday that he had not been able to prove that secret C.I.A. prisons existed in Europe.

"We've heard all kinds of allegations," the official, Gijs de Vries, said before a committee of the European Parliament. "It does not appear to be proven beyond reasonable doubt."

But Mr. de Vries came under criticism from some legislators who called the hearing a whitewash. Kathalijne Buitenweg, a Dutch member of Parliament from the Green Party, said that even without definitive proof, "the circumstantial evidence is stunning."
Ooops! Could she have actually leaked a lie?

[ChumpDumper]

Let's deal with those that actually pose a risk to our security first, shall we?You just said Sudan did - to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of people being hacked to death, right? I know they don't count because they aren't unborn or brain dead.
seeking uranium from Niger probably buying it from the CongoThere you go again with your "probably" mantra -- hey, say he had uranium -- where is it?
You're an idiot and this paragraph proves it.We failed to get any WMDs or prove they even existed. All we got were pieces of paper that can lead us to think they may have existed and may have been moved to, well you don't know so you might as well leave it at that. And putting me on ignore will not change that.
no, the 10+ years of un violations, attacking us and british planes, etc didn't have anything to do with anything.. dude, what fucking planet are you from??? and besides, everyone believed he was dangerous, from demos to repubs, to foreign countries... not just the u.s.....Why did we believe he was dangerous?

WMDs.

That was the main selling point of the war, you simply can't deny that.
so, did it not bother you that sadamm fired on us and british planes? Every time he did that, we took out the radar site that tracked our planes - he was actually doing us a favor.
did it not bother you that iraq was paying off the un so sadamm could be rich and continue to kill anyone who disagreed with him?Not to the level that I'd blow $315,000,000,000 on him when Osama was still out there.

[Yonivore]

Speaking of Sudan and Osama bin Laden...

The purported Osama bin Laden audio press release aired on al-Jazeera over the weekend, if it's for real, it's pretty encouraging. He has developed a sudden interest in his former home of Sudan. From the BBC's excerpts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4936490.stm):


Britain . . . separated Sudan from Egypt. Then it returned once again to Sudan and sought to separate the south. It formed an army there from the people of the south and supported them with money, weapons, and expertise. It directed them to demand secession from Sudan. America then adopted this army through material and moral support and through its international tools, like the United Nations.
I particularly find it amusing bin Laden believes the U.N. is an American tool.


It pressured the Khartoum government into signing an unfair agreement which allows the south to break away six years after signing the agreement. Let [Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad] al-Bashir and [US President George W.] Bush know that this agreement is not worth the ink with which it was written. It does not bind us in the least.

Not satisfied with all these intrigues and crimes, America moved on to stir up more strife. One of the areas of gravest strife was western Sudan, where some differences among the tribesmen were used to trigger a ferocious war among them that consumes everything in its way, in preparation for sending Crusader forces to occupy the region and steal its oil under the cover of maintaining security there. It is a continuous Zionist-Crusader war against the Muslims.
So, that's our plan! I wonder if McCarthy leaked this to bin Laden.


In this respect, I urge the mujahidin and their supporters in general, and in Sudan and the surrounding areas, including the Arabian Peninsula, in particular, to prepare all that which is necessary to fight a long-term war against the Crusader thieves in western Sudan. Our aim is clear: that is, defending Islam, its people, and land, and not defending the Khartoum government, although there could be common interests between us. Our differences with it are great. Suffice it to say that it failed to implement sharia law and relinquished the south.
Blogger TigerHawk (http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/04/bin-laden-changes-subject.html) offers some context:


Less than 2 1/2 years ago, al Qaeda broke the news to the Taliban that it was diverting resources to Iraq so as to humiliate the American "Crusaders." . . .

Al Qaeda drew a line in the sands of the Sunni Triangle, and the United States Army and Marines walked right across it. First, al Qaeda tried to kill Americans, per bin Laden's orders. It largely failed. Then al Qaeda went after America's allies, and succeeded only in turning public opinion against itself in every Muslim country it attacked. After thirty months of battlefield defeats and political embarrassments, bin Laden won't even mention Iraq in one of his rare public utterances, and he rallies his troops to fight a war where American soldiers aren't. How humiliating. How delightful.

Al Qaeda has lost in Iraq, and bin Laden is desperate to change the subject. He and his organization are at grave risk of being discredited, and when that happens it will be much harder for al Qaeda to attract recruits, raise money, or deal with governments.
It may have the added benefit of encouraging America to do something about the horrors in Sudan...just so Chumpy will shut the fuck up already.

[Ocotillo]

Washington Post is reporting that the CIA is backing off claiming McCarthy was connected to the secret prisons "leak".

Maybe the neo-con mob in here might want to douse the torches and let an investigation take place before they burn someone at the stake.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401601.html)

Not saying she is innocent. Not saying she is guilty. None of you have all the facts either.......just your own personal agendas.

[ChumpDumper]

If she did leak something the agency has every right to fire her. What is it all about? I'll wait for the book.

[Yonivore]

Washington Post is reporting that the CIA is backing off claiming McCarthy was connected to the secret prisons "leak".

Maybe the neo-con mob in here might want to douse the torches and let an investigation take place before they burn someone at the stake.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401601.html)

Not saying she is innocent. Not saying she is guilty. None of you have all the facts either.......just your own personal agendas.
Here's news for you...as far as I can find, the CIA never said her dismissal was related to the secret prisons leak. Just that she'd been fired for disclosing secret information to the media.

I think we all jumped to the conclusion it was the prison leak. But, now, I'm more inclined to believe she just told the media anything she came across while at the IG's office...well, as long as it was damaging to President Bush.

And, it's possible some field CIA people used her as a tool...errr, fool...by making bogus complaints to the IG's office knowing she'd share.

I think this may go much deeper than anyone imagines.

[Ocotillo]

Here's news for you...as far as I can find, the CIA never said her dismissal was related to the secret prisons leak. Just that she'd been fired for disclosing secret information to the media.

I think we all jumped to the conclusion it was the prison leak. But, now, I'm more inclined to believe she just told the media anything she came across while at the IG's office...well, as long as it was damaging to President Bush.

And, it's possible some field CIA people used her as a tool...errr, fool...by making bogus complaints to the IG's office knowing she'd share.

I think this may go much deeper than anyone imagines.

My thoughts and this is only a gut feeling. This is a message to others within the CIA. Goss is a partisan and that is one of the reason he was appointed.

[Yonivore]

NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/washington/26leak.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)


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."
The CIA's spokeswoman says that McCarthy "personally admitted" that she had "unauthorized contacts with reporters" and shared "classified information" with them.

This flies in the face of what Ms. McCarthy's surrogates are telling their contacts in the press.

Here's (http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200604251149.asp) a good Andrew McCarthy piece on the whole matter.

[Yonivore]

So, Chumpy, was there a significant relationship between the Ba'athist regime of Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda in 1998?