Scary stuff.

[whometense]

Liberal Oasis:

...Mary McCarthy: Start of CIA Purge?
(posted April 25 1:30 AM ET)

The firing of CIA analyst Mary McCarthy was first reported as related to the W. Post story, which revealed a network of secret prisons the Bush Administration was maintaining in Europe.

But yesterday, McCarthy denied any involvement in the prison story.

CNN cited an unnamed CIA official saying McCarthy was fired for a "pattern of behavior."

And the W. Post reported, "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."

So what's really going on here?

Two things of note:

First, on Sunday, the W. Post (via David Corn and Political Animal) reported:

The White House ... has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.

McCarthy donated to the Kerry presidential campaign, and was close to Rand Beers, who left the Bush Administration and joined the Kerry effort.

Second, CNN reported yesterday:

Officials said the investigation into leaking to Dana Priest of The Washington Post, and other journalists, is ongoing. "It is not over yet," said one.

This doesn't look like an investigation into a single leak.

This looks like the beginning of a political purge of career public servants at the CIA -- those whose loyalty is to the facts and the people, not to the White House's political agenda -- with the leak as a handy excuse.

For Iraq, independent CIA agents were strongarmed into submission.

For any future military action (Iran anyone?), with the White House's credibility now shot, they can't afford to have any dissenting voices in the intelligence community.

So perhaps, they're planning to kick them to the curb ahead of time.

If that is the case, McCarthy is the very tip of the iceberg, a warning shot to other agents, because she was scheduled to retire this month.

Don't be suprised to see more agents getting fired, or pressured to resign.

The Carpetbagger has more here: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7228.html

[TayTay]

1. We were told in Nov. of '04 that this would happen

Salon had an article before the election that the dream of the 'thugs was to purge the government of dissenting opinions and have those jobs filled with 'neocon' sympathizers.

It is coming to pass.

[karynnj]

2. This is scary

It also explains Kerry emphasis (twice) on "if she did it" I had taken them as Kerry simply being a good lawyer - but he did really emphasize that phrase on Snuffy.

What's scary is that she may have been targeted mostly for being a Kerry supporter. Yesterday, while on a drive, I wanted to here if Limbaugh would mention Kerry's wonderful speech. He didn't, at least in the 15 -20 miuntes I listened. He did take apart into 3 pieces Kerry's answer on this on Snuffy - but he played all of it. He made a comment that Kerry (in 2004)likely had a shadow CIA which was why he blew off intelligence briefing. (which he didn't). (Seeing your post, this comment is scary.)

He thought Kerry was contradicting himself when he said both that it was good it was leaked, but whoever did would (and should) accept the legal consequences. I think there's a level of principle and heroism that he can't comprehend. What was significant was that he ranted about Kerry for at least 15 minutes. Clearly they fear him - and calling him a buffoon after playing Kerry's well reasoned answer won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree. (He even played the line about how the administration has classified stuff to keep it secret.

[TayTay]

3. The Dems have to make this argument

It woould be a contradiction if they claimed foul for the leaking in the Plame case and then did not in this case. They have to be consistent. Limbug is not concerned with logic, truth or consistency. He just makes stuff up to suit him at the time.

Kerry moral point was important, but a lot of people won't take the time to see it. A person can make a judgement call from conscience that involves an illegal act. The act remains illegal. The moral reasons for doing so are important. There is a distinction between selectively leaking information in order to bolster a purely political argument and leaking information in order to ask a moral question about whether or not covert operations to support torture are allowable. It is a fine argument and a lot of people won't get it.

[karynnj]

4. I think that more people might get it

than he expects because doing that is at the root of much of America's myth of itself. Whether the fore fathers or "Mr Smith", that concept does resonate. Also, Kerry doesn't sound scary, like a lunatic or angry - just reasoned and rational. He gave them nothing to work with here.

My impression was that Rush was losing it - he was near incoherent (rather than his usual dishonest, hate filled and ultra confident self.)