Posted on 04/21/2006 12:01:43 PM PDT by Howlin
Edited on 04/21/2006 12:47:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Just breaking on Fox...
No details, but the agent was caught dead to rights leaking....
Update: CIA Officer Fired for Leaking Classified Info to Media
WASHINGTON — A CIA officer has been relieved of his duty after being caught leaking classified information to the media.
CIA officials will not reveal the officer's name, assignment, or the information that was leaked. The firing is a highly unusual move, although there has been an ongoing investigation into leaks in the CIA.
One official called this a "damaging leak" that deals with operational information and said the fired officer "knowingly and willfully" leaked the information to the media and "was caught."
So when do we start the annual NTP (not the Pulitzer) awards?
Why the CIA Leak Firing Is A Good Thing
By: smagar · Section: Diaries
BESIDES schadenfreude,that is. Full disclosure--I whooped for joy when I heard of McCarthy's (?) firing. And, I had gleeful images of Dana Priest and James Risen and Eric Lichtblau being taken into custody at the Pulitzer awards dinner, to be followed by a glittering perp walk.
But, I thought I could add to the discussion on (whoop-whoop-whooping over) this issue by saying again WHY leaks are a bad thing. And, from my experience as an intelligence professional, WHY they imperil us.
Read on.
I am as Anglo as they come. Plus, a nerd to boot. Sending me to years of Arabic language training and Iraqi dialect training won't make me a good mole. I'll never penetrate an al Qaeda cell. Most Americans won't either.
We need other nations, who have citizens with the right cultural and language backgrounds, to penetrate those cells for us. And then, pass us the information they collect. THESE are the kinds of invaluable HUMINT sources we sorely lack. Everyone agrees to that. BUT, I sense some Americans have the misperception that, if we recruit hard enough and spend enough money, we can eventually build a HUMINT mole corps that can penetrate any bad-gal/guy cell, anywhere, anytime.
Ummm...not a chance, folks. To wage and win a HUMINT war worldwide, we will NEED other countries to provide us raw intelligence. Provide us the dots, in you will, that we'll have to connect to try to stop the next 9/11. Americans, PLEASE do not delude yourselves that our intelligence agencies can do it all, IF ONLY they're properly funded/equipped/manned/trained/managed. We need allies to win this war--and, perhaps, to survive , in the face of a global terror threat that views America as a target and its civilians as acceptable targets.
Other countries will not provide us raw information IF THEY THINK we can't keep our mouths shut! And, without raw info, we won't have enough dots to connect to make an accurate picture.
From yesterday's NRO Corner, by Byron York:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_04_16_corner-archive.asp#095607
But, at least in Poland, the story caused enormous anger and unhappiness behind the scenes. In an interview with National Review, one source with knowledge of the Polish government's dilemma would not address the facts of the story, but called the damage "horrific." The source cited two reasons. First, the Polish government believes that it is now, as a result of the Post story, on al-Qaeda's hit list, setting off fears that Warsaw or Krakow could follow Madrid and London as European terrorist targets. And second, the leak shook the pro-American Polish government's faith in the United States. Poland has been a loyal ally of the U.S., sending troops to Iraq and keeping them there when others withdrew. That decision has been costly not only in lives -- 17 Poles have died in Iraq -- but also in terms of Poland's relations with largely anti-U.S. European governments. And now Poland worries about whether it can trust its most powerful ally. "The next time we are asked to do an operation in common, we will always think twice about your intelligence community's ability to keep a secret," the source said.
Emphasis added.
If countries won't share information with us--information we often CANNOT GATHER FOR OURSELVES--we could be in much more peril than we would otherwise be.
THE SCENE: A Eastern European country's Ministry of Intelligence. The Minister of Intelligence is speaking with his deputy:
Deputy: Sir, this information from our sources in Karachi could be invaluable to the American FBI. When the American FBI liaison arrives in a few minutes, do you want to brief him on this information, or should I?
IM: We're not telling this to the Americans.
Deputy: But...but.. our sources indicate that some al Qaeda operatives are traveling to New York in the next few weeks. The Americans MUST know this.
IM: First and foremost, my mission is to keep OUR countrymen safe. And to look out for the interests of OUR nation. With that said, we cannot afford to have these Karachi sources compromised. We need the information they provide, as much as the Americans do. If these sources come to believe that we cannot safeguard the information they provide, then they'll stop providing it. To anyone--including us. And, I cannot afford that. And, as we know, the Americans cannot keep a secret. Do you understand?
Deputy: I understand. I'll show the FBI liaison in.
(Enter the FBI liaison)
Liaison: Good morning, sir. I'm hoping you have some information we could use.
IM: Good morning to you as well. Unfortunately, I don't have anything for you. And, while you're here, it turns out I'll be unable to attend the counterterrorism seminar in New York next month. Circumstances beyond my control--I'm sure you understand.
Eventually, America makes contact with its enemies. With good intelligence, our chances increase that we can identify our enemies, pinpoint their weaknesses and then strike at them BEFORE they can strike at us.
If, on the other hand, we have poor intelligence on our enemies, one of two things normally happens. In ground combat, for example, you send patrols out to see if a certain part of town holds hostiles or not. I'm sure you've seen the scene before in the movies: An infantry patrol walks warily into a quiet cul-de-sac, looking for hidden snipers. The nineteen-year old soldier on point looks into an alleyway. Seeing nothing, he turns to speak to his sergeant--and instead lets out a sigh as the high-caliber bullet fired from a nearby window zips through his shoulder, heart, lower hip and onto the street. The soldier slumps to the ground, forever nineteen.
This is the hard way to find the enemy.
Or, the enemy finds you. As he did on 9/11.
We have very few defenses against terrorists. Especially ones who are committed to killing us. Good intelligence isn't a "nice-to-have" thing. It's a "gotta-have" thing. Without it, we are endangered.
This firing (and, hopefully, follow-on arrest) sends useful messages:
It tells other leakers in the Intelligence Community that they may not get away with it. Keep up the polygraphs, Director Goss!
It shakes the media, who currently lives in a cocoon best titled "It's Not My Problem." The MSM must believe that, if US intelligence and national security is damaged by their reporting, well...that's a shame, but it's really not the media's worry. This week, I read several of Dana Priest's weekly online discussion in the WaPo--specifically, the ones immediately following the CIA prisons story. The woman has obviously rationalized that she's doing a great public service. Nowhere did I see her say that it was OK for her reporting to damage US intelligence operations, because she was servicing the greater good by informing the American people of what its government was doing. THAT would be acknowledging what she was doing, and accepting responsibility. Instead, I sense that Priest feels that it's not her problem if American intelligence is damaged/hindered. Let someone else clean it up. Maybe this firing will encourage Administration officials to speak openly and forcefully about how these leaks hinder the Intelligence Community's efforts to keep Americans safe. I'll bet that's a discussion Dana Priest doesn't want to have. ("Ms. Priest, who empowered you to write stories that potentially make our intelligence community LESS able to keep Americans safe? ). In the cocoon of the WaPo newsroom, PBS studios, Ivy League faculty lounges and Pulitzer award dinners, Dana Priest can avoid this conversation. Now, maybe she'll have to engage in it.
May there be many more investigations,and polygraphs, and subpoenas, and firings (if warranted.) And, we could really use a few good perp walks. And, a healthy public discussion. Frankly, I'd like to hear Len Downie and Fred Hiatt justify media actions that potentially imperil the CIA and FBI's ability to find and stop the next wannabee suicide bomber, before he can walk up to the Girl Scout cookie stand in the Pentagon City mall foodcourt, smile back at the smiling ten-year old seated before him--and push the detanator button hidden in his coat pocket, thus blowing bits of Girl Scout cookies and bits of Girl Scouts all over the mall.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to hear Len and Fred and Dana explain why they feel empowered to make decisions like that, on behalf of me, the Girl Scout, and everyone else in Pentagon City Mall and malls like it across the country.
Bring it!
Or did they Create them??
This is for whoever asked for the Sting angle:
(Also has the RWNH link)
A Sting Operation?
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=1619050%2C2483
The other day Negroponte made the unexpected announcement about how many agents we have and I wonder if that was preempt announcement to assure the American people that even if they see hundred's of agents frog marched out we still have plenty of intelligence capabilities?
...who by marrying the right person has obtained his own pet propaganda organ.
Making Excuses For The Leaks
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006820.php
Better idea.....they will ALL, including the Plame/Wilsons be at the White House Press dinner......I would LOVE to see mass arrests like stings for drug pushers!! I can dream, can't I.
"KERRY: 'IF YOU'RE LEAKING TO TELL THE TRUTH..."
Doesn't work this time. The story can't be corroborated. Can we run down the ties to Kerry and this woman again?;)
What would Kerry like? To have everyone with a clearance or who handles classified information leaking to the press? How is the government supposed to function in that situation? There are perfectly good and valid reasons why the government doesn't divulge classified information.
Dana struck with this in May, '05. I don't know anything about this move to Colorado, but could this have been a "sting" article as well?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/05/AR2005050501860.html
Chilling.
For the last six years, I have been an instructor in the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Training Program with the State Department. I use segments of the presentation I am making here today when briefing foreign government senior officials.
"Another thread here on FR notes that McCarthy has also donated money to Democratic congressional candidate Joseph Sestak. Others who have contributed to Sestak include former CIA Director John Deutch and Sandy Berger. Sestak is in a race with Kurt Weldon (Able Danger). No connections here, move along."
The Clintonistas want Weldon gone. Hillary cannot be reached for comment;)
"Other CIA veterans said such a relocation would make no sense,"
Time to lock Dana up until they find out who the others are.
.
Mary O. McCarthy - The Plot Thickens
The NY Times rolls out Mary O. McCarthy's supportive colleagues today to speak on her behalf, most notably Rand Beers. But they don't exactly tell you everything about Beers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/washington/23mccarthy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
If one looks into the back story a bit, what begins to emerge is a growing picture of mostly life long Democrats committed to a non-aggressive, diplomacy-only solution to global threats. And at least some number of them are the same individuals most directly aligned with our government's failure to foresee 9/11. And there's also an acknowledged effort to bring down the Bush administration in Beer's past. Read below.
(McCarthy) - 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.
McCarthy's specialty, extending back to her previous private employment at Beri (http://www.beri.com/HanerBio.asp)- presumably after some short stint as, according to the NY Times, a Flight Attendant, was prediction and warning. She is credited with authorship of "The Mission to Warn: Disaster Looms." http://intellit.muskingum.edu/analysis_folder/analysiswarn_folder/analysiswarndij.html
Yet, she and her colleagues are the very same bureaucrats who sat in Washington after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and never had a clue bin Laden was planning another attack because their focus was primarily on diplomacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
Surprisingly, a day earlier, Mary O'McCarthy, who worked for both the Clinton and Bush administrations from 1996 to 2001, said that Cambone would prove to be informative (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:6zD7ooIOJ4kJ:www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3771/is_200404/ai_n9350387+%22Mary+O+McCarthy%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9). But he wasn't. O'McCarthy was restricted from speaking freely on some topics because of her CIA background. She discussed the failure of intelligence agencies to work in concert prior to September 11. (emp. mine)
Ironic that McCarthy would highlight that particular issue given that it was the Clinton administration and Jamie S. Gorelick (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040429-122228-6538r.htm) which effectively built up the barriers to our intelligence services being able to work together.
As for McCarthy's supportive colleague Rand Beers, yes, they state:
"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 the 2004 presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate. She took over from Mr. Beers as the senior director for intelligence programs in 1998.
But they don't tell us about this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62941-2003Jun15?language=printer
In the end, Beers was arriving at work each day with knots in his stomach. He did not want to abandon his colleagues at such a critical, dangerous time. When he finally decided to quit, he drove to a friend's house in Arlington. Clarke, his old counterterrorism pal, took one look at the haggard man on his stoop and opened a bottle of Russian River Pinot Noir. Then he opened another bottle. Clarke toasted Beers, saying: You can still fight the fight.
Shortly after that, Beers joined the Kerry campaign. He had briefly considered a think tank or an academic job but realized that he "never felt so strongly about something in my life" than he did about changing current U.S. policies. Of the Democratic candidates, Kerry offered the greatest expertise in foreign affairs and security issues, he decided. Like Beers, Kerry had served in Vietnam. As a civil servant, Beers liked Kerry's emphasis on national service.
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.
In essence, a government official has damaged national security through disclosing classified information as part and parcel of a concerted effort to undermine the current administration. And what does the New York Times do?
Easy - they round up some number of other anti-Bush folks who are part of the very same effort to suggest that they're really the good guys and the anti-Bush effort isn't really there.
Nonsense.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/04/mary_o_mccarthy.html
Dean's World :
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/chain_1145693273.shtml
Mary had a little scam
Her heart was black as coal, yeah
And any time that Dana asked
She got Intel from Mary O., yeah
Sold out their country shamelessly
They don't believe in rules
What a time Al Qaeda had
Thanks to these fools!
Tisket, tasket
A Dem fundraiser basket
Gotta help ol' John Kerry
Beat our BushCo masters
[scorching guitar solo]
Tisket, tasket baby!
A fifth-columnist basket!
Betray your nation gladly
The Post will surely back it!
[final blistering solo]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.