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.

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 - 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." 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.

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. 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 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.

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.

Comments

[Laertes]

Jesus. Rightwingers are such a bunch of children these days.

[JayDawg]

I think the NY Times "rolls" out MM's colleagues. But then again, I have an education... so what do I know?

[bryce]

Weird thing about her is that she was about to retire and was more of an administrator than agent. So it is unclear how she would have had access to the info. I bet she was on her way out and just took one for the team. Which team? Who knows.

[don surber]

Dan: It has been the CIA vs. Bush. I said this Sept. 26, 2002 (in print): I trust the president, it is the intell I do not trust

CIA has some very good people on the ground but man, it is the post office in the back offices. McCarthy no doubt will be portryed as a heroine by some. Wait and see

[Phoenix]

"..it is the post office in the back offices."

Good analogy, Don.

You're right, too.

[Kar;]

My favorite part of the NYT piece may be the bland reference to "Michael Scheuer, a former C.I.A. official..." when even the simplest Google search will tell you who he is and what his agenda is.

As for JayDawg's dismissal of the notion that the NYT piece is overstocked with her supportes, it should be noted that at Dana Priest's own employer, the WaPo, we read:

"A majority of CIA officers would probably 'find the action taken [against McCarthy] correct,' said a former senior intelligence official who said he had discussed the matter with former colleagues in the past day. 'A small number might support her, but the ethic of the business is not to' leak, and instead to express one's dissenting views through internal grievance channels."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/22/AR2006042201442.html

Yet the "small number" seems to be entire thrust of the NYT piece. BTW, the NYT portrays her as a skeptic on the 1998 pharma bombing, when we know that she and Richard Clarke signed a memo declaring the intell was valid.
http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2006/04/leaker-al-shifa.html

[Bandit]

'she was about to retire '

Now she can retire to Leavenworth

[COLUMBO]

" Like Beers, Kerry had served in Vietnam."

Gee, I hadn't been aware of this.......did Kerry really serve in Vietnam? :D