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.
You can read more about Johnson's opinion on this whole affair here.
The NYT piece, which includes responses from former colleagues and goes to great pains to prove that she was never covert (perhaps in order to cover the paper against any "outing" allegations) mentions that Mrs McCarthy "made a campaign contribution to Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004". That, in and of itself, will serve as enough so-called proof to some that she was obviously just a commie spy.
And, this is interesting:
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."
Hmmm...let's see...the US has secret prisons all over the world in which they detain people they simply suspect of being "terrorists", who are then denied basic legal rights and are treated to who knows what kind of horrendous treatment and this former CIA director wonders why anyone would actually leak such information to the press? Ever heard of a "conscience", Mr Kerr?
There's more:
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,...
And that's a problem because...? Could it be that Mrs McCarthy had ethical objections that were soundly based? No. Obviously she was on the side of the terrorists, right? Remember, you're either with them or against them.
What ought to astound everyone in this situation is the rapidity of these actions. It's been almost 3 years and we're still waiting to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name. Bush knows who that person is and he hasn't fired whoever it was that we know of. Yet, the CIA seems to have wrapped up this investigation in no time flat. Why is that, I wonder? Could politics have something to do with it?
No matter what, Mrs McCarthy is innocent until proven guilty and proof of her guilt has not been forthcoming to this point.
No comments:
Post a Comment