Posted by Curt on 24 April, 2006 at 11:34 pm. 1 comment.


Patrick Buchanan writes about the allegations that Mary McCarthy betrayed her oath and her Country while the reporter who received the classified information gets awarded:

If true, she was faithless to her oath, betrayed the trust of her country, damaged America’s ties to foreign intelligence agencies and governments, and broke the law. The Justice Department is investigating whether McCarthy violated the Espionage Act.

Yet, while she may be headed for criminal prosecution and prison, the Post reporter to whom she leaked intelligence on the secret sites, Dana Priest, just won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing the existence of these sites.

[…]On ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. John Kerry, to whose campaign McCarthy made a $2,000 contribution, was his usual ambivalent self when asked whether he approved of what she had done:

“Of course not. A CIA agent has the obligation to uphold the law, and clearly leaking is against the law, and nobody should leak. I don’t like leaking. But if you’re leaking to tell the truth, Americans are going to look at that, at least mitigate or think about what are the consequences that you … put on that person. Obviously they’re not going to keep their job, but there are other larger issues here.”

What “larger issues” there were, Kerry did not say.

Pressed by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Kerry blurted, “I’m glad she told the truth, but she’s going to obviously — if she did it, if she did it — suffer the consequences of breaking the law.”

Kerry was prepared for the question, so he has to be held to account. When he says, “I’m glad she told the truth,” one has to ask: What is Kerry talking about?

To whom did McCarthy tell the truth? Apparently, to Dana Priest, in exposing the secret program. Is Kerry “glad” she did this? Is he glad she violated her oath and broke the law and exposed the program? To those to whom McCarthy owed loyalty, her superiors at the CIA, she apparently lied in her polygraph examinations, and only after being caught did she confess.

Where is the moral heroism in clandestinely violating one’s oath, breaking the law, leaking secrets and lying about it? Is this the New Morality? What was the higher cause McCarthy was serving?

Journalists are rising to her defense, describing McCarthy as a whistle-blower — i.e., someone who calls the government to account for wrongdoing. But there is no evidence President Bush or U.S. agencies were doing anything criminal by using secret sites provided by NATO allies to interrogate terror suspects plotting to murder Americans.

If U.S. officials are engaged in misconduct or atrocities at these bases — i.e., the torture of prisoners — no one has said so. Reportedly, an E.U. investigation of the U.S. secret sites in Europe turned up nothing.

What does it say about American journalism that it gives its most prestigious prizes to reporters who acquire and reveal illicitly leaked U.S. secrets, when the result is to damage the U.S. government in a time of war? Both the Times and Post got their Pulitzers for fencing secrets of the U.S. government, criminally leaked by disloyal public servants they continue to protect.

Query: If McCarthy deserves firing, disgrace and possibly prison for what she did, does the Post deserve congratulations for collaborating with and covering up her infidelity, deceit and possible criminality?

Are journalists above the law? Are they entitled to publish secrets, the leaking of which can put their sources in jail for imperiling the national security? What kind of business has journalism become in 2006?

Sadly we all know the answer to that question. The left in their all out war against Bush has lost all sense of a moral compass. They care little if what they do puts our country at risk. All they care about is taking Bush down. Cal Thomas puts it more eloquently:

On Nov. 9, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted its own oath of secrecy. The language may seem antiquated, but it appeals to character qualities that appear to be in short supply today: “Resolved: That every member of this Congress considers himself under the ties of virtue, honour and love of his country, not to divulge, directly or indirectly, any matter or thing agitated or debated in Congress . which a majority of the Congress shall order to be kept secret. And that if any member shall violate this agreement, he shall be expelled (from) this Congress, and deemed an enemy to the liberties of America, and liable to be treated as such.”

Virtue? Honour? Love of his country? Where does one see such character qualities lauded or even taught in contemporary culture? Certainly not often in the media.

The Washington Post’s Dana Priest won the Pulitzer Prize for printing secrets allegedly leaked to her by McCarthy. Priest also won a George Polk Award and a prize from the Overseas Press Club. Leonard Downie Jr., the Post’s executive editor, said people who provide citizens the information they need to hold their government accountable should not “come to harm for that.”

Would Downie have felt the same if Americans were leaking information to the Nazis or the Japanese during World War II? Imagine this scenario: A terrorist has information that, if revealed, could save tens of thousands of American lives. But interrogators cannot question him because leaks to the media prevent them from engaging in practices that would pry loose the critical information. Would Downie be defending the “right” of government employees to undermine the security of his country in the aftermath of a preventable attack? Former CIA operative Aldrich Ames went to prison for selling American secrets to the Soviet Union. McCarthy allegedly gave hers away. If she is prosecuted and found guilty, her fate should be no less severe.

This isn’t a political game in which a Clinton administration official serves as a mole for the Democrats within a Republican administration and then leaks information that may benefit her party; this is potentially harmful to the nation.

Has politics come to this: that the national security of this country can be compromised for political gain?

We’ve been seeing this very thing taking place with gusto since 2004. For the first term they tolerated Bush but after we won a second term all bets were off. Who cares what kind of damage it does to our Country, who cares which terrorist they aid and abet.

Al-Qaeda talking to those inside our country….better get a warrant. Doesn’t matter that the President has the inherent authority under the Constitution to do such a thing. Lets make it tougher on him, and us, by telling Al-Qaeda that we are listening. That will show Bush.

When does this madness stop? When a Democrat gets into office so he can get this country back to Osama’s “paper tiger” way of doing things?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x