You stay classy, Larry Johnson.Comment Posted By MayBee On 31.05.2007 @ 07:22
I want to add that I remembered seeing that excerpt-- it has stuck with me since I read it a few years ago. I can't imagine being George Tenant, taking the emotional blame for the horrible result of a choice he had once thought sound. I wonder how it changed him.
It is the same thing I think about often with Bush, and actually ask some of my left-leaning friends when they criticize his NSA program, his CIA prisons, the Iraq war. What would you do if 9/11 happened on your watch, and you knew people blamed you for it? What if you blamed yourself? How far would you go to keep that from ever happening again?Comment Posted By MayBee On 11.09.2006 @ 08:04
Rick, the Tenant scene is actually described in Ghost Wars by Steve Coll:
Less than two months later, on Aug. 7, 1998, two teams of al Qaeda suicide bombers launched synchronized attacks against two U.S. embassies in Africa. In Nairobi, Kenya, 213 people died and 4,000 were injured. In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, the toll was 11 dead and 85 wounded. Within months, the New York federal grand jury previously investigating bin Laden delivered an indictment of the Saudi for directing the strikes, among other alleged crimes.
At Langley's Counterterrorist Center, some CIA analysts and officers were devastated and angry as they watched the televised images of death and rescue in Africa. One of the bin Laden unit's analysts confronted Tenet. "You are responsible for those deaths," she said, "because you didn't act on the information we had, when we could have gotten him" through the Tarnak raid, one official involved recalled her saying. The woman was "crying and sobbing, and it was a very rough scene," the official said.Comment Posted By MayBee On 11.09.2006 @ 07:50
I actually thought this article by R. Jeffrey Smith was informative and fairly well balanced. Of course her friends are going to back her up, but I thought the reporter did a good job of making it clear it was her friends offering support. Usually we get Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern, former CIA agents, as the only explanation of who's speaking on her behalf.
The article also mentioned she has a long history of feeling policy was overriding analysis- starting in the Clinton years. And finally, we get to see that she started in the IG office just shortly before she decided to throw her pennies at John Kerry.
Yes, it would have been nice for Smith to point out that McCarthy had other avenues open to her if she truly believed someone at the CIA lied. But I have to say this is the first time, since the story broke, that I felt the WaPo decided to actually act like a news source rather than McCarthy's personal PR agency.Comment Posted By MayBee On 15.05.2006 @ 00:23
But what the hell is the difference between leaking classified information to a newspaper and handing the same information to a foreign government? Either way, our enemies see it.
Rick, I agree. I would at the very least like to see the WaPo editorial board address this point.
Another problem is the WaPo is treating this issue as if it is a disinterested party and it isn't. While I believe them when they say they don't know what the news department knows about the leaks, they have an undeniable institutional interest in supporting their Pulitzer Prize winner and her take on the story.
A fascinating editorial would be for them to support the news department's demand for secrecy and non-disclosure, while taking them to task for pretending they can write about this without prejudice.Comment Posted By MayBee On 26.04.2006 @ 22:27
It is a long way to travel in a short time- let alone in one thread- from believing those that accuse the government of using torture are anti-american leftists "depicting us as evil, corrupt & etc." to believing the government of George W Bush is using torture. I guess it's all a matter of who one wants to depict as evil, corrupt, etc.
Mona's original contention was that we made it through the cold war without black holes and torture. I and others disagreed, although none contended it was standard government policy. Then or now.
As for whether torture has ever ever ever been approved at the highest level? I don't know. As Mona herself said, only those with access to classified information know that. It is against our national morals, but I can't pretend the Presidency is filled with easy choices. Truman decided to drop the bomb for the greater good. I can't rule it out that a president might similarly allow someone to be tortured for the greater good. But I've got no inside information.
This is wandering far from Rick's post. However, I will add that there are many instances where one might say their morals made it more important to break their vow of secrecy than to keep a secret, but our society does depend on some secrecy. But they can't be allowed to do it.
A defense attorney, for example, must never secretly reveal to the press that he believes his client is guilty even if he believes society has a right to know a murderer walks among them. A prosecutor must never make up evidence to prosecute someone he truly believes is guilty, even if he believes in his heart of hearts it will help more people than it harms.
We count on many to keep their secrets. It is as vital to society as any other responsibility we delegate.Comment Posted By MayBee On 24.04.2006 @ 07:24
Because if someone on a leftwing site said that we did, certainly as SOP as ordered by the President, Iâ€™d flip them off as an anti-American moonbat, given that there is no evidence for such a thing.
That's how you know? Because you'd flip someone off, therefore you know?
The only thing I know is that there was no evidence. However, the only evidence we have of the 'black prisons' is that someone broke the law and talked. A vast number of things happen that we don't know about, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen.
We are better than "them". We aren't perfect by any means.Comment Posted By MayBee On 23.04.2006 @ 17:55
This nation made it through a Cold War without torturing people or throwing them into black holes.
How do you know this? I would guess it is probably not true, the difference may be you didn't have someone leaking in the IG office.
It is a horrible shame someone died, and considering Dr. McCarthy's position in the IG office, most likely she came accross that information because it was a bad result that required investigation. Not a desired result, and there's no indication it was a normal result.
Funny we talk about sending them to Gitmo, as if Gitmo is accepted by the people that dislike the idea of prisons for foreign people on foreign soil.Comment Posted By MayBee On 23.04.2006 @ 17:08
Ha!Comment Posted By MayBee On 23.04.2006 @ 08:14
Ignore my comment on the last thread. This is exactly what I am wondering.
I still don't know if it has to be a conspiracy of more than 1-- she could have sought the IG job specifically knowing she'd have access to the most harmful information.
Not a coincidence, but a calcuated move for a determined leaker-to-be.
Like you, I'm just thinking aloud. But that $5000 to Ohio makes it look as if she really, really wanted someone else besides Bush to be president.
Rick- one more thing I would like to know about McCarthy- she and her husband gave substantial donations during the 2004 election cycle. As you pointed out, that Ohio donation is puzzling. Do we know if she got her job at the IG office AFTER the election didn't pan out for Kerry?Comment Posted By MayBee On 23.04.2006 @ 08:06
I'm troubled by the idea that a partisan looked for a job that gets all the CIA dirt (the IG office) with the specific goal of leaking.
I don't know, maybe too far out on a limb.
Pages (2) :  2