April 24, 2006

4/24: Source Outed

The blogosphere was created for weekends like this. The firing of ex-CIA officer Mary McCarthy has all the ingredients for a blog feeding frenzy: hot-button issue ... check; crystal clear partisan players ... check; perceived MSM under-coverage ... check; possibility for wild conspiracy theories ... check. So far the MSM has not picked up on any of the more damning theories flying around the web, but if the past is any indicator, the righty blogosphere will keep a steady slow burn going under the radar. This story may well fade into oblivion ... on the other hand, Dan Rather wasn't fired in one day.

The right definitely acted like they were in the driver seat this weekend after the CIA's 4/21 firing of McCarthy. ThoughtsOnline typified the initial reaction of many righties: "It's nice that the CIA fired Mary McCarthy, the traitor (yes, traitor, in my not-so humble opinion) who leaked the story about CIA overseas detention facilities, instead of letting her retire as she had been planning to do." Reactions quickly turned to speculation as bloggers started to find out more about McCarthy's background. Rightwing Nuthouse became the first to suggest a link between McCarthy's dismissal and reports from Europe that no solid evidence of CIA secret prisons ever existing has come to light. Other righties jumped at the idea, including Captain's Quarters:

"How do intel agencies find leakers and spies? They pass around carefully designed misinformation to selected individuals considered likely suspects, and see what winds up exposed as a result. It's possible that after Porter Goss took over as DCI when George Tenet left, he began mole hunting in a big way. It's certain that the administration would have demanded some action on leaks, and Goss would have been of a similar mind. It appears that the story she gave Dana Priest has a lot less substance than first thought. Two separate investigations by Europe turned up nothing. They have reported on both occasions that no evidence exists to substantiate the story, either of the detention centers or of European cooperation."

Wizbang and Strata-Sphere also were excited by this possibility.

Righty speculation quickly spread to other CIA controversies. Ace of Spades notes that while at the NSC during the Clinton administration, McCarthy had the same portfolio (Africa) as Joe Wilson. Ace asks: "Did Mary McCarthy Send Joe Wilson To Niger? Plame suggested his name; but a higher-up at the CIA actually sent him. ...It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see the vague outlines of a conspiracy here. We have a lot of like-minded people with the motive, means, and opportunity to subvert the democratically-elected foreign-policy official of this country when he dares to disrespect their superior enlightened liberal ideas." Not everyone was as quick to condemn the entire Dem intelligence community, Rightwing Nuthouse: "Mary McCarthy is part of a very exclusive community of like minded Democrats numbering at most 200 experts in national security and foreign affairs. ... They provide an invaluable service to the party by constantly developing policy prescriptions and position papers that bubble and froth by being debated and shaped at conferences and forums until a consensus of sorts is reached. In McCarthy's case, she was running with an exclusive club indeed if Sandy Berger and Rand Beers were her patrons at the NSC. But that alone doesn't prove that her actions in leaking were part of conspiracy nor does it make it probable that those worthies mentioned above even knew she would violate her oath of secrecy so brazenly. Her contacts with Berger and Beers were probably confined to seeing them at the numerous conferences and scholarly forums where the rest of the Democratic contribution to the military industrial complex meet."

A Blog for All sees this as just as the latest episode in a WH v. CIA struggle: "We're witnessing Act I, Scene 4 of the battle within the CIA. Scene 1 was the partisan use of CIA resources to undermine the Administration following the 2000 election. Scene 2 was the appointment of Porter Goss to clean up the CIA following Tenet's run as director. Scene 3 was the beginning of the cleanup and simultaneous leaks of classified information to journalists. Scene 4 is the firing of McCarthy, the pushback that morale within the CIA is poor because of the widespread use of lie detector tests to figure out who knew what and when and whether they leaked classified information to media figures, and the ongoing investigations into leaks at the agency." Thoughts Online, Varifrank, Vodkapundit, Powerline and Rightwinged also have takes.

Working the Refs is a continuing theme for both sides of the blogosphere and the right called foul on the Washington Post's coverage of the McCarthy-firing, The Corner's Andy McCarthy: "There is no mention by the Post -- none -- that Mary McCarthy is a big Kerry campaign and Democratic Party contributor. ...How can the WPost justify reporting one friend's mere impression that McCarthy is not biased and that it is very difficult even for those who know her well to understand why she would leak sensitive information, and yet not report the objective fact that McCarthy, while a government official on a government salary, gave at least $7700 of her own money in a single year to Democratic political campaigns? Given the Post's delicate posture in this case -- having been the recipient of at least one highly sensitive leak on a subject about which it chose to publish a story damaging to national security -- you would think they might perceive a special obligation to play it down the middle here."

Lefty bloggers immediately recognized the possible damage the McCarthy story could cause, firedoglake: "The inference, coming at the end of a long wail about Democrats, is that the traitors among us are "over there," in the Democratic Party. The only purpose of this kind of rhetorical drive by is to get everyone pumped up, which will continue on radio stations throughout this country. It will begin by using Clinton, because whenever the Republicans are in deep trouble that's where they run. ...The Republicans will attempt to make the 2006 election a competition between conservatism and liberalism, while using Mary McCarthy and the non-existent Democratic traitors among the Administration as Bush boogeyman."

But it did not take the usually discordant left too much time to coalesce around single line: Bush hypocrisy. Informed Comment pokes fun at the WH with a new game: "Today at Informed Comment, we are going to play the game of "All Right, Not All Right," known in Washington, DC, as "business as usual," but otherwise castigated by the moral philosophers as hypocrisy. ...It IS all right for Bush campaign strategist Karl Rove to leak classified intelligence about the identity of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative. It is NOT all right for CIA employee Mary McCarthy to leak classified information and blow the whistle on secret torture prisons maintained by the US government in Eastern Europe." Unclaimed Territory also has hypocrisy examples, noting that ex-DoD official Larry Franklin was convicted of disclosing classified info: "Franklin was a top aide to Douglas Feith, the No. 3 official in Bush Defense Department, and had long-standing and very close ties to Paul Wolfowitz, deputy to Don Rumsfeld. He did not merely pass classified information to the American media, but to AIPAC, a group with close ties to a foreign government."

The Democratic Daily sees a double standard being applied to McCarthy and Plames-outers: "Right or wrong, in the way it was done, Mary McCarthy allegedly told the truth. Valerie Plame, on the other hand, did nothing, but her husband Joe Wilson told the truth, and she paid the price for that by having her undercover status outed by someone in the White House. What's good for Mary McCarthy is good for whoever outed Valerie Plame." David Corn takes the argument a step further, arguing that McCarthy's leak was more justified than the Plame one: "For as the White House said recently, there are good leaks and bad leaks. And leaking about CIA abuses is not the same as leaking to discredit a policy critic." Mahablog just wishes the WH had other priorities: "If the Bushies had only been half as interested in catching Osama bin Laden as they are in gagging the CIA."

Sen. Maj. Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) 4/21 presser on gasoline prices sparked derision from all sides over the weekend. Under a header "Sign Republicans Running Scared," All Spin Zone writes: "A real good sign is when they start attacking big business. Here's Frist and Hastert doing just that. they both call for an investigation into oil prices and profits, and Hastert takes off on the retirement package of ExxonMobil's Lee Raymond." The Political Animal is similarly unimpressed: "Yes indeedy. The Republican party is now deeply concerned about corporate executives making unseemly amounts of money. Wink wink, nudge nudge. Next up: Tom DeLay criticizes corporate lobbyists for spending so much money entertaining members of Congress."

ThoughtsOnline thanks the GOPers for shifting the MSM focus: "Not only do these two bumbling fools risk giving the MSM something else to focus on this weekend, they reveal an amazing (but not surprisingly) weak understanding of economics and market conditions. If the oil companies can arbitrarily raise gas prices in order to enhance their profitability, why wouldn't they have done so when oil was at $40 a barrel, why is it only now that we are (once again) paying $3 a gallon for gas?" American Street notes argues that Bush mishandling of Iraq and Iran along with the rise of China and India are the real causes of the price rise and then notes: "But leave it to Frist and Hastert to blame..."price gouging." I recall seeing a correlation of Presidential popularity on a chart against oil prices... this study estimates a .73 correlation, or literally half of Bush's unpopularity can be attributed to gasoline prices alone... Let's face it... Hastert and Frist aren't stupid... craven, certainly; evil, perhaps. But not stupid. So they know that the President's low numbers- fueled (as it were) by the price of fuel- may well result in serious Congressional losses in November, up to and including (though unlikely) the loss of control of one or both Houses of Congress."

Not all lefties were unimpressed with the attack on oil companies. The Agonist welcomes the new focus: "With yet another rise in the price of crude (now cracking $75) it seems--finally--to be generating a little activity in Washington--activity of the kind that might arrest this death spiral we're in. Feeling the point of a spear at their spines, Sens. Hastert and Frist are beginning inquiries with the FTC and the EPA; they are also (believe it or not) going after this little piggy and his (in Hastert's words) unconscionable salary." Other lefties not only don't mind the price hikes, they want to see gas go even higher, Bring It On!: "We'd advocate jacking up the prices even more, though we would jiggle the current configuration, which doesn't help anyone except oil companies and lunatic speculators. I'm personally willing to pay higher gas prices, even higher than they are now, as long as I'm getting something other a dry hole and broken derrick in the deal. I'm a patriot and I'm for anything that gets us out from under the bejeweled jackboot of the Saudis. Allies? PAH!"

Perhaps too focused on McCarthy, no righty bothers defending Frist and Hastert. Right Wing News says it best: "Gas prices get high in an election year and next thing you know, you have Dennis Hastert doing his best Lenin impression. Since when are Republicans worried about what companies are doing with their "enormous profits" and the "compensation packages given to executives?" What business does anyone in Congress even have getting involved in something like that?"

Responding to a Los Angeles Times editorial calling for Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld's dismissal, lefty bloggers can't quite decide if they really want to see Rumsfeld go. TalkLeft asks: "I'm torn between thinking it's better for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 if Bush keeps Cheney and Rumsfeld -- and hoping they go for the good of the country. Your thoughts?" Upper-Left also thinks that future elections are more important than Rummy's scalp: "In fact, it's important to understand that the Generals are only coming forward because Rumsfeld "embodies the smugness and inability to acknowledge error" of the administration. He's the current target in a much larger field of fire, the first step up a chain of command that has failed the troops, failed our country and failed the Iraqi people. Rummy has to go, but there's a more radical cure required for the malady infecting our nation." The Reaction sees the WHO sticking with Rumsfeld and the GOP running their normal game plan in '06: "Pander to the base's racism and xenophobia; make the rich richer; spin and spin with a smile; put America on a dangerous collision course with an emerging nuclear power; and suck up to the press in hopes it'll do what it used to do and report your spin as truth. ...Is this new? No, it's the same old same old same old. The new twist is Bolten and the shuffling of a few deck chairs. The spin may work, the style may impress, but the substance is still pure Bush. All the more reason why Democrats need to do well in November, set the agenda for the last two years of the Bush presidency, and go into '08 with the momentum they need to take back the White House." Also with lefty takes: The News Blog, First-Draft, and After Downing Street.

Righty Professor Bainbridge doesn't think Rumsfeld is in any trouble: "This administration's arrogance, smugness, and inability to admit error surely have been critical factors in the unraveling of its public support and the erosion of confidence even among much of the base. Yet, if I can invoke a baseball analogy, the owner of a struggling team rarely starts out by firing the players (Rumsfeld) but by firing the manager (Cheney)."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) wooed more than just the New York Daily News with her immigration immigration stance. The Gun Toting Liberal was impressed, but not converted: "Actually, she is one of the few Democrats who is suddenly acting like a "Liberal" on the topic. ...See, I was afraid of this. If Mrs. Clinton keeps talking this way, I am going to have to go out and vote for her, and that is one of the last things I want to do in '08; in fact, the notion of doing so falls right behind the idea of voting for Senator John McCain in order of repugnancy."

Righty bloggers just see rank opportunism. Junkyard Blog: "Sen. Hillary is all over the immigration issue, and by that I mean that she's on all sides of it, pretty much all the time. Is she against illegal immigrants, as she once said, or is she against criminalizing Jesus, as she said more recently? Is she for a wall or against it? Amnesty? She's a Clinton, so getting a straight answer isn't easy or usually even worth the effort, since she and Bill switch positions at the drop of a poll." Flapsblog agrees: "Right. Let's see what amendments to the Kennedy-McCain bill she will support. The polls show overwhelming support for border security first and "earned citizenship" only after the border is tightened. Hillary can read polls. Hillary panders for votes like Bill Clinton. What will be her final position on the illegal immigration bills?, Stay focused on the polls - she will be for that plan."

Lefties are no more thrilled by a possible Condi candidacy. Seizing on cross-pond rumors of a VP Dick Cheney-for-State Sec.Condoleeza Rice switch August Pollack points out that Rice has never held elective office and asks: "If "Some Republicans" are so confident that the American people want Condoleeza Rice in an even higher position of power, why are they so adamant on not requiring her to actually win an election?" Middle Earth Journal just doesn't believe Condi will follow through: "There's no doubt that Rice's popularity around the country is considerably higher than Bush's own, to say nothing of Cheney's poll numbers which rate lower than foot fungus at this point. But there's a serious problem with this. Sure, it could help out the GOP at the mid-terms but it doesn't do anything to set the stage for the 2008 presidential election. Rice has stated loudly and repeatedly that she would not, under any circumstances, run for the Oval Office and would be moving into the private sector at the end of her current job." Blogging for the President thinks "Bush Leaguers" are desperate to find an anti-Sen.John McCain (R-AZ) and that Condi is the only option: "he best scenario...would be for Bush to announce that "Dick Cheney will be around as an outside adviser and I can call him on the phone, but I'd like to anoint somebody who I think will be the next leader of the United States". Of the Bush inner circle, only Rice is electable - Cheney, Rummy, Snow, Rove - all non-starters." Ezra Klein and State of the Day also have thoughts.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Blogging Not For Everyone

Sara Hepola writing at Slate realizes that blogging may not be the best way to further her freelance writing career: "I had kept the blog for nearly five years, using it as a repository for personal anecdotes, travelogues, and the occasional flight of fiction--all of which I hoped, eventually, might lead to a novel. And then, somewhere between the bedsheets and 6 a.m., I realized something: Blogging wasn't helping me write; it was keeping me from it."

LEST WE FORGET: Tell Us Something We Don't Know

Apparently Denise Richards thinks Charlie Sheen is drug-addicted, porn-loving, degenerate gambler who likes to threaten to kill people. Apparently she only figured this out after they were married.

Posted by Conn Carroll at April 24, 2006 12:53 PM