Saturday, April 22, 2006

Cronyism at the CIA?

So, were the Pulitzers awarded for the trechery of two separate journalistic endeavors? It's increasingly apparent that this is indeed the case.
Dana Priest of The Washington Post, won the best reporting award for revealing that the CIA was using secret prisons in Easter Europe to interrogate terrorists.

In other words, they gave an award to a reporter who got a tip from a government worker who betrayed his or her country by revealing top-secret information. The reporter and The Post, in an effort to become the darlings of left, then splashed said top secret information all over the front page. Who benefited from this "Pulitzer Prize Winning Reporting?" Terrorists who mean to kill everyone in the United States.

Next, you have the New York Times winning a Pulitzer Prize for announcing President Bush's "domestic eavesdropping program." Again, a proudly left-of-center newspaper is given a prestigious award for revealing top secret information that can only bring aid and comfort to al Qaeda and other terrorists who mean to destroy us and our allies.

It should be noted that with regard to the two prizes just mentioned, in the interests of national security, Mr. Bush personally appealed the patriotism and commonsense of both The Post and the New York Times, and implored them not to run the stories. Both papers, it seems, put their strong dislike of Mr. Bush and his policies before the future safety of Americans.
Ed Morrissey thinks that Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House is onto something with the use of misinformation to smoke out leakers. And apparently caught a live one.

Ace has two separate posts about Mary McCarthy's potential ties to various figures including Joe Wilson and Sandy Berger. Oh, and Ace was on fire, starting with this post that suggests that this weekend will become known for the distinctions made between bad leaks and good (though I seem to have seen that made elsewhere - including on my own blog). Mac Ranger thinks that this may lead back to Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). I can't believe that is the case, but head over there and make up your own mind. Would someone be so stupid as to risk their entire career to try and undermine the President of the US and threaten US national security and lives of Americans? Well, if all's fair in politics, then anything is possible, including treasonous activities that give away national secrets to our enemies and otherwise engage in activities to undermine the Administration's ability to prosecute a war against our enemies.

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.

Oh, and anonymous emails sends in the news of McCarthy's name may itself have been a violation of the federal Privacy Act - itself an illegal leak. So, guess which part of the equation will the Lefties latch onto. That's right. A diversion. The Washington Post reports that Secretary of State Condi Rice may have leaked information as well. Go figure. Just when things look bleak for the Left, they've got to try and mask things with a bit of news that would hurt Rice (whose standing in various polls has never been higher).

Blue Crab Boulevard notes that some in the media would much prefer that leaks of classified information not be considered criminal acts - and that they would make the determination of what remains classified and what doesn't.
Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor, said on its Web site that he could not comment on the firing because he did not know the details. "As a general principle," he said, "obviously I am opposed to criminalizing the dissemination of government information to the press." (emphasis added)
*** Sorry, but the President is entrusted with that power. Period. He can delegate the power to classify/declassify information to others, but it ultimately resides within the President and Vice President to make that determination. AMERICAblog makes the same mistake. The President and Vice President have the singular right to classify and declassify information. If they have made the determination to divulge information that was classified, they have not committed a crime because the power to classify/declassify information resides in their inherent powers. If members of the Executive Branch do not have that right, they are in violation of leaking classified information. Former Spook weighs in on that aspect.

Tom Maguire critiques the coverage at the New York Times and Washington Post.

Others blogging: Sister Toldjah, All Things Beautiful, and Big Lizards is amazed that the CIA is actually starting to act like an intelligence agency (and yes, I did post that the info about McCarthy itself came from leaks - see above).

Clarified paragraph noted with ***

No comments: