Leaky Coverage

A bunch of bloggers are watching the press coverage of Mary McCarthy.

Kim at Wizbang! spies ABC saying "come on, everybody does it."

The folks of the MSM are convinced the world revolves around them, that all other activity, business or government, is subjugated to their need to "get the story out." As far as they are concerned, not even national security is as important.

The Democrats-- surprise!-- think there's a double standard on leaking:

Key Democratic legislators yesterday joined Republicans in saying they do not condone the alleged leaking of classified information that led to last week's firing of a veteran CIA officer. But they questioned whether a double standard exists that lets the White House give reporters secretly declassified information for political purposes...

Harman added that "while leaks are wrong, I think it is totally wrong for our president in secret to selectively declassify certain information and empower people in his White House to leak it to favored reporters so that they can discredit political enemies," she said on Fox News Sunday.

Harman was referring to White House staff members disclosing the classified identity of CIA case officer Valerie Plame in 2003.

Tom Maguire, expert on all things Plamey, points out how the Post writer gets it wrong:

No, she wasn't referring to the Valerie Plame leak, or if she was, the WaPo should have noted her error rather than reinforcing it - per the recent Fitzgerald filing, Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to leak portions of the National Intelligence Estimate as part of the push-back against Joe Wilson.

Much as he seemingly wanted to, Fitzgerald offered nothing indicating he had any evidence indicating that Cheney had authorized a leak of Plame's CIA affiliation.

Recommended

60 Minutes Reporter Who Told Trump Hunter's Laptop Can't Be Verified Afraid Her Industry Might Be Dead Matt Vespa

Advertisement

Capt. Ed responds with a take-down of the predictably inscrutable Kerry position:

While it is touching to see Kerry offer support for a campaign contributor, I suggest that he revisit the law on releasing classified information and just leave his remarks at that. McCarthy had plenty of other options for addressing her concerns, but she chose to expose secret data rather than do her job in protecting it. The White House has the authority to declassify and release information and did so to answer the questions of the media about the true pre-war intelligence estimate of Iraq. That's not hypocrisy; that is responsiveness, especially since Kerry and his fellow primary candidates had made such an issue of White House "secrecy" all during their campaigns.

We all wish Senator Kerry the best of luck in his primary campaign for the 2008 presidential election. His laughable attempts to eat his cake and have it too on almost every topic will provide some needed comic relief in the next contest.

The American Thinker is counting the Clintonistas:

Mary McCarthy was one. So was Joe Wilson – and his wife Val Plame, who presumably cooked up the phony Niger uranium documents scam, which now has Scooter Libby facing jailtime. Then we had Richard Clarke, who ran interference for the Clintonistas during the 9/11 Commission hearings, so that Clinton’s criminal neglect of Osama Bin Laden was somehow “overlooked.” The media never cites those Clinton connections. Joe Wilson is always “Ambassador,” but never “Clinton appointee.”

Then we have Sandy Burglar himself, of course...

These folks are not just loyal old Clintonistas. They are also auditioning for the second eight years of Clinton II.

And, here's a headline you never wanted to read, from the NYT:

Moves Signal Tighter Security Within C.I.A.

UPDATE: Ace has a HUGE round-up and wonders what this will do to a possible Hillary presidency:

I would say that what the Democrats and media are doing is greatly weakening the Presidency's national security and foreign policy powers for the next Democratic President. I would say that the "rules" they are now suggesting would apply equally to a Hillary! presidency, and if, say, Hillary! strikes a deal with Iran, they are complicit in giving the go-ahead to right-wing staffers at the CIA to sabotage that plan by deliberately leaking all sorts of derogatory information suggesting that Iran cannot be trusted, etc., leaks that might cause public opinion to turn against her, or cause Iran to withdraw from the deal in a fit of anger.

I would say that they are therefore crippling the Presidency for themselves, when they capture it.

I would say that, but it's not true. Because we all know-- the moment a Democrat becomes President, these new "rules" about how splendid it is when a leaker sabotages the duly-elected President's foreign policy decisonmaking (to hold her "accountable") will go right out the window.

These new "rules" are only in effect during a Republican administration. We know it, the Democrats know it, the entire liberal spirit squad in the media knows it.