"We've had enough, Beers!"

If you are not familiar with the Mary McCarthy and CIA leak story, you've either been living under a rock or led to believe it's no big deal by paying attention only to MSM television news. But no worries: Flopping Aces has the definitive post to bring you up to speed.

Christopher Hitchens noted the reluctance of the New York Times to report the story in a manner other than damage-control mode on behalf of Mary McCarthy. And today, the defensive "straight news" from the NY Times continues:

Yet friends and former colleagues have strongly challenged that partisan allegiance ever governed Ms. McCarthy's actions.

"That's not the Mary McCarthy that I know," said Rand Beers, a former colleague of Ms. McCarthy's on the National Security Council who has spoken to her several times since her firing.

"I'm glad she was prepared to push back," Mr. Beers said. "I was concerned that we were only hearing one side of the story ."

If Rand Beers is vouching on behalf of Mary McCarthy, well by golly then, you know she's got to be innocent of any criminal misconduct! [/sarcasm]

Uh...Mr. Beers? I'm concerned that we are only hearing one side of the story as well; which is why anyone reading anything you have to say in the New York Times or Newsweek, really should go take a look at Curt's posts on the topic of Mary McCarthy and the CIA leaks (In particular to this post, take a look at update X and XXIII in that post).

Juan Williams has called Mary McCarthy's alleged CIA leak, "an act of honor". As a soldier who is involved in the intelligence field, CJ from A Soldier's Perspective notes that when you join an agency like the CIA or FBI, involving national security and military intelligence, you sign a statement of disclosure.

This statement basically says that in exchange for being granted access to classified information we will not disclose this information to those who are not authorized to be in possession of it. We dont' classify information to hide things from Americans. We classify information to protect American interests. Agreement with a particular aspect or operation that the government is engaged in is not a valid reason for violating this agreement and breaking the law.

Here's part of what else CJ had to say about that:

There is a difference between "leaking" information and committing espionage. The difference is whether that information is damaging to national security. There are processes that McCarthy could have used if she truly felt morally inclined to disagree with CIA policies. The first of which is to report through her chain of command. The second is to demand a congressional investigation if the chain of command fails to thoroughly act on her concerns.