« Half A Million Visitors. Or More? | WILLisms.com | Sunday Night Heidi Weimaraner Puppy Update: 15½ Weeks Old. »

A Vast Leftwing Conspiracy?

It could be that she is a rabid Democratic partisan, anxious to do damage to her boss, President George W. Bush. The proof? Lots of money donated to Democrats:

Let's give her credit for realizing Ohio was a critical battleground state.

She also rubs elbows with lots of Democratic enemies of the Bush administration, including Sandy Berger, convicted smuggler of secret documents, who appointed her Special Assistant to the President in 1998. She has also done work at the Center For Strategic And International Studies (CSIS), which has Wesley Clark and Anthony Zinni as senior advisers. Don't bother looking looking for her profile there, it has been stuffed down the memory hole. There is a cached version here.

McCarthy worked with General Zinni, who was commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command, and Richard Clarke, who was first national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection, and counter-terrorism, on issues related to terrorist camps in Afghanistan, and a supposed nerve gas factory in Sudan. McCarthy was skeptical of the intelligence leading to the bombing of that factory, according to the 911 Commission report.

She also worked on the National Security Council with a chap named Joe Wilson. Tom Maguire reminds us: "Let's duly note her overlap with Joe Wilson on the National Security Council from June 1997 to July 1998."

So noted.

Joe Wilson and Mary McCarthy are both West Africa experts, Wilson having served as Ambassador to Gabon, and McCarthy having written a book Social Change and the Growth of British Power in the Gold Coast (University Press of America, 1983). I am sure they had much to discuss, including Niger yellowcake possibly . . . some are wondering if McCarthy sent Wilson on his trip to Niger.

What other motives might she have for trashing the President? How about covering her own backside - she was on watch against terrorist threats during the Clinton years, the 'golden age' of terrorism (Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Tanzania, Kenya, etc.), and needless to say the performance of that bunch was catastrophic. McCarthy made this statement before the 911 Commission decrying the lack of a terrorist warning system. I wonder if she knows the mirror looks back at her.

Not to mention she had been demoted from her post of influence when the Bush administration took over.

So, does this all point to some kind of conspiracy? All things being equal, never assume conspiracy when stupidity will suffice. These folks seem to have a visceral dislike for the President, and access to secrets and the press that can be used to embarrass him. They don't need to coordinate their efforts to decide what to do however, they probably all share the congenital impulse to break and/or bend the law for partisan purposes.

After all, never forget, the left serves higher purposes than a mere constitution. They don't need to discuss it, it is assumed.

P.S. - As for the CIA's investigation, "This is just the beginning."

Update: Thank you SA commenter Bat One for pointing us to this from Thomas Joscelyn, regarding McCarthy's questioning of the intel leading to the bombing of Sudan -

"But as Daniel Benjamin, another former NSC staffer, wrote in October of 2004, McCarthy had changed her tune by April 2000:

The report of the 9/11 Commission notes that the National Security staff reviewed the intelligence in April 2000 and concluded that the CIA's assessment of its intelligence on bin Laden and al-Shifa had been valid; the memo to Clinton on this was cosigned by Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director for intelligence programs, who opposed the bombing of al-Shifa in 1998. The report also notes that in their testimony before the commission, Al Gore, Sandy Berger, George Tenet, and Richard Clarke all stood by the decision to bomb al-Shifa.

Now, of course, Clarke and Benjamin argue that: (a) the decision to strike al-Shifa was justified because (b) the intelligence connecting Iraqi chemical weapons experts to al Qaeda's chemical weapons efforts was sound, but (c) this doesn't mean that Iraq and al Qaeda had a significant relationship because (d) somehow this collaboration occurred without either party realizing that it was working with the other! Sound bizarre? It is.

Oh no, it is not bizarre at all when you are on Planet Moonbat, where logic and facts serve partisan interests rather than the other way around. Remember, al-Qaeda and Saddam never cooperated on anything, and the survival of the Democratic party pretty much depends on this 'fact'.

Posted by Ken McCracken · 23 April 2006 05:00 AM

Comments

Posted by: Will Franklin at April 23, 2006 10:45 AM

Posted by: Ken McCracken at April 23, 2006 10:54 AM

Posted by: Hoodlumman at April 23, 2006 02:15 PM

Posted by: Zsa Zsa at April 23, 2006 07:07 PM