Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 23, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

CLEANING HOUSE?....David Corn points out this sentence in today's Washington Post story about the firing of CIA officer Mary McCarthy as part of the agency's stepped up effort to fight leaks:

The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.

That sure deserves a followup, doesn't it? And a note to the White House: if you stop breaking the law, that would be a pretty good way to stop leaks too.

Kevin Drum 12:54 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (84)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

IOKIYAR, NOKIYAD.

Posted by: TomStewart on April 23, 2006 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

The CIA taken over by the K-Street Project.

Posted by: Carl on April 23, 2006 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on April 23, 2006 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

Many years ago I had to register as a Republican in order to get a low order county job in Nassau County NY.

Is this practice being extended to the Federal Government?

Posted by: MonkeyBoy on April 23, 2006 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

Don't you people get it? Get with the program!!!

Democrat leak - bad
Republican leak - good
Bush White House Leak - Saving democracy

Posted by: Charles Stanton on April 23, 2006 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

whoa....they never stop being able to surprise me. I should know better by now but all the same I'm picking my jaw up off the floor.

Posted by: nota bene on April 23, 2006 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

Damn Kevin,

I can forgive your shortcomings when you post these straight but well aimed thingeys.

Posted by: Mel on April 23, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

Why don't they ask that George HW Bush character? He ran the place for a while, didn't he?

Posted by: V for Vendetta on April 23, 2006 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

One of the most bizarre things about the Bush WH as it falls into chaos is that it seems to have no idea how little political clout it has left.

Look, it would be hard for a WH to get people to accept that it can leak whatever it wants whenever it wants, but that it's a crime if someone critical of them should do so. Maybe if your approval numbers are 70% and we're generally in a war mode, the American public can swallow that, just as it could swallow the President being above the law on issues of national security, etc.

But how do they expect this to play out through our political process, and through the court system, without it just biting them in the ass so hard they'll forever have to sit on a foam donut?

They are in desperate need of an arrogance readjustment, but nothing along those lines seems in any way to be happening. They're presumptuous and entitled even as they are having the holy shit beat out of them.

On some level, I just don't get it.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 23, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

Mary McCarthy was a Democrat, a Kerry supporter. Gave $9,000 to Democrats in 2004. At the CIA, worked closely with Joe Wilson.

I think the McCarthy leak will get very, very interesting.

Posted by: BigRiver on April 23, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

Your not going to believe this Herr Tindrum but while delivering sodium pentathol to the Schloss Adler the other day I heard a most extraordinary story. It seems a Waffen SS official from Dusseldorf had uncovered a plot to kill the Fuhrer!
And this in the heart of the Wermacht!
Mein Gott what is the reich coming to!
The news was being radioed to Berlin as I caught the Telefrique down.

Posted by: professor rat on April 23, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know how much I've thought about it before this post, but it's interesting to note (to me at least) that the majority of former intelligence folks who have come out in opposition of Bush's polices have described themselves as conservatives or republicans.

It's funny to think that the Bush admin thinks they're being underminded by like the green wing of the CIA or whatever. It reminds me of Glenn Greenwald and his whole thing about how whenever someone comes out against something Bush does, they're automatically labeled a liberal, regardless of where they actually stand politically.

Posted by: Matt on April 23, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.

Really? Now which anonymous "intelligence officials" would those be this time? At what point does the media realize it's being played?

As more anonymous information sources start acquiring names, this is going to clear up quite a bit.

Would the attitudes be the same in this situation if the party loyalties were reversed?

Posted by: tbrosz on April 23, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

I'm with nota bene. I try to judge these guys by the lowest factor I can think of and they still surprise me. Pity they can't show the same abilities in a practical direction--foreign policy, Iraq, Katrina, national security. Too busy looking for the red states under the bed.

Maybe the house of cards is folding, but I can't agree with frankly0's optimism. Haven't seen evidence of the Democrats or media really grabbing anything objectionable and follow through on it and make it stick. Aren't there any bulldogs left?

Posted by: notthere on April 23, 2006 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz
While I would be the last to paint any politicians white and I think corruption is endemic, in my life time the last time there was this type of paranoia was the McCarthy days; the last time the constitution and the laws were this undermined was Nixon and then the Iran-Contra affair. And now this administration with all this and incompetence to boot.

See any common thread there?

If an administration routinely asks employees to break the law, and fix or supress reports to cover their smelling shit, what would you do?

Coicidentally, tonight I rewatched "THe Nuremberg Trials." Get my drift?

Posted by: notthere on April 23, 2006 at 2:51 AM | PERMALINK

Lots of speculation at CaptainsQuartersBlog that the "CIA prisons" in Europe never existed, they were just a mole plot within the CIA to find out who was leaking. The Europeans did an investigation and couldn't find them.

Oooops!

If true, Mary McCarthy is not only unemployed, she is a fool as well.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 23, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

Captainsquarters has a thread at the very time this starts to blow up. There's someone to trust. I'll look at it further but . . .

We know the CIA (or whoever) made a number of illegal arrests overseas. We know that a number of these people ended up in non-US custody subsequent to arrest. We also know tht a number of people held in non-US custody had visits from CIA (or whoever). We also know that the UK and other European governments have been running interference for the US on information about US (CIA) flights into (Eastern) Europe. This is ongoing as UK media has not let go yet. The "Europeans" have NOT completed any investigation.

We also know that FBI personnel have reported detrimentally on (CIA) procedures in interrogation in Afghanistan and Iraq. Unfortunately, the US Army has been less forthcoming except to prosecute a few tokens of lower rank.

There's plenty of smoke. Seems more like another distraction tactic.

Posted by: notthere on April 23, 2006 at 3:27 AM | PERMALINK


Nothing cures a leak like a good purge.

Posted by: Ross Best on April 23, 2006 at 3:31 AM | PERMALINK

Frequency Kenneth -- The only "Oooops!" is your publicly humiliating yourself. (Go back to CaptainsQuarters and find out where the Triliateral Commission and the CFR fit into story. I can't wait to hear the answer.)

Posted by: has407 on April 23, 2006 at 3:44 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah... because we all know that party affiliation is way more important than competence, qualifications, and/or ethics. More important than simple human decency, too.

Just makes me wonder what other atrocities those evil GOP bastards are hiding yet.

Posted by: Technowitch on April 23, 2006 at 3:55 AM | PERMALINK

Frequency fails it.

Posted by: Killjoy on April 23, 2006 at 4:05 AM | PERMALINK

ain't it fun and rewarding, if horrifying and scary, to see the tin soldier die?

Posted by: Jones on April 23, 2006 at 4:37 AM | PERMALINK

Just checked:

Gijs de Vries said "...not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.." and Dick Marty "...enough indications for continuing investigation..." and Amnesty Int'l was still calling (16th April) for cooperation on near 200 UK landed CIA fly-throughs. That story seems to have legs in the UK; another way to catch Blair in another lie.

For the record, I believe it would be against international human rights law even to overfly a signee nation, let alone use airport facilities. We know that 2 people arrested in Sweden were surrendered to US officials and flown to Egypt. Also 1 Australian to Egypt, a Canadian to Syria (where I think there is a fuss being kicked up), and another Arab to Jordan.

Forget about habeas corpus; doesn't look like your nationality counts for much either, at least not if you're of A-rab descent. Nice New-World Order. Thanks GW.

And I haven't forgotten all the hundreds (or thousands) held for indeterminate lengths of time on no more than a whim. Who knows how they would have all fared if noone had made a fuss about conditions of captivity and methods of "intelligence gathering." This White House should be thankful that people of conscience stepped in before more people were murdered.

Anybody actually know how many suspicious deaths (or homicides) there have been in US captivity?

No. I thought not. "We don't do body counts."

Posted by: notthere on April 23, 2006 at 4:52 AM | PERMALINK

Frequency Kenneth: "Lots of speculation at CaptainsQuartersBlog that the 'CIA prisons' in Europe never existed, they were just a mole plot within the CIA to find out who was leaking. The Europeans did an investigation and couldn't find them."

I do believe, Kenny m'boy, that it's time for both you and your friends at CaptainsQuartersBlog to put on your Nike sneakers and lie in bed quietly to await the return of Marshall Applewhite and the Mother Ship.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 23, 2006 at 5:54 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:

At what point does the media realize it's being played?

This is an impressive attempt by tbrosz, in that it is very, very stupid. Still, it doesn't have the je ne sais quoi and flawless execution of what remains the most toweringly idiotic thing he's ever said:

Just wondering:

What are the "checks" on the "cherry-picking" the news media does with classified information illegally obtained from "anonymous intelligence officials" or "sources who decline to be identified since they are not authorized to release this information?"

The New York Times doesn't post these "obtained" documents for anyone else to see. They don't send copies to other newspapers to see what their take would be. I doubt they even spread them around to see if other writers in their own organization might see things differently.

Basically, the only other ones who know if the newspapers are lying or not, are the people who are actually privy to the classified data. What are they supposed to do about it if the newspaper is slanting this information, or outright lying about it?

Posted by: tbrosz on April 7, 2006 at 1:45 PM

Posted by: grh on April 23, 2006 at 6:02 AM | PERMALINK

In the uniform military code of justice, you must follow orders unless you believe them to be illegal. We can argue that thats military code and not civil law, and that civil law is a little murkier about the citizens legal responsibility when witnessing a crime or has knowledge of a crime.

However, we are losing sight of the fact that the administration cant classify information to cover up a criminal act. And any citizen in a democratic republic who is in a position to know of criminal acts being committed has not only a right, but an obligation to expose it.

If "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheneys indicted former chief of staff, can establish a legal fund to pay for his defense in the CIA leak case (in which he claims that the President of the U.S. authorized him to leak for political gain) then certainly a longtime career government worker can, too.

How about raising legal defense funds for CIA whistleblowers such as Mary McCarthy? To encourage more of them to come forward, without having to fear the hideous expense of legal defenses. Without these whistleblowers, who are the real patriots and heroes, we wouldn't know what our government is doing in our names. In this new "information age," paying the legal fees of whistleblowers may be the only way we can guarantee our right to a democratic republic.

With the firing and criminal prosecution of Mary McCarthy (with more to come) the Bush administration appears to want to frighten these heroic Americans into silence and submission. Just as what they hoped leaking Valerie Plame's name (and the cover company that she and other covert CIA agents worked for) would achieve. Congress has abdicated its' role of oversight while the most corrupt Presidential administration in U.S. history wreaks havoc and creates mayhem all over the world. The whistleblowers are all that stand between a democratic republic and a fascist dictatorship.

I don't know if registering Mary McCarthy to receive donations for a legal defense fund is legal, but I think that the idea itself (of citizens becoming active and donating to whistleblowers' legal defenses) is a good one. But until ActBlue says it's a "no go," give until you bleed at Hail Mary'!

Posted by: Maven on April 23, 2006 at 6:08 AM | PERMALINK

Let me see if I understand all of this. Some information is kept secret because its disclosure would hurt national security. Some people within the government disclose otherwise secret information. Sometimes they disclose information to advance Republican political interests. Sometimes they disclose the information to pay back or punish others in the government. Sometimes they disclose otherwise secret information because the danger to national security of disclosing the secret is not nearly as important as the danger of not disclosing to our very national soul. White House employees who disclose to advance Republican political purposes or to pay back some other member of the government are good. They deserve the National Medal of Freedom. Other people who don't work in the White House but disclose information to help save our political freedoms or our national self respect are bad. They should lose their jobs or go to jail.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 23, 2006 at 6:46 AM | PERMALINK

Technowitch: "Just makes me wonder what other atrocities those evil GOP bastards are hiding yet."

I agree. The Iraq War, ongoing administration foreign policy faux pas and the Hurricane Katrina/New Orleans debacles aside, I'm also concerned about how far they will go if senior members of the Bush administration finds themselves in legal jeopardy, i.e., Patrick Fitzgerald seeks an indictment of Karl Rove from the grand jury, or also names the vice president as a subject of his current investigation into the revelation of Valerie Plame's CIA status as a NOC.

Meanwhile, another ill tide approaches from the other end of Pennsylvania Ave. The Abramoff corruption scandal has already ensnared Bush White House Chief Procurement Officer David Safavian, key Bush congressional allies, and top GOP legislative staff in both the House and the Senate. Who knows where that investigation will lead?

Is the president seeking to provoke military confrontation with Iran so as to divert the American people's attention from his sundry domestic political problems?

Would the administration seek the removal of Mr. Fitzgerald from his position as special counsel, or the termination of non-partisan professionals curently investigating widespread allegations of GOP corruption on Capitol Hill, in order to short-circuit further legal inquiries into its conduct?

What would the president do if congressional Republicans, seeking to stave off possible disaster at the polls this fall, grasp at the straws of political self-preservation by launching a serious and wide-ranging investigation into the administration's behavior and conduct?

I hope that I"m wrong about my gut instinct and I eventually find myself merely wearing a tinfoil hat -- but I think that we are heading toward a major constitutional crisis and domestic political confrontation with the Bush White House.

While not yet at the point of no return, we're certainly approaching that frontier as the current cascade of adversity threatens to blow down the president's top-heavy house of cards.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 23, 2006 at 7:00 AM | PERMALINK

"Lots of speculation at CaptainsQuartersBlog that the 'CIA prisons' in Europe never existed, they were just a mole plot within the CIA to find out who was leaking. The Europeans did an investigation and couldn't find them."

Lots of speculation, alright.

Just like there was "Lots of speculation at CaptainsQuartersBlog" in 2003 that the Iraq would be a smashing success.

How's that working out for y'all anyway?

Oh yeah, Iraq *IS* a shining success and we'd all see it, if the media would stop reporting about all those pesky dead bodies.

Posted by: chuck on April 23, 2006 at 7:37 AM | PERMALINK

One of the most bizarre things about the Bush WH as it falls into chaos is that it seems to have no idea how little political clout it has left.

I wonder about this, too. Untold arrogance or a simple inability to change the beloved game plan? Both, it seems.

Posted by: shortstop on April 23, 2006 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

I seem to recall there was another leader who regularly performed political purges of his military and intelligence agencies. It took a few years, but eventually he managed to clean out the officer corps of anyone who might not see eye to eye with him politically. It took a little longer to clean up the intelligence services, but those, too, were cleaned up to remove anyone not 100% in lockstep with the leader's thinking.

Everything went quite well after that. Right up to the point when the leader was blindsided by Operation Barbarossa because his intelligence services would not give him news he didn't want to hear. Then, of course, his military pretty much collapsed for a year because it turned out that political purity is no substitute for military accumen.

But I'm sure Bush can make it work this time.

Posted by: Derelict on April 23, 2006 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

Juan Cole has a great column this morning, complete with pictures (including one of Condi Rice at her hideous worst), that asks why are some leak of intelligence O.K. and some are not? The Bush Administration has lost any credibility they might have had on classified material with the revelation from Patrick Fitzgeralds investigation that Dumbya declassified sensitive material for the sole purpose of discrediting Joe Wilson. Anyone who believes anything this Administration says about classified information is a fool or a sycophant.

The firing of Mary McCarthy might just blow up in the Bushies collective faces, as well it should.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on April 23, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

And a note to the White House: if you stop breaking the law, that would be a pretty good way to stop leaks too.

I get the feeling that GWB needed to hear these kinds of statements a lot more while growing up. He needed to hear it a couple of years ago from some of his fellow republicans.

They are in desperate need of an arrogance readjustment, but nothing along those lines seems in any way to be happening. They're presumptuous and entitled even as they are having the holy shit beat out of them.

frankly0, I can identify with that statement. I remember feeling this kind of impatience and bewilderment in the wake of the Watergate fiasco. People can be so slow to accept the implications of what happens right in front of their face. What are the implications of the Joe Wilson episode? Think about what was done and by whom. There is absolutely no excuse for us to put up with that kind of BS.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 23, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Bigriver wrote:

Mary McCarthy was a Democrat, a Kerry supporter. Gave $9,000 to Democrats in 2004. At the CIA, worked closely with Joe Wilson.

Posted by: BigRiver on April 23, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

Mary McCarthy was a private citizen at the time she made her campaign contributions.

But what exactly are you suggesting? (besides confirming David Corn's reporting that admin defenders believe there should be a political loyalty test for employment)

And you have evidence that "she worked closely with Joe Wilson" at the CIA?


Posted by: Friend of labor on April 23, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a Democrat or a member of the Democratic Party?"

"I have here in my hands a list of two hundred and fifty-eight member of the Democratic Party who are working within this government...."

Posted by: Stefan on April 23, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

sex [url= http://sex-now.az.pl ]sex[/url] Phentermine [url= http://pharma-rx.az.pl ]Phentermine[/url] fioricet [url= http://64819.rapidforum.com ]fioricet[/url] casino [url= http://www.casino-twenty.com ]casino[/url] online casino [url= http://www.casino-twenty.com ]online casino[/url] lipitor [url= http://3950.rapidforum.com ]lipitor[/url] Phentermine [url= http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Phendietp ]Phentermine[/url] prozac [url= http://16575.rapidforum.com ]prozac[/url] Viagra [url= http://mywebpage.netscape.com/viagra2buy ]Viagra[/url] online poker [url= http://eteamz.active.com/flush/files/poker.html ]online poker[/url] slots [url= http://spaces.msn.com/slots-play ]slots[/url] ultram [url= http://63523.rapidforum.com ]ultram[/url] Online Poker [url= http://mywebpage.netscape.com/poker4moker ]Online Poker[/url] phentermine [url= http://40836.rapidforum.com ]phentermine[/url] Online Casino [url= http://mywebpage.netscape.com/casinomasino ]Online Casino[/url] viagra [url= http://3324.rapidforum.com ]viagra[/url] otu953v9-903202356

Posted by: phentermine on April 23, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Lots of speculation at CaptainsQuartersBlog that the "CIA prisons" in Europe never existed, they were just a mole plot within the CIA to find out who was leaking. The Europeans did an investigation and couldn't find them

Oh my, then it MUST be true!
Just more jejune preening from someone that takes their internet moniker from a known psychotic.

Posted by: mosquitoonyournose on April 23, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: I appreciate your comments, but occasionally I suspect you of having a habit (maybe even a methodology!) of simply chipping around the edges of an issue to cast doubt about the veracity or relevance of said issue.

Sure, we dont know great deal just yet about this Mary McCarthy episode. But now we know a great deal about the Joe Wilson fiasco. Do you accept the fact that Libby and Rove went after Wilson and his wife? Do you accept the fact that it was most likely illegal and most certainly was unethical? Do you accept the fact that it was not a case of the media misreporting or making a mountain out of a molehill?

You dont owe me any answers, but I am forever trying to figure out where Bush supporters are coming from. Really, Im just wondering.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 23, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

So the Captains Quarters blog is gunning for Joe Isuzu/Baghdad Bob credibility levels. Super, thanks for the update.

Posted by: matt on April 23, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

To be effective, a secret police force must instill fear in the citizenry.

What good are secret police if they are not feared?

What good are secret police if they are not loyal?

Later...

Posted by: Ranger Jay on April 23, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK


It's taken unconscionably long, but there are getting to be a fair fraction of Republicans who think that Bush is the Antichrists's retarded evil twin. Among national security professionals, it didn't take so long. The dissenters in the officer corps are (or at least were) mostly Republican. Zinni was, for example; he endorsed Bush in 2000, the first political thing he ever did in his life.
I think the Administration should realize this and start distrusting _everyone_.
It will be fun to watch.

Posted by: gcochran on April 23, 2006 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

If I were President and there was a CIA officer who was leaking sensitive information to the press, I would be interested to know if they were affiliated with my political foes. This doesn't seem very egregious to me. I mean, the CIA does work for Bush. Shouldn't they be loyal? I don't get the outrage. If there was a republican in the CIA during the Clinton admin., and he was leaking sensitive intel to Fox News that was embarrassing to the Pres., I would expect Clinton to fire him and then look into whether there were other repubs he should be concerned about.

Posted by: Aaron on April 23, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Mary McCarthy is to the CIA what W. Mark Felt was to the FBI. I know many of you may view Mark Felt's actions as noble but I believe his actions were dishonorable.

There probably was a great deal of frustration on the White House's part that the CIA was not moving aggressively enough to stem the leaks. I read somewhere that a few within the agency felt the leaks were coming from the CIA's internal investigative office. The White House may have reached the same conclusion and they may have tried to ascertain who in that office was a heavy donor to the DNC. (For a resident of Maryland to give $5,000 to the Ohio DNC indicates a constituent highly motivated to see a change the administration.)

I do agree with a commenter Laguna Dave at Protein Wisdom, we should not purge the CIA, the Justice System, the military of those who are partisan. At the same time, I believe there is a code of ethics with respect to divulging information from which employees should adhere to all times.

I have two friends who are high level interpreters. To leak information gained from their assignments, would compromise the integrity of their profession. They take it very seriously.

Posted by: loosestrife on April 23, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Over at TPM Cafe, Larry Johnson has an interesting take on Mary McCarthy. In addition, a poster named Jerry states that, as a congressman in 1998, he sponsored the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. He has very strong views against one talking directly to the press. Well, when one googles the sponsor of the act, it is none other than one Porter J Goss. Glad to see that the head of the CIA has the time to post on a blog site.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 23, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Lots of speculation at CaptainsQuartersBlog that the "CIA prisons" in Europe never existed, they were just a mole plot within the CIA to find out who was leaking.

But I thought that the big problem was that Mary McCarthy was leaking information so sensitive that it was jeapordizing real operations in Europe???

Man, are some of you guys reading your faxes from the RNC upside down? You GOTTA all get on the same page with your line of attack!

It's just embarrassing!

Posted by: frankly0 on April 23, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Captains Quarters is also saying that the Batboy himself may have been working with McCarthy and her treasonous attempt to expose our patriotic but secret overseas prisons.

The Weekly World News is all over this too.

Posted by: Ringo on April 23, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Does Big River work for the National Review? Over at Angrybear, we've been following how the Corner is attacking Mary McCarthy and it seems they and Big River have been doing the Robert Novak trolling of the FEC records trick. I guess Big River works for Neo-McCarthyism R' Us.

Posted by: pgl on April 23, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

There's an interesting post WRT this up by Armando on Daily Kos.

Posted by: Butch on April 23, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Regarding Iran, Kevin Drum recently wrote:

"....Quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran....If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war?"

According to Michael Crowley, it's very likely all about GW's legacy:

"I don't pretend to know how to solve the Iran problem (although, as a practical matter, military action sounds fairly nightmarish to me). What worries me is that Bush's thinking here might be clouded by this legacy stuff. Right now Bush knows he's likely to be remembered primarily for a failed adventure in Iraq. (Yes, Iraq may yet turn around; but it doesn't seem too likely.) Yet he may feel that Iran promises him a fresh opportunity to get a Big Thing right and win redemption in the history books. In other words, attacking Iran--as opposed to pursuing a slower diplomatic route which could stretch into a successor's term--would be a way for Bush to double down, so to speak, on his legacy. I'd like to think such a simplistic psychological calculus wouldn't carry the day. But I can't say it's completely unbelievable."

So let's reiterate, it's what's thought to be good for GW first, what's good policy for our country and the world a distant second.

But also it begs the question, what are we to think when they say we're making a premature judgment about Iraq, that all such ventures take time before you see real results...? By attacking Iran to further bolster the legacy, isn't that an admission that this Iraq thing may not turn out so good over time? In fact, it could get much, much worse, so what the hey, let's take a shot (or "double down") and attack Iran and then see where the legacy chips fall...? Laugh, but BushCo has done more on less sane thinking.

http://www.theangryliberal.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ed on April 23, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Saw the headline "Cleaning House" and thought Kevin's finally addressing the Mollohan tragedy and his overpaid "not-for-profit" oxymoron orgs. No such luck, have to wait for the next Dem reprobate to join the culture of corruption.

Posted by: minionofrove on April 23, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

The United States of Soviet Socialist Republics is alive and well under repukelican control.

Posted by: pluege on April 23, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Wouldn't it be easier, instead of driving trained professionals out of the intelligence agencies for having incorrect thought, to provide each section, desk, whatever, with a zampolit?

This would insure that the intelligence produced comports with the positions of the Party, without a loss of skilled help.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on April 23, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Jim:

tbrosz: I appreciate your comments, but occasionally I suspect you of having a habit (maybe even a methodology!) of simply chipping around the edges of an issue to cast doubt about the veracity or relevance of said issue.

"Chipping around the edges" is another term for making some general comments on an issue where many of the facts aren't known yet. People here have been quoting conservatives who are speculating all over the place, and I think much of that is premature.

What we do know is that someone leaked classified information, and that there is enough known about her to make it plausible that it was for political reasons. That's pretty much it at this point, but as I mentioned before, I suspect the reactions here would be quite different if the party designations were reversed.

And I stand by my statements that the media gets way too much mileage out of non-confirmable anonymous sources. The media getting commentary on this issue from even more anonymous sources is a bit ironic.

The Plame affair is playing itself out in the investigation. So far, no indictments on the leaking of the name, although everybody involved seems to know exactly who did it.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 23, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Ringo,

Are you and I the only ones on this board who know and love BatBoy?

That kid is Forrest Gump with pointy ears and attitude, and I never tire of his adventures.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 23, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Ok. We apparently have very different things to emphasize, at this point, about the Plame affair. To me, the salient facts at this point are the known behavior of Rove and Libby, two very senior Bush administration officials. Their behavior was so bad that they absolutely had to lie about it and may even go to jail despite the best legal representation money can buy.

I have to guess you dont have much problem with the behavior of Libby and Rove; or perhaps you just choose not to answer for reasons of your own.

I have a huge problem with their behavior. Our government just will not work if career employees have to worry about the political heavyweights at the top coming after them in a very unethical manner.

I have problems with the media myself. The only protection I know is to take it all in with reasonable skepticism and expose myself to a fairly wide array of input. But as facts unravel and become clearer, I have no interest in denying them.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 23, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii: "... I think that we are heading toward a major constitutional crisis and domestic political confrontation with the Bush White House."

I agree; We are heading towards a major constitutional crisis. I don't see how the Republic can survive 2.5 more years of Bushco "leadership" but getting rid of him will be an ugly domestic political confrontation. I think we are just waiting to see how November turns out.

The US has been taken over by a dangerous cabal. Their conservative policies and practices--including firing Mary McCarthy--has been a disaster for the USA. 33% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing, and 47% strongly disapprove. If the election in November is diebolded, who can predict what will follow?

Posted by: PTate in MN on April 23, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and about the "non-confirmable anonymous sources". Yep, Judy Miller helped lead us to war with her "sources". Sources who did not even mind telling her, on occasion, to mis-represent who they were.

Too bad our media skeptics did not see through her WMD bull.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on April 23, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Would the attitudes be the same in this situation if the party loyalties were reversed?

Shorter tbrosz: Everyone is as much of a mendacious partisan hack as I am!

Posted by: Gregory on April 23, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

"I mean, the CIA does work for Bush." Aaron on April 23, 2006 at 11:05 AM

Wrong, the employees of the CIA work for the United States of America. The moment folks in the CIA start working for one political faction or an other, America stops being a nation of laws and freedom, and becomes a monarchy.

It is interesting, however, that there seem to be a lot of ill educated and misguided fools, starting at the very top, who believe the career employees in government work for the politician who happens to be in office.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 23, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

Second what Ron Byers says.

Isn't the point that whether true or a plant, extraordinary rendition and "interrogation" by a foreign party on our behalf is illegal. It breaks with our own laws and treaty obligations as ratified by the senate.

In either case, employees of the government have a primary duty to the people.

Peole like Ollie North just sidestep their oath.

Posted by: notthere on April 23, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: "Chipping around the edges" is another term for making some general comments on an issue where many of the facts aren't known yet. People here have been quoting conservatives who are speculating all over the place, and I think much of that is premature.

What we do know is that someone leaked classified information, and that there is enough known about her to make it plausible that it was for political reasons. That's pretty much it at this point, but as I mentioned before, I suspect the reactions here would be quite different if the party designations were reversed.


Okay, Tbrosz, let us play out your little thought experiment.

Clinton, post-attacks on the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassies (or post-Cole or post-WTC 1) sets up the exact same policies Bush is now enacting, including secret prisons spread across Europe.

1) Do you honestly think that were this to happen and become known the majority of posters to this site - Kevin included - wouldn't be jumping all over him?

2) Do you honestly think if someone in the CIA leaked such information, he/she would be treated by the posters on this site - Kevin included - as Bush's minions are treating McCarthy?

The answers to the questions are no fucking way, and no fucking way. And the answer to your question about what the reactions would be if the party affiliations were reversed is the reaction would be EXACTLY THE SAME.

You have a cartoon vision of who you are talking to which serves your present (and continual)purpose of rhetorically distracting attention away from Bush's real problems now. In fact this is your stock - and usually lone - reply to any number of problems that crop up. But anyone with any knowledge of left-of-center democrats knows how fully specious this argument is.

You have made similar claims in the past about the "left" - claiming that it is some proxy for Stalinism, the former Soviet Union, the old Communist Party, or what have you, betraying nothing more than your complete ignorance of left politics (and the widespread disdain for the Soviet Union and the Communist tradition) in the United States.

Suggestion: read some history and come up with some new replies.


Posted by: Tbrosz watch on April 23, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone is as much of a mendacious partisan hack as I am!

Gregory nails it!

Posted by: tbrosz on April 23, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Until this administration, I had always assumed that people in the CIA (below the director level and perhaps his first level people) were not political. McCarthy obviously should not be leaking to WAPO, but why is a person with such partisan political leanings in the CIA to begin with. This applies both ways. Important people in the CIA should not be either Republican or Democrat partisans. I assume she must have been in line for some significant job in a Kerry Admnistration. Very dishartening that she is the type of person in an important CIA position. It would be good if she goes to jail, so as to deter future CIA leakers. And yes, all the libs who were so up in arms about leaking of the purported "secret agent" Plame, if they were sincere about Plame, should also be up in arms about this.

Posted by: brian on April 23, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

October 1988

GOP lawmakers used the phrase "wag the dog" to describe Clinton's military actions, saying he was using conflicts abroad to deflect attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Former and current intelligence officials speaking off the records leaked a steady stream of details to the NY Times and the Washington Post to support the allegations. The details severely compromised the agency's ability to gather information and further strained relations with allies.

A CIA Sr. Investigative Counsel subsequently fails repeated polygraph tests indicating he is the source of leaks. It comes to light that he had worked with Kenneth Starr in his prior career as a lawyer in private practice. Additionally, he had ties to the Republication Party and was linked to other advisors who had been indicted for misuse of classified information.

Are you saying IF history had unfolded in this manner that Democrats wouldn't have sat up and cried foul?

Posted by: booboo on April 23, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

This are claims McCarthy might have been caught in a mole trap designed to find out who was leaking. Wouldn't it be great if McCarthy is exposed as not just criminal but stupid and Dana Priest and her Pulitzer are exposed as gullible fools printing a false story? It would help to humble the media and partisans everywhere.

The following is a post by a guy named Michael Tanji at a site called Group Intel -- he purports to formerly be with the IC and provides information on the problm I cited about political partisans being in CIA positions:

"I hesitate to call it proof but if you ever wanted a strong indication that our intelligence services have been penetrated, the McCarthy case is it. I dont mean penetrated by a foreign intelligence service (forgive me JJA) but by something worse: politics. After nearly two decades of service in the IC I am happy to report that robust dialog about personal political opinions is alive and well. I would however, be hard pressed to name a case where someone I worked with let their politics interfere with the job at hand.

That job, as so many ex-IC Bush lied! screamers have pointed out, is speaking truth to power. A fancy and high-falutin phrase that most intelligence officers interpret as tell them what we know, tell them what we dont know, and tell them what our judgments are. You do this based on the information at hand and with the application of the little gray cells. Intelligence assessments arent supposed to be built on party talking points.

Lots of folks are already commenting on the type of person Mary McCarthy is based on her financial contributions to politicians, her professional affiliation with officials and operatives of the other side, and her public and private statements on the job. No one seems to be focusing on what Mary McCarthy is not: an IC working stiff.

Ms. McCarthy was an understudy to, and eventually replaced, Charlie Allen. Allen, who is now head intel officer at DHS is as close to a living legend on the analysis side of the intel house as there is. Charlie dont work with dummies. She went from line analyst to the NSC, which for you sports fans is akin to the story of Kurt Warner (obscure journeyman, lucky break, superstardom). She worked for, with, or supervised any number of famous ex-IC players whose names have been in the news the last few years. In short: she had pull, she had options, and she had protection.

Unlike the names associated with real or perceived IC fiascos (Tice, Edmonds, Shaffer, etc.) if Ms. McCarthy had a serious, legitimate gripe with what was going on at the CIA, she could have walked down the hall to the IG, she could have had lunch with someone at the FBI or Justice, or she could have made a phone call and been talking to members of Congress. In short she would have suffered almost none of the pain that most whistleblowers normally face.

As far as we know to date she didnt do any of the things she should have done. What she did was reach out to a reporter and spill the beans on a highly classified intelligence operation. If the Posts assertion that they didnt publish all the details provided to them is true, she didnt just spill beans; she backed a truck full of them up to the door and hit the dump button. Im sorry, but that is not the action of a professional who has the best interests of the nation and her people at heart.

Time was that that a lot of people in the IC (myself included) didnt vote; lest someone have cause to accuse us of pushing a political bias in our work. We prided ourselves on the fact that we dealt in hard data and well-reasoned deduction; not political agendas or pet academic theories.

We accepted the fact that ours was merely one
voice that decision-makers listened too, even if we didnt like their courses of action. When certain elements in the IC decided that they were going to stop talking to power and start taking it I dont know, but one thing is for certain: this is a practice that we cannot allow to stand."

Posted by: brian on April 23, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK


BRIAN: Wouldn't it be great if McCarthy is exposed as not just criminal but stupid and Dana Priest and her Pulitzer are exposed as gullible fools printing a false story? It would help to humble the media and partisans everywhere.

Yeah, that'd be so cool, huh? Next time their moles can circulate a false rumor about a classified program which involves U.S. agents kidnapping refugee children and then cutting them open to remove organs to be used to save the lives of American industrialists. Then when it gets leaked to the press they can say, "Hey! We got you. You told about our secret program, which wasn't real, but if it had been, you had no right to tell anyone, you dirty criminal, you!"


Posted by: jayarbee on April 23, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers:

From the CIA's website:

The Central Intelligence Agency was created in 1947 with the signing of the National Security Act by President Harry S. Truman. The act also created a Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) to serve as head of the United States intelligence community; act as the principal adviser to the President for intelligence matters related to the national security; and serve as head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

AND:

1.5 Director of Central Intelligence. In order to discharge the duties and responsibilities prescribed by law, the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible directly to the President and the NSC and shall:

(a) Act as the primary adviser to the President and the NSC on national foreign intelligence and provide the President and other officials in the Executive Branch with national foreign intelligence.

The CIA works for the President.

Posted by: Aaron on April 23, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Jayarbee:

Yes, if an apparent higly partisan intelligence official like McCarthy and a prima donna reporter like Priest were stupid enough to fall for any false story it would be cool. It is a way to combat illegal leaking and bring the press down a notch. Why isn't it obvious to you and everyone else that what McCarthy and Priest did was a bad thing?


Posted by: brian on April 23, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Booboo writes:
October 1988

GOP lawmakers used the phrase "wag the dog" to describe Clinton's military actions, saying he was using conflicts abroad to deflect attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Former and current intelligence officials speaking off the records leaked a steady stream of details to the NY Times and the Washington Post to support the allegations. The details severely compromised the agency's ability to gather information and further strained relations with allies.

A CIA Sr. Investigative Counsel subsequently fails repeated polygraph tests indicating he is the source of leaks. It comes to light that he had worked with Kenneth Starr in his prior career as a lawyer in private practice. Additionally, he had ties to the Republication Party and was linked to other advisors who had been indicted for misus of classified information.

Are you saying IF history had unfolded in this manner that Democrats wouldn't have sat up and cried foul?

Posted by: booboo on April 23, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

He'd be toast. Just like McCarthy will be toast, if the allegations against her are true. And if Clinton had been doing what you suggest, the leaker would have been doing a service to the country, as did McCarthy in leaking the story about our horrendous secret prisons.

And lets go further: if Clinton had really been cooking up foreign adventures to deflect attention from his problems at home, the participants in this blog would have been the first to excoriate him.

Rules of the game: get caught leaking to the press, you suffer the consequences. Doesn't matter what your political affiliations are.

But now lets see...your scenario sounds remarkably similar to the real-life case of Ken Starr's office leaking secret grand jury testimony and investigation work product to the press during the real impeachment.

Tell me, booboo and Tbrosz, what's the statute of limitations on such heinous deeds by officers of the court? Would you support going after the leakers and subjecting them to McCarthy-like punishment?


Posted by: Tbrosz watch on April 23, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK


BRIAN: Why isn't it obvious to you and everyone else that what McCarthy and Priest did was a bad thing?

Why isn't it obvious to you that torturing is a bad thing? Why isn't it obvious to you that if the government can do anything it wants--including bad things--and make it a crime to reveal the things it does, we do not have a democracy?

I want a government that does good things. I want a government which, if they are going to conduct a "mole" operation as the right is now speculating about as a cover for the bad thing the government did, they really ought to circulate a false story about bad things the government is doing, and when it is leaked, they would find out who did not leak such information and immediately fire those persons for being willing to support such bad things.

As for this fantasy notion of a "mole," you could as well apply it to the Wilson/Plame matter. Maybe they planted the false rumor of Iraq attempting to buy nukes in Africa, not only to build their false case for war, but to also find out if anyone investigating the story would reveal it to be false--whereupon, they could accuse the investigator of disloyalty and feel free to discredit any family members, as well.

You want to punish people who do good things. You think that if the government told us that chopping up babies was helping to fight the war on terror, any effort, not only to curtail the chopping of babies, but also to reveal that babies were being chopped, would be a traitorous crime against America.

Why isn't it obvious to you that this administration is composed of evil doers?


Posted by: jayarbee on April 23, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

brian: "Why isn't it obvious to you and everyone else that what McCarthy and Priest did was a bad thing?"

Shorter brian: Why is everyone out-of-step here but me?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 23, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

So many goalposts, so little time.

Buy Goal Post, Inc. stock before it's too late.

Posted by: Birkel on April 23, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

What if the allegations of "wagging the dog" scenario were only partial truths? If the CIA were selectively leaking the truth to politically cripple a presidency and to hamper action taken by the administration, it's wrong.

I seem to recall, renditions began under the Clinton administration. Perhaps after the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam with a loss of 220 lives and 4,000 wounded, one of those interrogations derailed the bombing of a 3rd embassy.

Posted by: booboo on April 23, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Donald from Hawaii: "Our fever swamp is comfy."

Posted by: Aaron on April 23, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

booboo:

What if the allegations of "wagging the dog" scenario were only partial truths? If the CIA were selectively leaking the truth to politically cripple a presidency and to hamper action taken by the administration, it's wrong.

I seem to recall, renditions began under the Clinton administration. Perhaps after the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam with a loss of 220 lives and 4,000 wounded, one of those interrogations derailed the bombing of a 3rd embassy.

Posted by: booboo on April 23, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINK

booboo:

You've changed the terms of your scenario. Previously it was "A CIA Sr. Investigative Counsel" doing the leaking; now you've got it as "The CIA were selectively leaking the truth..."

Either way, the answer is the same: they should be drawn and quartered for 'selectively leaking the truth in an active political effort to politically cripple a presidency.'[

Now what is the relevance to Ms. McCarthy? Is there any evidence she 'selectively leaked the truth'? From all accounts (if she indeed leaked) what was put out was a pretty accurate portrait of the secret prisons. By contrast it was Bush - if we are to believe Scotter Libby that Bush authorized the "leak" of the NIE on Niger - who was selectively leaking to cripple a critic of the administration...curious how when you trolls come up with scenarios imputed to democrats you unselfconsciously mimic the Republicans' real efforts! Freudian slips?

Whenver 'renditions' began, what does this have to do with the network of secret prisons stashed across Europe, which was the true subject of Dana Priest's story?

And finally, based on what do you speculate that these purported renditions stopped a third embassy bombing? You might as well speculate that they stopped a planned invasion of earth by Martians, worried that if captured they'd have their green asses' hauled off and tortured in some dingy cell in eastern Europe!

You are welcome any time to join us back in the realm of empirical evidence...


Posted by: Tbrosz watch on April 23, 2006 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Blame the victim.

But since you think the CIA should be allowed to play politics.

I hope the Repugs retaliate by seeding the CIA and Defence with crazy, gun-happy, far Right loonies, who ruin the next Democrat presidency by leaking all those 'threats' that your Prez ignores. Or leaking all the genocide information, your Prez gets and ignores.

Posted by: McA on April 24, 2006 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

Note to the White House: If you want to discourage illegal leakers, then prosecute Miss McCarthy to the full extent of the law.

If I were a Democratic candidate for president, I'd want to see her prosecuted, too, because I would not want to have conservatives in the CIA leaking everything they disapproved of during my administration, either.

Presidents, whether Democrats or Republicans, ought to be able to count on iron-clad secrecy from the CIA, NSA, FBI and other intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies. Period, end of discussion. There's nothing to debate here. If employees of those agencies don't like what their bosses are doing, they should resign and write angry letters to the editor, but without breaching their secrecy oaths. Indeed, the failure to resign, if you believe that something terribly bad is happening, is culpable.

Posted by: DBL on April 24, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

BigRiver: I think the McCarthy leak will get very, very interesting.

But not in the way you imagine and hope!

DBL: Note to the White House: If you want to discourage illegal leakers, then prosecute Miss McCarthy to the full extent of the law.

As Kleiman points out, prosecuting McCarthy would show that the Bush White House lied about the secret prisons - you can't prosecute someone for leaking non-information.

You can fire them, but you can't prosecute them.

So, either the secret prisons exist or Bush et al. lied.

If they do exist, they are illegal and it is doubtful McCarthy can be prosecuted for revealing illegal activities, classified or not.

You are a fool, DBL, but we knew that already.

DBL: Presidents, whether Democrats or Republicans, ought to be able to count on iron-clad secrecy from the CIA, NSA, FBI and other intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies. Period, end of discussion.

Exactly the attitude that Hitler counted on when he was running his secret concentration camps.

Glad to see you exercising your fascist tendencies for all to see, DBL.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 24, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

brian: And yes, all the libs who were so up in arms about leaking of the purported "secret agent" Plame, if they were sincere about Plame, should also be up in arms about this.

Very dimwitted. Very.

Hint to brian:

. . . the leak from Plame was partisan political payback for what her husband did, involved lies about Plame's role, and served no national security interests or the interests of justice.

. . . the leak from McCarthy revealed criminal activity by the Bush administration, crimes against humanity by the Bush administration, and served national security interests and the interests of justice.

Huge difference.

Bush has no more right to classify his criminal activities to hide them from Americans and the world than Hitler had a right to classify his concentration camps to hide his genocide.

Innocent people are being tortured in these prisons and McCarthy is every bit the hero as those who opposed Hitler's concentration camps.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 24, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

When Porter Goss took over as DCI he brought over with him a number of GOP political operatives.

So, let's get this straight: the GOP lemmings here think that CIA personnel shouldn't have any personal political affiliations and that anyone with such affiliations should be purged from intelligence agencies, but only if the affiliations are Democrat.

And, its okay for partisan GOP hacks in intelligence agency management to lie to Congress and the country about the criminal activities of our government and leak sensitive intel for partisan GOP political purposes, but wrong for a so-called Democrat to reveal the criminal activities of the Bush administration and its crimes against humanity.

Yet another fine example of IOKIYAR.

Hypocritical conservative b*stards, all of you!

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 24, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Regular readers of Powerline here will have an advantage over the rest of us in having long known that the CIA is nothing but a "Democratic stronghold" that is "at war" with the Bush administration.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 24, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

AFG - You make a good point. If the Government were doing something truly heinous - say, running extermination camps like the Nazis - then of course no moral person could possibly continue working in that Government. The only moral thing to do would be to resign immediately. In that case, too, the only moral thing to do would be to shout the news about the extermination camps from the rooftops.

I think we can conclude from Miss McCarthy's failure to resign that she didn't think the CIA program that bothered her was truly evil. Rather, she just disagreed with it and chose to try to impose her policy views through leaks to the press.

Posted by: DBL on April 24, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

"That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." [Vice President Gore]

March 22, 1999

Posted by: booboo on April 24, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

Hello. We just wanted to give a quick greeting and tell you we enjoyed reading your

material. Thanks from...
http://spaces.msn.com/members/lesbian-sex-slave/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/mature-lesbian-sex/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/teen-sex-clip/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/teen-sex-thumb/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/gay-sex-toy/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/gay-sex-com/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/man-oral-sex/
http://spaces.msn.com/members/oral-sex-por/

Posted by: Jon on April 27, 2006 at 4:21 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly