The WaPo coverup continues

David Broder does his part to throw off the scent on the Mary McCarthy CIA leack matter.

...

The firing of McCarthy, a veteran intelligence officer who had held sensitive administrative posts, came after CIA Director Porter Goss and his White House superiors had ordered an intensive crackdown on leaks to the press.

McCarthy had already initiated steps toward retirement and was apparently only days away from ending her career when she and others were asked to take lie detector tests -- and then she was dismissed.

For the first few days after the action was announced, the agency and the White House let stand the impression that McCarthy had been a source for the stories about secret U.S. detention centers in Europe that won a Pulitzer Prize for The Post's Dana Priest on April 17. But when McCarthy's lawyer said she had no part in that transaction, CIA officials confirmed that was the case -- leaving it unclear exactly what she had done to bring down the punishment.

...

Isn't that clever and disengenious at teh same time? As Confederate Yankee points out:

...

That is a demonstrably false assertion by Broder, and I’m calling him out on it.

Via the NY Times:

The Central Intelligence Agency on Tuesday defended the firing of Mary O. McCarthy, the veteran officer who was dismissed last week, and challenged her lawyer's statements that Ms. McCarthy never provided classified information to the news media…

A C.I.A. spokeswoman, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, said: "The officer was terminated for precisely the reasons we have given: unauthorized contacts with reporters and sharing classified information with reporters. There is no question whatsoever that the officer did both. The officer personally admitted doing both."

And from the very top of the CIA this comes from Director Porter Goss, via ABC News:

In a statement to CIA employees, [CIA Director Porter] Goss said that "a CIA officer has acknowledged having unauthorized discussions with the media, in which the officer knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence, including operational information."

The bold used in both quotes is mine. (i.e. Confederate Yankee's.)

...

Since the Post has a clear conflict of interest in this matter because of Priest's story where her paper decided it could declassifiy operations of the CIA that did not fit their political agenda, the paper needs tosay who their story is or quit trying to be misleading about what the CIA has said about Mary McCarthy.

Tim Graham at NewsBusters also challenges Broder's contention that the anonomous sources have a higher motive. Of course if that source were Mary McCarthy, her obvious Democrat leanings might imply partisan motives. This in fact goes to the heart of the problem with anonomous sources, we aren't able to judge their motives, because the reporter is witholding relevant information in order to get a story that attacks someone else.