Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, being the alliterative duo that they are, have unvailed a wonderfully wankerific waste of space that purports to cover the other side of the Mary McCarthy case. McCarthy has vehemently denied being Dana Priest’s source in her Pulitzer Prize-winning expose on the US government’s illegal CIA operated black prisons in Europe. McCarthy was fired last week, but no charges were pressed against her and she does not appear to be in danger of being indicted for leaking national security secrets.
Mazzetti and Shane go through the motions of explaining McCarthy’s justifications for her innocence and the high probability that the CIA will not bring any charges against her, all of which would contribute to the idea McCarthy was being fired for political purposes, not for any tangible guilt. Yet after all of this Mazzetti and Shane decide the logical source for a rebuttal of their intense investigatory work is none other than Rush Limbaugh.

The case has increasingly taken on distinct partisan coloring. Ms. McCarthy gave $2,000 to Senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, and conservative commentators suggested that Ms. McCarthy had deliberately tried to sabotage President Bush’s policies by leaking to the news media.

In his Monday broadcast, Rush Limbaugh, the radio personality, called Ms. McCarthy a “Clinton person” and part of a “shadow government in opposition,” suggesting that she was one of a number of C.I.A. officers who had worked against the White House. “When we’ve said that the C.I.A. was at war with the White House, we were more right than we knew,” Mr. Limbaugh said.

First, why is Limbaugh a source for the New York Times in an article on a national security leak?  Why is he a source for anything other than an expose on polygamists who are battling oxycontin addiction in the paper of record? Limbaugh is a Republican partisan with no expertise in national security matters, legal analysis, or the intelligence community’s internal investigations.

Second, Shane and Mazzetti don’t rebut any of Limbaugh’s absurd claims, so I will. McCarthy worked for the CIA since 1984; she was incredibly critical of Clinton’s bombing the pharmaceutical factory in al-Shifa; she wasn’t appointed to a position in the Clinton administration until 1998. These three facts, which contradict Limbaugh’s bogus claim that McCarthy is somehow a “Clinton person,” are ready-at-hand through the power of the internets. Where is Limbaugh’s proof that there is a shadow government in opposition to the Bush administration — this is a major charge that he levies without evidence; Shane and Mazzetti give it credibility and amplification by publishing it in the Times. No rebuttal, no disclaimer “Limbaugh has no proof for anything he tells his audience and it’s likely that he’s high as a kite.”

Limbaugh’s accusations have been commonplace since McCarthy’s firing. Glenn Greenwald writes:

Not only was Mary McCarthy branded a traitor all weekend — complete with angry protests that she was not yet imprisoned — but anyone associated with her was all but branded a traitor as well. They don’t need to wait for evidence or know any facts. The administration has branded her An Enemy, so now it’s time for the punishment. That is just a microcosm of the same distorted, indescribably undemocratic and plainly un-American dynamic that hss guided most of the radical policies of this administration for the last five years.

Far be it from the New York Times to try to distance themselves from these spurious accusations and anti-democratic policies that define the Bush administration and their defenders.

Third, in the first paragraph quoted above Shane and Mazzetti write about the case having “distinct partisan coloring.” Of course, their choice to publish the unsubstantiated and absurd accuations of Rush Limbaugh against McCarthy furthers the partisan tone. The outgrowth of partisanship should correctly be tied to the fact that McCarthy was fired by Porter Goss despite denying her guilt and having many colleagues vouch for her innocence. The whole purpose of this article is to show that just because Bush and his cronies say you’re guilty, it doesn’t mean you are.

Lastly, let’s not forget what this case is about. Dana Priest published an article that did no damage to national security while informing the general public of how the Bush administration is breaking the law.  Whether McCarthy was one of the whistle blowers in the illegal prison case or not, the government has no right to hide its illegal activities. From AP:

Stephen Kohn, chairman of the National Whistleblower Center, said he believe McCarthy could have a strong case to contest her firing.

“If she was blowing the whistle on something that’s illegal, it’s our position you cannot classify the illegal conduct of government. You can’t say that’s a secret,” Kohn said.

Mazzetti and Shane prove yet again that the Times has adopted the editorial philosophy of “If a Republican says it, it must be reported.” Last month, David Kirkpatrick published a GOP hit piece on Feingold’s censure measure that cited Rush Limbaugh four times, making him the article’s primary source. It was a shocking reproduction of Republican talking points that furthered the “Democrats can’t win on security” / “Democrats can’t get organized” memes while offering no critical analysis of Democratic advances against an historically unpopular president. Apparently Kirkpatrick’s article wasn’t an exception, but is fast becoming the rule for the Times’ coverage of political events.

If anyone ever sees a Times article on domestic politics that cites Al Franken, Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, or Ed Schultz as a source, please let me know. And I’m not talking about articles that are about them specifically, but as an actual source in a story entirely unrelated to radio and television programming, ratings, or comic critiques of politicians. Rush has become a regular Times source for political analysis, but something tells me we’re going to have to wait a long time before one of our professional aggitators is gave the same credence in a mainstream political article.