Posted 2:38 PM by steve

So, according to the New York Times, when Mary the Traitor didn't like something while Clinton was in office, she 'played by the rules', registering "her complaints through internal government channels".

But that seems to have not been the way she dealt with things she didn't like after she returned to working at the CIA in 2004, was it?

Which makes me wonder, if she (again, according to the NYT), left the CIA shortly after Bush took over in 2001, perhaps in part because she "was regarded with suspicion and was gradually eased out of her job as senior director for intelligence programs", then why would (1) she have come back to the CIA, and (2) why would those who regarded her "with suspicion" have agreed to not only have her come back but to serve in such a critical position?

As someone who contributed money to the Kerry campaign and worked at the liberal-leaning CSIS, she probably wasn't a big fan of what the Bush Administration was doing in the War on Terror. Was her coming back, as some on the right are suggesting, part of some Sandy Burger-ish plot to undermine Bush? Is this why she took a position with the CIA's Inspector General, a position where she would be optimally positioned to learn - and leak - a lot of what the CIA was doing in support of Bush's War on Terror?

And, if it was her plan to undermine Bush and the CIA, was she supported by those still employed at the CIA? Who signed off on her return?

UPDATE: I am pulling back from the allegation that 'her' contributions make her to be a Kerry stooge and/or against Bush. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't, but I've decided to wait for more evidence.

|