If the entire apparatus of news-gathering were not turned on its head by "liberal-speak" in America, the recipients of the recent Pulitzers should have been forthright, genuine, nonpartisan journalists who would have uncovered the Mary McCarthy-Dana Priest- James Risen (and Wilson-Plame) connection to leaking classified, highly sensitive national security information to traitorous left wing media moguls...........for purely political propaganda purposes. However, now what we see is that the Pulitzer prize has as much validity as the Nobel Peace prize. Think Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat! I'm expecting this year's Nobel to go to Al Gore for his "courageous dedication to stopping global warming............" Cliff Kincaid, writes in Accuracy in Media on the farce of the recent awards, and suggests they should be given back:

It appears that one of the main sources of Washington Post reporter Dana Priest's dubious November 2, 2005, story about CIA "secret prisons" abroad was CIA officer and former Clinton official Mary O. McCarthy, whose firing by the agency because of her leaks to Priest and other journalists has been making headlines. She had been hired by Rand Beers of the Clinton National Security Council, who went on to serve as an adviser to the 2004 presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry. Mary O. McCarthy, identified as a "U.S. Government/analyst, " is listed in Federal Election Commission records as a financial contributor to both the Kerry presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2004.

It is truly unfortunate for Priest - and the Pulitzer Prize Board that just gave her a 2006 award for that questionable article - that these damaging revelations have come out at this time. It is another major scandal for journalism. On the other hand, those of us who suspected and warned about a secret CIA war against the Bush Administration have been vindicated. It turns out that President Bush has been fighting a faction within the intelligence community that has been working with the liberal press.

This war continues, with a Sunday CBS News 60 Minutes program about the former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, who is attacking the White House for its use of intelligence information before the invasion of Iraq.

While Judith Miller of the New York Times was condemned and ridiculed by her colleagues - and eventually forced to resign from the paper - for using Bush Administration officials as sources, the question now before the house is whether Priest will lose her job because of her partisan journalism. This will be another test of media credibility. Accuracy in Media will insist on Priest's resignation from the paper.

The case against Priest is supported by her public comments about her "sources" for the story. On November 3, 2005, during an on-line discussion of her article, Priest was asked specifically about my charge that her article reflected "the view of a faction in the agency that opposes this policy and wants to use the Post to convey its view publicly." Priest dismissed my column, saying it was laughable and that most of the CIA people she had met were George W. Bush supporters. It looks like Priest was trying her best to obscure the political orientation of her sources. What's more, her story was false. There's no evidence that there are or were any secret CIA "prisons."

While Judith Miller of the New York Times was condemned and ridiculed by her colleagues - and eventually forced to resign from the paper - for using Bush Administration officials as sources, the question now before the house is whether Priest will lose her job because of her partisan journalism. This will be another test of media credibility. Accuracy in Media will insist on Priest's resignation from the paper.

The case against Priest is supported by her public comments about her "sources" for the story. On November 3, 2005, during an on-line discussion of her article, Priest was asked specifically about my charge that her article reflected "the view of a faction in the agency that opposes this policy and wants to use the Post to convey its view publicly." Priest dismissed my column, saying it was laughable and that most of the CIA people she had met were George W. Bush supporters. It looks like Priest was trying her best to obscure the political orientation of her sources. What's more, her story was false. There's no evidence that there are or were any secret CIA "prisons."

To read the rest of Cliff's excellent article click here.