Last Saturday and Sunday The Washington Post published two articles, with a total count of 2,192 words, about Sarah Palin’s emails. The Post had said in advance it wanted the help of the public in getting to the bottom of what was in them. I told The Daily Caller this was an example of a paper desperate for a Republican scandal and willing to exploit cheap or free labor. But if you get what you pay for, the Post got what it deserved. Palingate fizzled out.
But in the spirit of public service, which the Post is apparently encouraging, my friend and associate Trevor Loudon and I have dug into the background of CIA director and Secretary of Defense nominee Leon Panetta. It’s too bad that we didn’t have this material assembled before now, but better late than never. The evidence shows that Panetta had a close and personal relationship with a member of the Communist Party by the name of Hugh DeLacy, whose record included meeting with communist espionage agents. By any objective standard of journalism, this should be big news. But the question now is whether the media, liberal and conservative, will take time off from Weinergate to pay attention and examine the evidence.
Rather than have boxes of material dumped on us, as happened in the case of Palin, we have researched hard-to-find Congressional hearings, conducted interviews and examined clippings from decades ago, university archives and the Congressional Record. It’s the kind of reporting that Bob Woodward of the Post was known for during Watergate. Of course, the target then was a Republican President and former Congressman who had made history by helping to smoke out a Soviet agent in the State Department by the name of Alger Hiss. When the targets are prominent liberal Democrats, the media lose their passion for investigative reporting. As far as communists go, to even consider them a threat is “McCarthyism” to many in the media and not worthy of any attention at all.
This is why, however, we are supposed to have congressional panels from the Senate and House—and security agencies like the FBI—to conduct such background probes. Yet, we find no evidence that the Panetta-DeLacy relationship was ever examined by the FBI or the Senate when Panetta was being considered and confirmed for the post of CIA Director. The major media have been even more derelict, content to cover the Panetta hearings for Secretary of Defense in a cursory manner and then turn their attention back to something that is easier and more fun to cover and which is sure to attract interest—Weiner. You can bet that the Democrats would rather talk about Weiner than one of their own, a former Democratic Congressman turned CIA director, who is neck-deep in a scandal involving his relationship with a communist agent and an espionage ring.
It is an open question whether the Senate will take a look at this evidence now that Panetta is up for another sensitive post and senators have to act on his confirmation.