Former CIA agents tell RNC to shut up

AN OPEN STATEMENT TO THE LEADERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE.

We, the undersigned former U.S. intelligence officers are concerned with the tone and substance of the public debate over the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other members of the media, which exposed her status as an undercover CIA officer. The disclosure of Ms. Plame?s name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.

The Republican National Committee has circulated talking points to supporters to use as part of a coordinated strategy to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. As part of this campaign a common theme is the idea that Ambassador Wilson?s wife, Valerie Plame was not undercover and deserved no protection. The following are four recent examples of this ?talking point?:

Michael Medved stated on Larry King Live on July 12, 2005, ?And let's be honest about this. Mrs. Plame, Mrs. Wilson, had a desk job at Langley. She went back and forth every single day.?

Victoria Toensing stated on a Fox News program with John Gibson on July 12, 2005 that, ?Well, they weren't taking affirmative measures to protect that identity. They gave her a desk job in Langley. You don't really have somebody deep undercover going back and forth to Langley, where people can see them.?

Ed Rodgers, Washington Lobbyist and former Republican official, said on July 13, 2005 on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, ?And also I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don't think there's any meaningful investigation about that.?

House majority whip Roy Blunt (R, Mo), on Face the Nation, July 17, 2005, ?It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CIA might have been overzealous in sort of maintaining the kind of top-secret definition on things longer than they needed to. You know, this was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day.?

These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who ?work at a desk? in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected.

While we are pleased that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and that the U.S. Attorney General has recused himself, we believe that the partisan attacks against Valerie Plame are sending a deeply discouraging message to the men and women who have agreed to work undercover for their nation?s security.

We are not lawyers and are not qualified to determine whether the leakers technically violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, we are confident that Valerie Plame was working in a cover status and that our nation?s leaders, regardless of political party, have a duty to protect all intelligence officers. We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the Commander-in-Chief.

We also believe it is important that Congress speak with one non-partisan voice on this issue. Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs. In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor. We stand in her stead and ask that Republicans and Democrats honor her service to her country and stop the campaign of disparagement and innuendo aimed at discrediting Mrs. Wilson and her husband.

Our friends and colleagues have difficult jobs gathering the intelligence, which helps, for example, to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans at home and abroad. They sometimes face great personal risk and must spend long hours away from family and friends.

They serve because they love this country and are committed to protecting it from threats from abroad and to defending the principles of liberty and freedom. They do not expect public acknowledgement for their work, but they do expect and deserve their government?s protection of their covert status.

For the good of our country, we ask you to please stand up for every man and woman who works for the U.S. intelligence community and help protect their ability to live their cover.

Col. W. Patrick Lang (US Army retired), former Director, Defense Humint Services, DIA

Mr. David MacMichael, former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA

Note, the undersigned are from both the CIA's Directorate of Operations and Directorate of Intelligence.

Tuesday, October 7, 2003 by ABC News
A Sense of Betrayal
Former CIA Officers Are Furious About the Leaking of the Identity of One of Their Ranks

WASHINGTON - In the shadowy world of the espionage, where the truth can endanger lives, the recent leaking of a CIA operative's name has left the intelligence community feeling enraged, bitter and betrayed.

For CIA officials who put their lives at risk to serve their country, accepting a very different, very strict code of conduct under which their families are often kept in the dark about their work, the alleged leak has come as an unwelcome shock.

As the Justice Department investigates allegations that the White House maliciously leaked the name of a CIA operative, five former CIA officials told ABCNEWS' Nightline the scandal could have far-reaching consequences for American security and the international war on terror.

In an unusual criminal investigation, the Justice Department is probing allegations that the White House revealed the name of a CIA officer after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, publicly accused the Bush administration of exaggerating the case for war in Iraq.

The CIA agent was named in a column by Robert Novak in July, in what critics say is a breach of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which makes the disclosure of CIA operatives' names a criminal offence.

'Kneecapping a Star Basketball Player'

But quite apart from legal issues, ex-CIA officials warn that this case has raised fears within the agency that taking a position in opposition to the current administration could lead to an agent's outing.

"This was a political act, for the first time an agency, a clandestine officer was outed for political reasons," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer. "[It] puts fear in other people who are undercover, that if you take a position in opposition to the White House, they'll out you."

"It's kneecapping a star basketball player," said Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA intelligence officer. "You just can't perform like you did in the past."

Speaking to Nightline on condition of anonymity, with her voice digitally manipulated to avoid recognition, an undercover intelligence officer said the implications of the leak were grim.

"Just a few months ago, this administration went out of its way to tell us how important human intelligence is," she said. "We cannot find Saddam Hussein because we have no human intelligence. We cannot find Osama bin Laden because there is no human intelligence. And here you are, you have a case officer who is gathering human intelligence, who is running agents, and here you are exposing her and everyone that she came in contact with."

As an undercover agent, Mrs. Wilson's duties would have included recruiting agents overseas in order to gather human intelligence — the basic, but extremely dangerous brickwork, experts say, of intelligence work.

A Matter of Safety

At a time when Washington is waging a war on terror as anti-U.S. sentiment across the Muslim world has been running at record highs, the leaking, according to Brent Cavan, could spell dangerous times ahead.

"I think it sets a precedent that will make anyone that would consider working with us think twice about it," warned the former CIA officer. "Money, status or the prestige of working for the U.S. in those capacities won't matter because you'll wind up potentially dead."

In the secretive world of intelligence-gathering that operates above — or more accurately, below — national laws, safety is a concern that cannot be overestimated.

In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press this weekend, Wilson said he was increasingly concerned about his wife's security posture.

The U.S. government had not offered any security measures, said Wilson, adding that a leading former CIA official had said his wife "was probably the single highest target of any possible terrorist organization or hostile intelligence service that might want to do damage."

But by all accounts, experts say the gravest threats arising from the leaking could be the networks — including agents and informers — who worked for Mrs. Wilson overseas.

"For folks overseas that may have had an association with Mrs. Wilson, in certain countries, there is no real protection of law," said Cavan. "The people that have dealt with Mrs. Wilson could be picked up, interrogated imprisoned or worse and I think that was thought of very lightly here."

Analysts and Undercover Agents

While Mrs. Wilson was an undercover agent, Novak has argued in a subsequent column that the fact that she is currently an analyst does not endanger her security.

But Mike Grimaldi, a former CIA analyst, maintained that when it came to safety, the distinction between working for the CIA as an analyst or an operations officer in the field made little difference.

"In covert operations, as a case officer or operations officer, you're tasked to collect particular information," he explained. "You may not know why you are collecting that, however, an analyst, their job is to look at all of the information, so by definition, an analyst would have more information than perhaps an operations officer, which, in an overseas setting would make them more of a target for hostile intelligence services."

Echoing Grimaldi's view, Caran believed the distinction between an analyst and an operative was theoretical at best and worthless at worse.

"I don't know there is a distinction worth making," he said. "As an analyst, you are still traveling oversees — at least for temporary periods of time you need cover to operate effectively."

Politics Is Not the Point

In an election year, the political implications of the leak have received wide attention with Democrats and Republicans have contended that the case could be tainted by politics.

Republicans have charged that Wilson has worked as an unpaid adviser to Sen. John F. Kerry, offering foreign policy advice and speechwriting tips to the Democratic presidential candidate from Massachusetts. Kerry's advisers have also acknowledged that Wilson has donated $2,000 to his campaign this year.

But on their part, Democrats have noted that Attorney General John Ashcroft, who is overseeing the investigation, has had a long political relationship with President Bush's senior political adviser, Karl Rove.

According to Wilson, it was Rove who condoned the leak and directed reporters to it after it appeared in Novak's column.

But according to former intelligence officials, the Wilsons were not in breach of any CIA codes of conduct. The issue, they insist, is not politics but a grievous leakage that could have disastrous consequences for the people involved as well as the nation.

"The fact [that] you walk in the front door of the CIA does not mean you lose your political rights in this country," said Grimaldi. "The point is, it shouldn't be an issue for anyone."

The most disturbing issue for former CIA officials who put their lives at stake to serve the nation, often not even telling their families about their work, the latest incident comes as a low blow.

"It's really unfathomable," said Grimaldi. "I never thought in those sorts of terms before, but your own government, your own administration, the people that you are working to protect, come out and throw you out like that, it just — it breaks your heart."

CIA Wants Bush Investigated

01/24

Decorated CIA veterans have demanded that Congress hold the Bush White House accountable for exposing undercover agent Valerie Plame.
Following is the full text of a letter sent by former CIA officers to House Speaker Dennis Hastert on Tuesday, calling for a congressional inquiry into the Valerie Plame case.

**

Dear Mr. Speaker:

We, the undersigned former intelligence officials in the U.S. intelligence community, request that you launch an immediate, bipartisan congressional investigation into who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other members of the media that exposed her status as an undercover CIA officer. The disclosure of Ms. Plame's name was an unprecedented and shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, has damaged U.S. national security, specifically the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.

While we are pleased that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and that the U.S. Attorney General has recused himself, we believe that the Congress must send an unambiguous message that the intelligence officers tasked with collecting or analyzing intelligence must never be turned into political punching bags. We believe it is important that Congress speak with one voice on this issue. Moreover, the investigation must focus on more than simply identifying who leaked this information. We believe it is important for Congress to help the American people understand how this happened and take a clear stand that such behavior will not be tolerated under any administration, Republican or Democrat. A thorough and successful congressional investigation of this crime is necessary to send a clear signal that the elected representatives of this government will not accept nor ignore the political exploitation of the men and women in our intelligence community. A professional, thorough investigation will also help boost the weakened morale of our intelligence personnel and renew their confidence and trust in the elected leadership of the country.

Our friends and colleagues have difficult jobs gathering the intelligence which helps, for example, to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans at home and abroad. They sometimes face great personal risk and must spend long hours away from family and friends. They serve because they love this country and are committed to defending the principles of liberty and freedom. They do not expect public acknowledgement for their work, but they do expect and deserve their government's protection.

For the good of our country, we ask you to please stand up for every man and woman who works for the U.S. intelligence community by immediately launching a congressional investigation.

Sincerely yours,
Larry C. Johnson, former Analyst

Joined by:
James Marcinkowski, former Case Officer
Michael Grimaldi, former Analyst
Brent Cavan, former Analyst
Dr. Marc Sageman, MD, Ph.D., former Case Officer
James A. Smith, former Case Officer
John McCavitt, former Case Officer
Ray McGovern, former Analyst
Ray Close, former Analyst
William Wagner, former Case Officer

This letter from former spooks points up a vexing problem for conservative administrations trying to manage foreign policy: both the CIA and State Departments have sizable left-liberal factions.

This has a long history going to World War II, and the OSS under "Wild Bill" Donovan that led to the post-war CIA. In those days, the CIA was very much a gentleman's enterprise, with many if not most agency operatives coming out of Ivy League colleges. Working in "the company" was considered a glamorous and patriotic thing to do. The same goes for the State Department.

Vietnam changed all of that. Hundreds of CIA officers were sent there, and many went reluctantly. Over time, the VC/NVA thoroughly penetrated the Saigon station, using low-level Vietnamese like drivers, clerks, maids, and prostitutes. Every one in town knew the CIA residences on Cong Ly Street, and many, many officers enjoyed the sybaritic pleasures of the Pearl of the Orient. This led to some incompetent, corrupt officers hanging on to o long, and to disgust among others.

The huge CIA-directed "Phoenix Program," run by Saigon Station Chief Bill Colby, used local Vietnamese assassins to excecute somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 VC cadre, many of whom were no doubt killers themselves. Still, the program led to many guilty consciences within the CIA. (Imagine the stink if the CIA mounted such a program against "insurgents" today in Iraq.)

During and after the Vietnam, recruitment of Ivy League elites into "the company" evaporated, and has never resumed.

By the end of the war the CIA's station chief in Saigon--Tom Polgar--who was himself an East European, was outwitted by Polish and Hungarian operatives on the so-called International Commission of Control and Supervision. Intelligence leading up to the collapse of the Saigon regime in 1975 was disastrous.

Fast forward to the US Senate's "Church Committee" hearings in 1973 in which the agency's top secrets, the so-called "Crown Jewels" were publicly exposed. This severely damaged morale. Then came Jimmy Carter, and his disastrous choice for CIA Director, Admiral Stan Turner. Turner hated the swashbuckling operators of the Operations Directorate, the case officers (spy handlers who recruited and handle local agents) and fired hundreds of them. Turner turned the Agency toward reliance on "technical means," like signals intelligence and spy satellites like the revolutionary KH-11 satellite, which was itself later compromised. The result: the agency's ability to collect "humint" through clever case officers suffered greatly and has yet to recover, although there is a big push on to fix that problem. It takes years and years to acquire the required language skills and put case officers out into the field under non-official cover.

Then, in the 1980s came Central America, and the agency's often bungled handling of the "contra" war against the communist Sandinista in Nicaragua. The operations were sometimes ludicrously incompetent because the contract agents and case officers were second and third rate people who had not been washed out in earlier purges.

Larry Johnson, who wrote this letter we're talking about, was such an operator in Central America.

Bottom line: Most of the 11 former spooks who signed this letter are bitterly disillusioned people, some of them incompetents. Others less so, but still bitter that their advice was ignored.

Finally, a word about attitudes of State and CIA offices who serve in the Middle East. A retired senior officer tells me that--almost without exception--spooks and diplomats who serve in Arab countries and even in Israel come back "pro-Arab." This is because a) they develop sympathy for their downtrodden, hapless Arab clients, and b) they believe that Israel's powerful Washington lobby manipulates US policy in favor of the Jewish state. The phrase "neo-cons" is code for "the Jews" and for Israeli lobbyists. After a point, these diplomats and spooks develop emotional attachments to their Arab friends, in some cases are paid by them, so that they lose the capacity to stand back and look at the big picture. That is: after decades of sleeping with corrupt Arab regimes, we must now fix as best we can several Middle East countries, which is what Bush is trying to do, although it will take much blood, pain, money, and decades to do.

In short, these CIA rogues are in many ways complicit in their failures of analysis and intelligence disasters, yet they take out their frustrations on the man who is trying to fix the problem, George Bush.

Larry Johnson (CIA) and Joe Wilson (State) are both prime examples of incompetents who are doing this.

This is why Dubya has assigned Porter Goss to clean up the mess at CIA, and John Negroponte as National Intelligence Director to pull it all together. Both are very good men, and we should wish them success.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.