Posted on 08/01/2006 3:30:24 AM PDT by Paul Ross
A veteran CIA operations official who clashed with former agency Director Porter J. Goss was formally named the deputy CIA director yesterday, raising concerns among critics who say he will hamper reform at the agency.
Stephen R. Kappes, who is well-liked among CIA rank and file but who is viewed as someone supporting the status quo at the embattled agency, began work yesterday in his new role, a CIA statement said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The inmates aren't just running the asylum...they have it rigged to stay in charge.
Thos who hoped Hadley represented positive change are totally confounded as he discredits himself and the Administration.
One former senior intelligence official said Mr. Kappes' appointment signals the end of reform at the CIA. "The bureaucrats have won" the battle to change the CIA, the former official said.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, recently wrote to President Bush that the appointment of Gen. Hayden as director and plans to name Mr. Kappes as his deputy "signal a retreat from needed reforms of the agency."
"Regrettably, the appointment of Mr. Kappes sends a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over," Mr. Hoekstra said in the May 18 letter.
Mr. Hoekstra said he thinks Mr. Kappes will bring problems back to the CIA including "politicization" of the intelligence service.
Mr. Kappes appears to be part of a group of CIA officials who have undertaken a concerted effort to undermine Bush administration policies, Mr. Hoekstra stated, noting that Democrats in Congress who opposed Mr. Goss publicly supported Mr. Kappes' return to the CIA. Mr. Goss resigned earlier this year.
Mr. Hoekstra said Mr. Kappes and Mr. Sulik tried to "bypass" congressional oversight committees as part of a "personal agenda."
"Every day we suffer from the consequences of individuals promoting their personal agendas," Mr. Hoekstra stated. "This is clearly a place at which we do not want or need to be."
Wow. Not surpising..but what a disappointment.
At this time in history it's vital the president have reliable intel. One wonders just who he will get it from.
I looked at the Wikipedia, and here is an excerpt from the current version of the Porter J. Goss article:
Almost immediately upon Director Goss's arrival, Steve Kappes - the Director of Operations - and his subordinates began a series of confrontations that Michael Sulick, Kappes' then-deputy, and Kappes, had with Goss and his personal staff immediately upon their arrival at the CIA. They denied the DCI's personal staff access to routine DO information, requiring them to obtain that information only after it was vetted and approved by Kappes for passage. They claimed a FOIA rationale for not providing information to the Director and his staff. They provided Goss on multiple occasions false intelligence information, only to be recanted and revised, after the DCI had already notified seniors at the White House. Kappes personally told DO officers that if they were seen or heard to be cooperating with the new DCI and his staff their careers would be over. Similarly, Kappes and Sulick refused, despite Goss's repeated direction, to deploy an seasoned officer to a critical post outside Washington in the pre-election heightened threat period. Ultimately, Kappes, Sulick, and Deputy Director John McLaughlin believed that Goss would back down and they could continue to control the Agency.
It is widely reported in the press, largely inaccurately--by the same journalists who are now touting Kappes reemergence at the CIA--that he quit the Agency rather than carry out a request by Goss to reassign Michael Sulick, his then deputy. It is also reported that this incident occurred because the chief of staff, Murray, admonished the then assistant deputy director for counterintelligence, Mary Margaret Graham (who now works for the DNI John Negroponte, and who herself disclosed the classified budget totals for the intelliegence community without any disciplinary action being applied), about leaked classified information regarding another CIA officer. According to some news reports, Sulick engaged in a shouting match with Murray, throwing papers, and using four-letter words to make his point.
What the media reports left out of these stories is that none of this actually related to Murray's conversation with Graham, but rather with Murray's insistence that Kappes and Sulick had to give up their efforts to package and design the DO's message for members of Congress and instead rely on timely, honest, and forthright provision of that information. Murray told Kappes and Sulick to stop their secretive efforts to manipulate Congress and subvert the congressional intelligence oversight process. Sulick exploded, in what is viewed as the piece d'resistance of the Kappes/Sulick power play. Sulick, a man of some measure walked over to Murray, and got up in face, and yelled "you ain't gonna [sic] treat me like some F...ING DEMOCRATIC HILL PUKE!" Sulick's spit spewing, and his index finger thrusting, the whole time.
Sulick stormed out of the Director's office, leaving Kappes standing there stoney-faced. Murray then made the point that if that was the way Sulick was going to act with the DCI's chief of staff, Kappes needed to think about reassigning him, because that sort of relationship just could not be good for the CIA or the DCI. Murray even talked to Kappes about simply having Sulick apologize for the outburst and the two of them talk through the matter. But, Sulick never did. At one point, Kappes insisted that he had complete control over Mike Sulick's every action.
A week later, Kappes and Sulick recognizing that Goss was not going to sell his staff out for the two of them, announced that they were quitting. John McLaughlin, the then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, the man who had started the whole series of events by appointing Kappes to the DDO position without consulting Goss, announced his departure just two days later. And, the media had a field day using well placed sources within the CIA and also "former" intelligence officials.
Barring any massive overhauls, it could take decades to inch the CIA back into being what we need it to be. We'd save ourselves a lot of time, money, and grief by hitting the 'reset' button and 'rebooting' our international HUMINT collection efforts, but I guess doing things the smart way just doesn't seem to be our style.
In view of the current debacle of the administration's failed attempt to clean house ...I agree. Fire the bastards.
I can't see why Bush would throw in the towel here. I thought the plan all along was to move the key intel activities over to director of national intelligence, and make the CIA into simply an almanac writing agency.
yes, but it appears we'd have to start by firing Hayden - what the hell is he doing promoting this guy?
Thanks for the ping!
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.