The CIA's Insurgency The agency's political disinformation campaign.

Opinion Journal/WSJ ^ | 29 September 2004 | Editorial

[NavySEAL F-16]

Congratulations to Porter Goss for being confirmed last week as the new Director of Central Intelligence. We hope he appreciates that he now has two insurgencies to defeat: the one that the CIA is struggling to help put down in Iraq, and the other inside Langley against the Bush Administration.

We wish we were exaggerating. It's become obvious over the past couple of years that large swaths of the CIA oppose U.S. anti-terror policy, especially toward Iraq. But rather than keep this dispute in-house, the dissenters have taken their objections to the public, albeit usually through calculated and anonymous leaks that are always spun to make the agency look good and the Bush Administration look bad.

Their latest improvised explosive political device blew up yesterday on the front page of the New York Times, in a story proclaiming that the agency had warned back in January 2003 of a possible insurgency in Iraq. This highly selective leak (more on that below) was conveniently timed for two days before the first Presidential debate.

[NavySEAL F-16]

Yesterday's CIA leak, of the January 2003 memo, also turns out to be what the spooks call "disinformation." We're told that its ballyhooed warning of an insurgency is not among the document's key findings and occurs only in the very last sentence of its 38 pages. We're also told there is not a single mention of Zarqawi, the dominant terrorist now in Iraq, or of "the Party of Return," the name the Baath Party remnants began circulating soon after the fall of Saddam.

It's time to clean house, Porter.

[Just mythoughts]

"It's time to clean house, Porter."

I believe the leaks come from Congresscritters makes it a whole lot harder to prove.

[endthematrix]

How many "anonymous'" are there in the CIA willing to sellout with a book?

[BCrago66]

Here's the passage in that Clintonista Pillar's book - published 6 months before 9/11 - explaining that we should treat terrorism not as a matter of war but in a manner analogous to a public health problem.

The book in searchable on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0815700040/ref=sib_vae_pg_218/002-0443534-3236857?%5Fencoding=UTF8&keywords=disease&p=S07M&twc=2&checkSum=RnGlH5v6KtLpNcG%2Bx3R6HJ71Si0yH1V8jgvhQNVmnog%3D#reader-link

[Dolphy]

In a public lecture last year at Johns Hopkins University, he sought to downplay Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism. And his corner of the CIA has long claimed that the "secular" Baathists in Iraq would never do business with the fundamentalist al Qaeda.

I said the same thing yesterday. The NY Times scooped nothing, all of those arguments were on the table and part of the debate before the war. Some were baseless, but others (such as basing our national security on the belief that Saddam and bin Laden's hate for the United States wouldn't bridge their differences) were monumental fallacies that left us incredibly vulnerable.

Nevertheless, this is really frightening stuff to me. This is coming from the same organization that misjudged bin Laden and failed for years to build up its resources to combat terrorism. I can't see that this is simply a matter of partisan politics, it's something far worse than that.

[SubMareener]

He has a really long and hard row to hoe!

You are right about the leaky Congresscritters. Back when you couldn't even say NRO, there were two code names for each program. One was used inside the community, and the other was used when dealing with Congress. Which ones made it to the news? Right! The ones that were revealed to Congress.

[Tunehead54]

Read the whole article:

User: nospam@nospam.com
PW: nospam@nospam.com

---

Souce: bugmenot.com ;-)

[Casloy]

This is coming from the same organization that misjudged bin Laden and failed for years to build up its resources to combat terrorism.

I don't disagree with your fundamental point. But, I think it is unfair to pin too much blame on the CIA willingness or unwillingness to go after UBL. The strategic goals of the organization are determined by the President and the congress, through the DCI. If Clinton decided more CIA resources needed to be devoted to Bosnia or some other issue he could, through the DCI, shift funds dramatically and decimate elements such as the Counter Terrorism Center. Which in fact is what was done regularly, making it impossible for them to make long term plans. I'm not defending the CIA, and I think they need a huge overhaul, but I think, from what I have read, the DCI had been expecting an attack from UBL for a long time and was frustrated by his inability to shift priorities in that direction. A shift was made during the last year of the Clinton presidency in response to the African Embassy bombings, but it was too little, too late.

[boycott]

It's important to remember that Clinton appointed George "Slam Dunk" Tenent. In my opinion, the CIA has lost a lot of credibility.

[Travis McGee]

bttt

[onyx eyes]

Yup. I knew that, too. The clintonites and the DNC, and the people in office who were (probably paid handsomely) leftover from the previous admin. did indeed, set up the Bush Administration for a fall. They calculatedly omitted information and allowed dis-information.

[Arizona Carolyn]

IMO the first to go needs to be the little guy with the glasses who didn't want a new director before the election and was dead-set against the 9/11 commission recommendations for a director of intelligence... I'd bet money he's the one stiring the troups... isn't he another Clinton holdover???

[WOSG]

PING for later read

[Dolphy]

I don't disagree with you and have generally not attacked the CIA. Certainly the President and Congress have a great deal of responsibility. But these stray voices that attack President Bush do so as ultimate authorities and I don't think their collective record supports them.

In addition, when you start adding up these voices you begin to wonder how deliberate some of them may have been in failing to comprehend the threats. I go back to the idea that bin Laden and Saddam wouldn't collaborate because one was secular and one was a fundamentalist. The entire history of the region would say this is a weak premise, certainly not one on which to base your national security. Even recent history found the United States and bin Laden on the same side, against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Common enemies in that region have repeatedly led to unlikely alliances.

So while I agree, the CIAs record is not entirely their fault, I also believe it makes their credibility suspect.

[snuffy smiff]

I will never understand why W left so many clintonista in so many places-even Slick was bright enough to fire all the state AG's and replace them with his own toadies...
(on second thought, I suspect The Witch had much more to do with that decision than anyone really knows...)

Here's hoping he cleans house once he(hopefully) wins re-election.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I think it's the good in him that is being used against him... POTUS is too trusting of people and they keep screwing him in the process.

[beckett]

Goss should stop the practice of recruiting for CIA on the Yale campus. That would be a giant step in the direction of cleansing the culture of the organization.

[Casloy]

Which is why I fundamentally agree with you. The CIA is supposed to advise the president and provide him with the intelligence necessary to make decisions. I think the "stray voices" you mentioned are totally unacceptable and the first thing Porter Goss needs to do is make some heads roll. It's much like the military. You don't challenge a commanders orders. If you can't handle what you are being asked to do, resign.

[Niks]

Can Porter Goss really "clean house"? Isn't it very difficult to get rid of government workers?

[Just mythoughts]

"You are right about the leaky Congresscritters. Back when you couldn't even say NRO, there were two code names for each program. One was used inside the community, and the other was used when dealing with Congress. Which ones made it to the news? Right! The ones that were revealed to Congress."

Agreed. Senator Graham made his entrance onto the presidential campaign scene about "intel". Wrote that stupid book. The liberals have politicized "intel" knowing full well that the Bush administration would not and could not discuss the complete picture.

We were given the "road map" of what the liberals plan was via that leaked meme from Rockefeller's office. These liberals have never stopped following that memo.