Posted on 09/29/2004 5:05:54 AM PDT by JesseHousman
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Goss was appointed because he is a partisan and recognizes that the CIA needs housecleaning badly!
The State Department should be on the list too!
Yes, and those klintoon holdovers who disrupt operations need canning. Especially Phlame(Coveret my Butt) and any of her bosom buddies. Cancers need surgical removal othewise they spread out of control. Today at the CIA there is a new Sheriff in town Peter Goss. We ask the Sheriff to do his job for the national securtiy of America.Bush/Cheney 2004
Clinton admin appointed only their "guys" to any type of counter-intel -- this served to effectively squash, IMHO, balanced Intel. Bush Admin has done well to rebuild counter-intel; in turn, this is serving to highlight who in Intel, domestic, is leaking classified data to "whom"; and for what purpose.
I think Goss knows this well. It's going to be an ugly darned job. I have no doubts it will be accomplished; but in the meantime, prepare to hear squeals from the early "alert" system -- THE MSM.
Thanks, but I'll stand with Mr. Goss.
---snip---
Keep in mind that none of these CIA officials were ever elected to anything, and that they are employed to provide accurate information to officials who present their policy choices for voter judgment. Yet what the CIA insurgents are essentially doing here, with their leaks and insubordination, is engaging in a policy debate. Given the timing of the latest leaks so close to an election, they are now clearly trying to defeat President Bush and elect John Kerry. Yet somehow the White House stands accused of "politicizing" intelligence?
None of this is surprising in the case of Mr. Pillar, who is also trying to protect his own lousy track record in misjudging the terrorist threat. Around September 11, he had the misfortune to write a book that rejected the "war" metaphor for counterterrorism, comparing it instead to "the effort by public health authorities to control communicable diseases."
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. Tell that to Abu Musab al Zarqawi and the Baathists now cooperating in Fallujah.
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.
The document's after-thought sentence reads: "In addition, rogue ex-regime elements could forge an alliance with existing terrorist organizations or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare against the new government or coalition forces." We highlight that phrase about "existing terrorist" groups because critics of the war like to claim that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war; now we know that in January 2003 even the CIA said there were.
Notably, too, the leakers of this document somehow overlooked the many predictions it made that did not come true. Those include: sectarian violence, seizure of the oil fields in the north by Kurds and in the South by Shiites, a humanitarian and refugee crisis, and the possible use by Saddam of "chemical or biological weapons against his own people and coalition forces." Worst of all, the document anticipated that the Iraqi police and regular army could be relied upon to provide order in Iraq after the invasion. Deputy Director John McLaughlin personally assured Mr. Bush on this one--which we now know to be a mistake as large as predicting that finding Saddam's WMD would be a "slam dunk."
Our point here isn't to assail everyone at the CIA, which includes thousands of patriots doing their best to protect America. But clearly at senior rungs of the agency there is a culture that has deep policy attachments that have been offended by Mr. Bush, and these officials want him defeated. American voters need to understand this amid this election season. As for Mr. Goss, his task is to tell the Pillars of Langley to shut up--or quit and run for office themselves.
Who was the Clintonisa who said, "It'll take them years to undo what we've done..."
Not just the WH vandalism, but the whole government.
LOL, good tagline.
This article makes a lot of sense...and is very important to understanding today's politics
There is a simple solution for this one - Donald Rumsfeld for Secretary of State. It wouldn't take long for the housecleaning to start with Rumsfeld in charge.
First order of business:NO ROAD TRIPS FOR RELATIVES
Absolutely
This is what we're up against..and of course all citizens should be MADE aware of it by the MSM - but it won't happen.
Total agreement with you on the State Dept. and CIA.
Don't these gooberment employees at CIA sign a something that legally keeps them from blabbing when they get their TOP SECRET or CRYPTO clearances?
I "borrowed" it from a Freeper, because it was too good to get lost in one of the thousands of Sunkist Kerry posts.
"Sunkist" is courtesy of Laura Ingraham this morning.
Considering the actual makeup of the 9/11 commission, Gorelick, BenVeniste and Kerrey, to be precise, I am amazed at the content of the actual document that came from it.
Is the Bush team the best at headfaking in the whole world? or is what got published just luck? I do not believe that luck is primary in any result.
Only problem is all those HOUSE CLEANED OUT will be all over MSM blabbing the butts off
^^^^
Thus the axiom, keep your enemies closer.
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.