Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The C.I.A. Versus Bush
NY Times ^ | Nov. 13, 2004 | DAVID BROOKS

Posted on 11/13/2004 7:05:38 AM PST by FairOpinion

Now that he's been returned to office, President Bush is going to have to differentiate between his opponents and his enemies. His opponents are found in the Democratic Party. His enemies are in certain offices of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Over the past several months, as much of official Washington looked on wide-eyed and agog, many in the C.I.A. bureaucracy have waged an unabashed effort to undermine the current administration.

At the height of the campaign, C.I.A. officials, who are supposed to serve the president and stay out of politics and policy, served up leak after leak to discredit the president's Iraq policy. There were leaks of prewar intelligence estimates, leaks of interagency memos. In mid-September, somebody leaked a C.I.A. report predicting a gloomy or apocalyptic future for the region. Later that month, a senior C.I.A. official, Paul Pillar, reportedly made comments saying he had long felt the decision to go to war would heighten anti-American animosity in the Arab world.

White House officials concluded that they could no longer share important arguments and information with intelligence officials. They had to parse every syllable in internal e-mail. One White House official says it felt as if the C.I.A. had turned over its internal wastebaskets and fed every shred of paper to the press.

The White House-C.I.A. relationship became dysfunctional, and while the blame was certainly not all on one side, Langley was engaged in slow-motion, brazen insubordination, which violated all standards of honorable public service. It was also incredibly stupid, since C.I.A. officials were betting their agency on a Kerry victory.

As the presidential race heated up, the C.I.A. permitted an analyst - who, we now know, is Michael Scheuer - to publish anonymously a book called "Imperial Hubris," which criticized the Iraq war. Here was an official on the president's payroll publicly campaigning against his boss. As Scheuer told The Washington Post this week, "As long as the book was being used to bash the president, they [the C.I.A. honchos] gave me carte blanche to talk to the media."

Nor is this feud over. C.I.A. officials are now busy undermining their new boss, Porter Goss. One senior official called one of Goss's deputies, who worked on Capitol Hill, a "Hill Puke," and said he didn't have to listen to anything the deputy said. Is this any way to run a superpower?

Meanwhile, members of Congress and people around the executive branch are wondering what President Bush is going to do to punish the mutineers. A president simply cannot allow a department or agency to go into campaign season opposition and then pay no price for it. If that happens, employees of every agency will feel free to go off and start their own little media campaigns whenever their hearts desire.

If we lived in a primitive age, the ground at Langley would be laid waste and salted, and there would be heads on spikes. As it is, the answer to the C.I.A. insubordination is not just to move a few boxes on the office flow chart.

The answer is to define carefully what the president expects from the intelligence community: information. Policy making is not the C.I.A.'s concern. It is time to reassert some harsh authority so C.I.A. employees know they must defer to the people who win elections, so they do not feel free at meetings to spout off about their contempt of the White House, so they do not go around to their counterparts from other nations and tell them to ignore American policy.

In short, people in the C.I.A. need to be reminded that the person the president sends to run their agency is going to run their agency, and that if they ever want their information to be trusted, they can't break the law with self-serving leaks of classified data.

This is about more than intelligence. It's about Bush's second term. Is the president going to be able to rely on the institutions of government to execute his policies, or, by his laxity, will he permit the bureaucracy to ignore, evade and subvert the decisions made at the top? If the C.I.A. pays no price for its behavior, no one will pay a price for anything, and everything is permitted. That, Mr. President, is a slam-dunk.

Not that it will do him much good at this point, but I owe John Kerry an apology. I recently mischaracterized some comments he made to Larry King in December 2001. I said he had embraced the decision to use Afghans to hunt down Al Qaeda at Tora Bora. He did not. I regret the error.


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: cia; davidbrooks; goss; scheuer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last
To: Matchett-PI
[ Exactly. See #59 BTTT! ]

Porter Goss is not George Bush..
I stand by what I said.. Appeasement is not statemanship either..
"I'm a unite'er not a diveder" IS appeasment.. especially in a time of war.. Any that don't think the polarization politically in the U.S. is not WAR.. is smoking oregano.. instead of something real..

81 posted on 11/13/2004 11:11:46 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
It might be related to the management style of Patrick Murray.

I believe Patrick Murray is one of Peter Goss's top four subordinates brought over from the House to help him clean up house. He was one of those mentioned in an LAT hit piece today.It appears the liberal egos are upset at GWB's election and are going to do their best to undermine the new team.

The important thing to remember is that the Agency did all it could to interject itself into the internal affairs of this country and attempt a silent coup.

Clean house!!

As Scheuer told The Washington Post this week,

"As long as the book was being used to bash the president, they [the C.I.A. honchos] gave me carte blanche to talk to the media."

What else needs to be said?

82 posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:25 AM PST by Zechariah11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Understanding subtleties, rhetoric designed for the consumption of the masses, how things work in the "REAL WORLD", and the difference between what a prudent President should say as contrasted with what a common, intemperate citizen is free to say, isn't one of your strongest suits, is it.


83 posted on 11/13/2004 11:25:26 AM PST by Matchett-PI (All DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
[ Understanding subtleties, rhetoric designed for the consumption of the masses, how things work in the "REAL WORLD", and the difference between what a prudent President should say as contrasted with what a common, intemperate citizen is free to say, isn't one of your strongest suits, is it. ]

No.. I subscribe to the Professor Irwin Cory school of bull sperm cyptology..

"Marriage is like a bank account. You put it in, you take it out, you lose interest." -- Professor Irwin Cory

like that............

84 posted on 11/13/2004 11:49:00 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: txzman; theFIRMbss; kenth; EagleUSA; Norman Bates
"I side with those that are leaving."- txzman

"...seeing it in the New York Times, we can all be sure it's claptrap."- theFIRMbss

See # 59

"Then, when they're done there, send them over to State."- kenth

You got it!

85 posted on 11/13/2004 11:50:36 AM PST by Matchett-PI (All DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
" Understanding subtleties, rhetoric designed for the consumption of the masses, how things work in the "REAL WORLD", and the difference between what a prudent President should say as contrasted with what a common, intemperate citizen is free to say, isn't one of your strongest suits, is it." - Matchett-PI

"No" - hosepipe

But I already knew that.

86 posted on 11/13/2004 11:54:18 AM PST by Matchett-PI (All DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

"Since new CIA Director Porter Goss blocked the October Surprise agency left-wingers had prepared against Bush "


==

Thanks for posting this. If Goss blocked them, that means he knows who they are and hopefully will sweep them out.


87 posted on 11/13/2004 11:56:43 AM PST by FairOpinion (Thank you Swifties, POWs & Vets. We couldn't have done it without you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I think a shake up in the CIA is long overdue.

When Nancy Pelosi (et al) started screaming about Dubya appointing Porter Goss...
you know Dubya was doing the right thing (cleaning house at the CIA)
88 posted on 11/13/2004 11:57:50 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
[ "No" - hosepipe.. But I already knew that. ]

True.. Your smarter than me..
I 'm a reactionist thats why I voted for Bush..
Reacting to dumb vs dumber posing as a Presidential election.
You have your reasons I have mine..
Your reasons being(I suppose) being well thought and logical..prolly.
My reasons being I speak Neantherthal well..
"I'm a unite'er not a divider" is political cowardice and defeatist mouthings..
A dialect of "Read my lips, no new taxes".. and appeaseing democrats while being slapped on the back with a "NOTE" saying "FOOL" on it.. the apple don't fall too far from the tree.

And YES.. I volunteer for gallows duty to hang every democrat and RINO in Washington on the White House lawn.. and I don't need no hood to hide the smile either.. Well really I am a Neantherthal not some mealy mouthed, mouth breather.. "I'm a divider NOT a unite'er".. in Neantherthal that means "Whos your daddy"..

89 posted on 11/13/2004 12:29:02 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss

SO TRUE


90 posted on 11/13/2004 1:08:23 PM PST by camas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sociopathocracy
These are the same cilil servants who failed to see the crumbling of the Eastern Bloc as well as the attack upon our shores.

In the words of Oliver Cromwell, "You have sat here too long for the good you do. In the name of God, go!"

Yes!

91 posted on 11/13/2004 1:54:13 PM PST by demnomo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss

This op-ed in NYT was written by DAVID BROOKS (CONSERVATIVE BUSH SUPPORTER). I believe him because if you have read anything in the liberal media, the leaks bashing the President and his administration have come from the intelligence community. They were in cahoots with their liberal allies in the media who had made it their mission to defeat President Bush. Well, we all know how that turned out. They all failed, "BIG TIME".

The President had better clean house at the CIA and every other agency and let them know he will not tolerate their behavior. Only then will their insubordination stop. It looks like Porter Goss is not only shuffling chairs, but cleaning out the "rats" nest. It will make us all safer and the President will be able to do his "constituional" job better, PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. The Prez has to trust the intelligence agencies to do that.


92 posted on 11/13/2004 1:57:24 PM PST by nightowl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

The President should call in Tom Clancy and ask him to advise the new director in ways of refoming CIA. Jim


93 posted on 11/13/2004 2:02:21 PM PST by jimfrommaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
President Bush's biggest mistake was not immediately removing George Tenet who owed his entire career to the Demorats. Under Tenet's reign the CIA organized a Counter Terrorism Center that financed many leftist organizations. Guess who 2 of the biggest beneficiaries were: Dick Clark and Joe Wilson.
94 posted on 11/13/2004 2:54:40 PM PST by subrosa sam (subrosasam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

bttt


95 posted on 11/13/2004 3:05:06 PM PST by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson