Investigate The CIA

Investors.com ^ | 10/24/2005 | Editorial

[Jim Robinson]

While the Bush administration hunkers down on indictment watch, Congress should take a look at political — and possibly illegal — activity by agenda-driven intelligence operatives.

Whatever fate befalls White House adviser Karl Rove, Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby and any other administration official caught up in the prosecution over the leaked name of a CIA officer, there's a back story to this case that should not be ignored.

It's about the CIA itself.

This is a story that most of the media will be trying hard not to cover. They share former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's stated desire to see Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "frog-march" Rove out of the White House in handcuffs.

So Congress should leave the media no choice. Hold hearings. Put the CIA on the spot and blow the lid off any politically motivated funny business. Bring some transparency to what has become a very murky issue.

We believe that someone needs to answer the questions raised recently by Joseph F. DiGenova, a former federal prosecutor and independent counsel:

Was there a covert operation against the president?

If so, who was behind it?

These aren't the musings of the tinfoil-hat brigade. A sober-minded case can be made that at least some people in the CIA may have acted inappropriately to discredit the administration as a way of salvaging their own reputations after the intelligence debacles of 9-11 and Iraqi WMD.

[Jim Robinson]

""It seems to me somewhat strange, in terms of CIA tradecraft," DiGenova said, "that if you were really attempting to protect the identity of a covert officer, why would you send her husband overseas on a mission without a confidentiality agreement, and then allow him when he came back to the United States to write an op-ed piece in The New York Times about it."

Here's what Robert Dreyfuss, a columnist for the liberal American Prospect, has to say:

"For liberals and leftists accustomed to viewing the CIA as a rogue agency prone to unaccountable covert actions abroad, it is ironic that since 9-11, the CIA has emerged as a bastion of opposition to George W. Bush's imperial foreign policy."

As long as that's just an outsider's opinion, no problem. But if people within the CIA now see their role in that light, then the country is headed for real trouble."

[Bahbah]

I hope that the anti-American faction in the CIA has shot itself in the foot this time, but I just don't know. Does Porter Goss need a bigger, meaner broom?

[TalBlack]

"Was there a covert operation against the president? "

This is the sort of question that if you are asking it you have answered it.

This President may only have himself to blame. Instead of coming in with a new broom he left in place far too many people in fad too many depts. loyal to ideas and ideologies other than his own.

It is not a bad idea for an new exeutive to sweep clean prepatory to leading. After all who CAN he lead if he has enemies to his goals and interests in the ranks?

[cricket]

"While the Bush administration hunkers down on indictment watch, Congress should take a look at political — and possibly illegal — activity by agenda-driven intelligence operatives."

Could/would. . .should; by every measure.

Sad to say, see NO one, going there.

[Casloy]

There are two house committees that do nothing but oversee the workings of the Agency. If you think Republicans on those committees would allow the Agency to sabotage the presidents foreign policy, then you also have to believe an investigation would produce no results anyway. It is absurd for DiGenova to ask a question and then provide the answer. The fact is, the Agency has no right to stop anyone from writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times and unless he divulged classified information he is not subject to censure by the CIA. The results of a fact finding mission are not classified. Wilson is a moron and it was stupid to send him, but that doesn't mean anyone is sabotaging Bush's presidency.

[alnick]

I have written my congress critters asking them to look into this. My Republican ones anyway. I'm afraid there will be no investigation unless we demand one. Please everyone take a moment to write your senators and congressmen.

[Archon of the East]

Clearly there are multiple elements in CIA,many fine people but some with personal agendas some IMO with subversive orders. A good enema is what they need to give them a "fresh" start.

[alnick]

Sad to say, see NO one, going there.

I agree. That means WE have to go there. WE have to demand this of our senators/congressmen. :-)

[Publius6961]

As long as that's just an outsider's opinion, no problem. But if people within the CIA now see their role in that light, then the country is headed for real trouble."

The problem is not new. Some time during the late 80s-and90s strange things happened which defy belief in a normal world.
Specifically, lack of accountability at any level. It seems to be the final evolution of the old line, "presidents come and go, but the bureaucracy lives forever." That better change.

There seems to have evolved a bureaucratic arrogance of no accountability. The laws to protect individuals has preempted the laws to protect the presidency, Congress and the National interest. It better stop.

Can anyone name the individual or small group responsible for allowing bin Laden to escape? The lawyer who single-handedly decided that the aircraft ready to attack should not attack?
How many serious national security leaks have been obvious in the last 10 years? How many individuals are serving jail time?

Have there been any hearings at any level to redefine and revive not only the concept of treason, but its punishment? I can't believe that the U.S. has PC'd itself into virtual and ultimate impotence, and its own laws become its own worst enemy.

[cricket]

"I agree. That means WE have to go there. WE have to demand this of our senators/congressmen. :-)"

Well true. . . perhaps first, easier to plant some seeds on c-span. . .bring it to Fox News (Hannitiy/O'Reilly. . .somebody. . .) and Rush; and then perhaps our men in Washington might be better inclined to listen.

Perhaps Free Repubic and some of the major. . .and minor. . .bloggers could blaze a quick trail here as well.

That said. . .(?)

[veronica]

The CIA it appears is akin to the State Dept., which has always had factions that would by nature be anti-Bush. Scary development...

[Alia]

There's a catch-22 the liberals play: 1.) Can't investigate the CIA and because of "National Security" -- something may be breached. ("Gorelick's Wall, e.g.,). 2.) Throughout 80s and 90s, liberal professors at colleges were demanding (via web) that the CIA be out of the colleges (e.g., no "cia" recruitment at colleges).

When in fact, if one does the research, one finds that it was predominantly US liberal Academics flying into Iraq for "intel gathering" under the banner of "human shields".

NO CIA AT COLLEGES? Like, pull the other one, it's got bells...

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

bttt

[magua]

We must ask who stands to gain from these leaks? One group keeps coming up, the clintons.If rove and libby are charged it may not be such a bad thing.A wakeup call for us and the white house.We are in a real war with the clintons.Mr. nice guy hasn't worked.Some times rove is a little too cute for my taste.The white house must find people who going to play at the same level as the clintons.

[STARWISE]

DITTO .. fumigate those moles and other partisan, self-serving confederates once and for all.

[Publius6961]

The results of a fact finding mission are not classified. Wilson is a moron and it was stupid to send him, but that doesn't mean anyone is sabotaging Bush's presidency.

Prior to and during WW2 there was a famous "prize-winning" columnist, who was subsequently proven to have been in the payroll of the Soviet Union for a generation or more. For the New York Times, I think. I never read any of his stuff, which was way before my time, but I don't think he ever said,"Russia Keeps sending me these checks and I have to earn them, and here's what I think..."

I would expect he wrote more along the lines of your statement.

[advance_copy]

The fact is, the Agency has no right to stop anyone from writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times and unless he divulged classified information he is not subject to censure by the CIA.

They would have every right to stop it had Wilson been required to sign a non-disclosure agreement. That he did not sign one raises alarms. You cannot clean the toilets at Langley without an NDA. Yet the CIA sends this guy to Africa in an effort to acquire intelligence on Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons efforts, and he is allowed to write about it in the NYT? Something is rotten about this and it sure smells like an operation to influence American politics, something the CIA should never ever ever be allowed to do.

[alrea]

some people in the CIA may have acted inappropriately to discredit the administration as a way of salvaging their own reputations after the intelligence debacles of 9-11 and Iraqi WMD.

IBD hits another one out of the park.

Career government workers derive their income from eliminating their competition.

[nuconvert]

"there's a back story to this case that should not be ignored. It's about the CIA itself."
"Investigate the CIA"

EXACTLY!!

[Archon of the East]

I agree with that. The Clintons did more to "arrange" government in their favor than anyone else in history, even more than the overrated socialist FDR. They successfully put into place many elements in the Judiciary, DOJ and State dept. It stands to reason that they also successfully implemented their own personal agents in the CIA or at least "converted" them. It is definitely time to get dirty and I believe it would rally the base as most of the discouragement stems from a lack of guts and willingness to fight back. If the GOP is not going to stand up for themselves then we can do very little.