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.
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.
That's because the Agency did not require Wilson to sign a confidentiality agreement. The Agency paid for Wilson's trip to Niger and he reported first back to them. The question is whether Wilson ever cleared his editorial with the Agency to ensure that he was not divulging any classified information.
Wilson is not the only example of Angency-sanctioned rogue behavior. They allowed Michael Scheuer's anonymous publication of a book, Imperial Hubris, in July 2004. The book was clearly written to have an impact on the 2004 elections.
Current and former CIA employees who write for publication (books, articles, novels, letters to the editor) must submit to the agency for pre-publication approval anything that might touch on agency business.
John Hollister Hedley, who chaired the CIA's Publications Review Board for three years in the late '90s, writes in the CIA's Studies in Intelligence that tougher restrictions apply to current CIA employees than former ones. The PRB will block former employees from disclosing classified information that might damage national security, but as a matter of policy it doesn't throttle opinions that may cause the agency discomfort or embarrassment. A tougher three-part test exists for current employees. The agency can "deny permission to publish statements or opinions that could impair the author's performance of duties, interfere with the authorized functions of the Agency, or have an adverse impact on US foreign relations," Hedley writes. Surely Scheuer's forceful opinions in Imperial Hubris trigger one or two of these three trip-wires,