Posted on 10/29/2005 2:06:03 PM PDT by advance_copy
Washington (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff is learning one Washington lesson the hard way: Don't do battle with people who run covert operations for a living. The bad blood between the White House and CIA has been known for some time. But the 22-page indictment Friday of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby displays - in black and white - just how nasty relations had become between senior White House officials and the nation's spy chiefs.
[snip]
...former CIA official Lee Strickland, who was responsible for all disclosure activities at the CIA as chief of its information review group, said he can't recall a time in his 30 years at the agency when there was so much tension with the White House.
He said the situation highlights problems with the politicization of intelligence. "You want to keep the politics separate from the intelligence," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at asia.news.yahoo.com ...
(1)We demand that the President - who Congress says in charge of the Executive bureaucracy - cannot be President for more than eight years, but we elect some Senators nearly for life.
(2)The career threads for many who are hired (not appointed - hired) for the highest non-appointed positions in the bureaucracy often lead through the heads of the staffs of the Senators and the Senators themselves. The same is true for many of the lower appointed positions that don't change as frequently as the cabinet level appointments. (Look how many Bush left on).
(3)The "permanent bureaucracy" never forgets who helped it get its jobs, who is in charge of its budget (Congress), and where its long-time political allegiences lie.
The "permanent bureacracy" is an arm of powerful factions in Congress and Presidents, with their meager eight years in office, have far less chance of shaping and influencing that bureaucracy than do the long-time Senators.
Scratch a fued between a President and part of that bureaucracy and sooner or later you'll hit a few Senators whose chief of staffs are working very closely with the fueding bureaucrats. All the more reason that RF Nixon was wrong to not have had John F Kerry tried for treason (who is on the Senate intelligence committee?).
While it is fine for bureaucrats to voice their disagreements during the process of formulating policy, they really only have two ethical ways of dealing with their own disagreements once policy is set - get behind the policy or at least do not obstruct it, or resign. To stay on the job and obstruct the policy is unethical and it should be a legal grounds for dismissal.
Dr. Laurie Mylroie....a keeper.
"If you think Valerie and her clique at the CIA are such a stellar group, please see if you can get her to answer my questions"
I never said I think the CIA is a stellar group. I think the CIA & FBI are in serious need of an overhaul (as are many other gov't agencies).
Because of my husband's job and several friends who do this type of work on various levels I'm especially sensitive to classified information being bandied loosely about. That's my basic gripe.
My personal opinion is that Libby & Rove are very smart about politics but screwed up this time. In their zeal to trash Wilson they let slip information that was classified.
As holders of top secret security clearance, they had an obligation to be absolutely sure that what hey were saying about this situation was not going to compromise national security or a CIA employee's safety....and that it wasn't classified info. No matter her status at the CIA - her identity was classified.
They should just have attacked Wilson head on. There was no need to bring his wife into it. Whether she suggested him for the trip is a small point in the big picture and even if she did recommend him I don't see how that undermines his credibility much if at all.
Apparently, there was plenty to work with in Wilson's own words that would undermine his veracity. Dragging Plame into it was just overkill IMO.
Then by lying about it they just made it look even worse. It's not suprising that some observers (and CIA agents) feel that outing Plame was pure political intimidation.
And FWIW - I'm not happy that Mr. Cheney seemed to have no problems misleading the public about this (see his Meet The Press comments). I'm also not too thrilled that President Bush originally said he'd take the appropriate action if anyone in his White House leaked classified information. Now he says anyone indicted for doing so. Rove hasn't been indicted - yet - but it's obvious that he also leaked classified info to the press.
Has anyone here ever considered that there's an innocent and logical explanation for how Wilson was chosen?
Let's turn that question around, "Have you ever considered there was not an innocent nor logical explanation for Wilson being chosen?
Of course! Duh! Everyone on this board has explored that possibility. I'm just allowing that it could have been as simple as her telling a superior that he was qualified & available to go. Someone higher up than Valerie Plame okay'd his trip so someone pretty high up also felt him qualified.
I don't know that there's much proof that Plame was against Bush's policies. And I'm suprised at Wilson's partisanship considering Poppy Bush seemed to think pretty highly of him.
I wonder if Wilson became a zealous anti-Bush partisan only after he felt that he'd been unfairly attacked and his wife's career ruined.
And yes - I do wonder why he was allowed to write an op-ed piece in the NY Times and why he wasn't under some sort of confidentiality agreement. I'm even-handed in my position against releasing classified info.
So my question is....why hasn't the Republican-controlled congress investigated that issue?
Political ties
Wilson was a supporter and donor to the Kerry/Edwards campaign for the presidency. In 2000, he donated to Vice President Gore’s campaign. In the mid-eighties, Wilson worked for Gore as a congressional staffer. He has made contributions to the campaigns of Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. He has in the recent past spoken to activist groups like Win Without War, which is a part of MoveOn.org.
However, he also donated $1,000 to George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign and $1,500 to Rep. Ed Royce's (R-CA) 2000 reelection campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson
In 1991, Wilson's book jacket boasts, President George H.W. Bush praised Wilson as "a true American hero," and he was made an ambassador. But for some reason, he was assigned not to Cairo, Paris, or Moscow, places where you put the best and the brightest, nor was he sent to Bermuda or Luxembourg, places you send people you want to reward. Instead, he was sent to Gabon, a diplomatic backwater of the first rank.
After that, he says in his memoir, "I had risen about as high as I could in the Foreign Service and decided it was time to retire." Well, that's not exactly accurate either. He could have been given a more important posting, such as Kenya or South Africa, or he could have been promoted higher in the senior Foreign Service (he made only the first of four grades). Instead, he was evidently (according to my sources) forced into involuntary retirement at 48. (The minimum age for voluntary retirement in the Foreign Service is 50.) After that, he seems to have made quite a bit of money — doing what for whom is unclear and I wish the Senate committee had attempted to find out.
But based on one op-ed declaring 16 words spoken by the president a lie, he transformed himself into an instant celebrity and, for a while, it seemed, a contender for power within the chien-mange-le-chien world of foreign policy. That dream has now probably evaporated. It is hard to see how a President John Kerry would now want Wilson in his inner circle. But if he desired to return to Gabon or Niger I, for one, would not be among those opposing him.
Our Man in Niger
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp
Lady Jag probably is a secret agent for some keyboard factory.
What is so funny is how that picture upsets the apologists on FR. The ones, who are as upset as the liberals that Fitzy didn't nail Karl Rove.
That's a very good question, and I'd like to know the answer also.
I do not think Wilson "became a zealous anti-Bush partisan only after he felt that he'd been unfairly attacked and his wife's career ruined." IMO, he was anti-Bush when he wrote the untruthful Op-Ed piece for the NYT. Wilson was not unfairly attacked, and his wife only has herself and Wilson to blame if her career has been ruined. She 'outed' herself to him after only 3 or 4 dates, and his craving publicity is what has hurt them. They didn't have to pose for pictures in Vanity Fair, nor did she have to attend public meetings and have him introduce her as his wife 'whose career had been ruined'. She could have remained private, but I've read it was known in social circles in DC what her position had been prior to 1997 when she returned to the States....thanks to her husband's mouth!
Perhaps your being a bit harsh. Then again, I did not wade through these threads so better be carefull. Have a good one.
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.