Posted on 11/30/2005 2:32:19 AM PST by Laverne
The one part of the CIA the administration has control over is the top leadership. Obviously the administration dropped the ball here.
"John Hinderaker is a contributing writer to THE DAILY STANDARD and a contributor to the blog Power Line."
Columnist Confirms CIA Plot
By Cliff Kincaid | November 29, 2005
Let us translate this statement. Hoagland is saying that the CIA lied about the Wilson affair and used it to undermine the Bush Administration, and that the Bush Administration was no match for the liars at the CIA.
In a November 3 column in the Washington Post, Jim Hoagland confirmed that the Joseph Wilson affair was a CIA plot against President Bush. Writing his column in the form of a letter to the President, Hoagland wrote that "The hidden management of the criminal justice process and the news media practiced by spooks in Wilson-Rove-Libbygate is nothing short of brilliant. So you were right to fear the agency."
Think about that statement to the President—"you were right to fear the agency."
Here we have a columnist for a major paper saying that the CIA has been acting independently of the elected President of the U.S., and that Bush had reason to fear it. He said the CIA had engaged in "hidden management of the criminal justice system and the news media." In effect, he is saying that the CIA is pulling the strings behind the scenes, and that reporters following the Wilson/Plame storyline are CIA puppets. He went on to say that the CIA also "triggered the investigation" into the CIA leak about Valerie Wilson by itself leaking. That is, the CIA leaked to the press the fact that it had requested an investigation.
Hoagland also declared, "One lesson available in this story is that amateurs are no match for the CIA in disinformation campaigns. The spies are far better at operating in the shadows than you politicians will ever be. They have a license to dissemble."
Let us translate this statement. Hoagland is saying that the CIA lied about the Wilson affair and used it to undermine the Bush Administration, and that the Bush Administration was no match for the liars at the CIA.
So how does Hoagland propose to deal with a malicious intelligence agency? He began his column by saying, "Wouldn't a letter to the editor have sufficed?," as if a letter would have been sufficient to rebut Joseph Wilson's article in the New York Times disputing the Iraq-uranium link. Getting more serious further down into his column, Hoagland suggested that the administration could have taken on the CIA's poor intelligence on Iraq by citing "an independent stream of intelligence" from the British and others. He admits this would have generated "problems and counterattacks" from "the opposition leakers" but that "would have been better for you than aides taking it on themselves to plant stealthy suggestions of nepotism at the CIA."
Hoagland's column was an eye-opener. Here was a major columnist acknowledging a CIA covert operation against Bush using lies and disinformation. But rather than express outrage at this, or call for Congress to investigate a rogue intelligence agency, Hoagland's idea is for a different White House public relations strategy.
You've got to be kidding me.
In a column in the Wall Street Journal, appearing on the same day, Victoria Toensing said the Wilson affair was so sordid that the Congress had a duty to investigate. Toensing is a former chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration.
Analyzing the Wilson affair and the CIA role in sparking the investigation, Toensing said that "The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft." The latter was a reference to the fact that Valerie Wilson could not possibly have been a true undercover CIA operative, and if it was the CIA position that she was, then the agency's methods for concealing its agents are laughable or incompetent.
Valerie's Wilson's cover was a joke. But we still lean toward the CIA covert-operation theory. And that is why a congressional investigation is needed. Do Congressional conservatives have the courage to take on the CIA?
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/4191_0_2_0/
BFL
Porter Goss is doing a good job of cleaning out these traitors. The problem is that this is a true "Augean stable" in terms of job to be done.
The problem is that this is a true "Augean stable" in terms of job to be done.Yes, I'm sure the Great Traitor Clinton did a thorough job appointing as many anti-Americans, communists and Islamophiles as he possibly could in the 8 long years of his disastrous cigar-poked, and semen-stained rule.
It's more the attrition of good [patriotic] employees of the CIA during the 8 years of Clinton, who chose not to stay employed there. so just as with most union executives, the personnel who approve of leftist perspectives are much more likely to stay in the system and to reach the management levels of appointment.
There is very little farm team of conservative [patriotic] CIA folks.
Contolling the head cockroaches won't keep the 15 billion other cockroaches at bay...
The CIA, like almost all government agencies, has becomecorrupt and political from top to bottom. It would take a massive purge to get it clean.
Over the next three years, cleaning up the mess at CIA should be one of the top priorities of President Bush. These guys can't get anything right, except defending their little power structures.
It will take more than a "serious purge" I fear - IMO it will take the creation of a new agency, with hand-picked top staff and a loyal rank and file.
The CIA has become an independent foreign-policy making group, and as was said earlier, a few loyalists at the top cannot stop the spread of insidious leaking and disinformation coming from the disloyal ranks.
This is a story that needs to be told again and again until it gains recognition.
Yes it does. But of course, our old media will ignore this important story. It would certainly be nice if old Fitzy would address this aspect of the Plame Game, but alas, I do not think he will.
It's more the attrition of good [patriotic] employees of the CIA during the 8 years of Clinton, who chose not to stay employed there. so just as with most union executives, the personnel who approve of leftist perspectives are much more likely to stay in the system and to reach the management levels of appointment. There is very little farm team of conservative [patriotic] CIA folks.This is another reason for voting Republican, even if the Republicans aren't always as conservative as we would like them to be. When it comes to government agencies like the CIA, it will take a minimum of 16 years of a Republican in the WH to undo the damage of 8 years of the Clinton-Traitor.
Is there a reference to what Goss has actually done? I have seen nothing and at a certain point one has to become skeptical as to his effectiveness given the frequency and magnitude of these leaks.
It's interesting that Hoagland doesn't seem to believe that the truth is any defense.
Words fail bump
I hear cocaine was found in agent's underwear. Do you suppose Tom Sneddon will launch an investigation into he CIA?
Probably not nor do the Democrats. Prosecutor Fitzgerald needs to be brought before a congressional committee or before a Justice Department ‘tribunal’ for his part in this rouse. Is Harry Reid culpable in the CIA leaks? Hopefully, Porter Goss will not be bound by Politically Correct nonsense and will expose those who are/were complicit in the CIA’s disinformation program…recent remarks from the Senate Minority Leader would lead one to believe Reid either is culpable or has been duped.
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.