Skip to comments.Dissident CIA faction 'exposed'
Posted on 07/09/2006 10:41:27 PM PDT by FairOpinion
A high-ranking Republican congressman has exposed what he sees as a dissident faction within the CIA that he says "intentionally undermined" the policies of US President George W Bush.
Rumours about the existence of such a group have circulated in the US capital for a long time, but the comments by Representative Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, marks the first time they were confirmed by an official with intimate knowledge of the intelligence community.
"In fact, I have been long concerned that a strong and well-positioned group within the agency intentionally undermined the administration and its policies," Mr Hoekstra wrote in a letter to Mr Bush dated May 18, and made public today.
The CIA has refused to comment on the charge.
The document has been obtained by The New York Times and posted on its website in its entirety. Mr Hoekstra confirmed its authenticity in a television interview today, but did not elaborate on his concerns.
The allegations stem from a Central Intelligence Agency leak investigation that centred on former CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose husband, retired ambassador Joseph Wilson, made a 2002 trip to Niger to check on reports that Iraq had secretly tried to purchase uranium ore there.
The Bush administration had used those reports to accuse the government of then-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein of trying to secretly build a nuclear arsenal, charges that were used to justify the March 2003 US-led invasion of the country.
Ms Plame's name was disclosed to the public in July 2003 by conservative columnist Robert Novak after her husband accused the Bush administration in a newspaper article of "exaggerating the Iraqi threat".
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former chief of staff for Vice President Richard Cheney, was indicted in connection with the illegal blowing of the cover of the secret agent.
Copy of Hoekstra's letter (it's pdf, so give it some time to load)
Excerpt from his letter (on page 2):
"There has been much public and private speculation about the politicization of the agency. I am convinced that this politicization was underway well before Porter Goss became the Director. Is fact, I have been lung concerned that a strong and well - positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies. This argument ie supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an orgauizatioin that prides iteelf with being able to keep secrets."
Step One: Check Larry Johnson or Michael Scheuer's contacts.
One has to wonder if they are slimy clinton holdovers or simply "lets get the French to like us" State Department types...
A lot of people have been waiting for this to float up. It ain't no big surprise; but public acknowledgment of it is tantamount to saying its 'out of control.'
The Bush administration had used those reports to accuse the government of then-Iraqi president Saddam Hussein of trying to secretly build a nuclear arsenal...
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
It was another report by the British we used in the UN ? Do I recall correctly?
Hopefully, Negraponte still has the lie detectors cranked up over at that place.
In this month's issue of The Limbaugh Letter, Rush wrote a very strong article about the "Shadow Government": "Writhing and squirming under Democrat rocks, you'll find a rats' nest of Clinton holdovers and malignant leftist fellow-travelers, bent on running the show. ... "Circles within circles, incest upon incest - one might even call it a vast leftwing conspiracy. But it's important to remember that there's a single purpose behind all of it: to sabotage this Commancer-in-Chief who believes in, and uses, American power."
And Rush quoted this ... "The Bush Administration has unabashedly sought to enhance the powers of the executive branch as it wages what it calls a 'war on terror', many of whose components are classified secrets ... Labeling something 'classified' or important to 'national security' does not make it so ... [T]he definition of 'national security' is elusive".
"You get that? What the Bush Administration calls a "war on terror". It is a war on terror, you glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. And if you don't know what national security is, then shut the hell up."
"The drive-by media is blissfully supporting an unelected regime of treacherous snakes. In a time of war - that's war, not "war" - those in this anti-national-security shadow government hold a dagger to the American heart."
"It's time for them to redeploy. And, in the spirit of John Murtha, I have no objection to Okinawa." I JUST LOVE IT WHEN RUSH TELLS THESE PEOPLE OFF!! LOL!!!
Only the bit about consultation with the committee was mentioned on the Foxnews Sunday show.
I wonder if this will ever become even more interesting, with names named and people put on trial for the insidious cabal that they are.
I have come to the belief that, despite his service to the DO, Mr. Kappes may have been part of this group. I must take note when my Democratic colleagues - those who so vehemently denounced and publicly attacked the strong choice of Proter Goss as Director - now publicly support Mr. Kappes's return.
Most interesting letter...
Thanks for the ping Howlin. I hope that this gets some attention.
Your wondering is over. The answer is no.
Stephen Kappes, the former deputy director of operations at the CIA
resigned in protest against Goss's attempt to terminate the CIA's long-running war against the Bush administration, fought mostly via leaks to Dana Priest and her colleagues at the Washington Post; Priest, you will recall, wrote the bizarre story about secret CIA prisons in Europe
The incident that directly led to his resignation occurred in November 2004, shortly after Mr. Goss took over at the agency. Patrick Murray, who was Mr. Goss's chief of staff, ordered Mr. Kappes to fire his deputy, Michael Sulick, after Mr. Sulick had a testy exchange with Mr. Murray.
Mr. Kappes, who at the time was in charge of the C.I.A.'s clandestine service, refused and chose to resign instead.
According to Stephen Hayes...
On November 5, Goss's new chief of staff Patrick Murray confronted Mary Margaret Graham, then serving as associate deputy director for counterterrorism in the directorate of operations. The two discussed several items, including the prospective replacement for Kostiw, a CIA veteran named Kyle "Dusty" Foggo. Murray had a simple message: No more leaks.
Graham took offense at the accusatory warning and notified her boss, Michael Sulick, who in turn notified his boss, Stephen Kappes. A meeting of Goss, Murray, Sulick, and Kappes followed. Goss attended most of the meeting, in which the two new CIA leaders reiterated their concern about leaks. After Goss left, Murray once again warned the two career CIA officials that leaks would not be tolerated. According to a source with knowledge of the incident, Sulick took offense, called Murray "a Hill puke," and threw a stack of papers in his direction.
Goss summoned Kappes the following day. Although others in the new CIA leadership believed Sulick's behavior was an act of insubordination worthy of firing, Goss didn't go quite that far. He ordered Kappes to reassign Sulick to a position outside of the building. Goss suggested Sulick be named New York City station chief. Kappes refused and threatened to resign if Sulick were reassigned. Goss accepted his resignation and Sulick soon followed him out the door.
ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross, guest-hosting the Charlie Rose show Monday night, interviewed former deputy CIA director John McLaughlin. Ross said that people he had spoken with "said that the selection of Kappes indicated the purge that Porter Goss had attempted was over, that it was back to business as usual as it had been 20 months ago." Ross asked McLaughlin: "Is that accurate?"
McLaughlin praised Kappes and replied, "Yeah, I think--I think that's basically an accurate assessment."
So it's business as usual at the CIA. The White House took on the Agency. And the Agency won.
How do you know and why not?
Good guess, friend.
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.