Posted on 07/09/2006 10:41:27 PM PDT by FairOpinion
I think you're absolutely right.
And it's those Clinton holdovers.
Michael Scheuer, head of the CIA's bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999 who recently quit the agency in order to be free to criticize the intelligence community, said that CIA higher-ups had given him permission to speak to the media anonymously to "bash the president." Authorized or not, the result of the steady flow of leaks was the same. Bush was portrayed as incompetent and his policies disastrous. CIA-friendly reporters, eager to keep their sources happy, stuck to the agency line.
On Saturday, November 13, 2004, the escalating dispute over leaking was leaked to the Washington Post.
The top advisers Goss had brought with him from the Hill, according to the Post, were "disgruntled" former CIA officials "widely known" for their "abrasive management style" and for criticizing the agency. One had left the CIA after an undistinguished intelligence career and another is known for being "highly partisan."
On Wednesday the 17th, the New York Times ran a front-page story about an internal memo that Goss had sent agency employees. The headline and lede set the tone. "New CIA Chief Tells Workers to Back Administration Policies," were the words atop an article that began: "Porter J. Goss, the new intelligence chief, has told Central Intelligence Agency employees that their job is to 'support the administration and its policies in our work,' a copy of an internal memorandum shows."
John Roberts, anchoring CBS Evening News, wondered aloud, "What went wrong?" A Boston Globe editorial claimed the Goss "purge" was likely the "settling of partisan scores rather than an effort to introduce genuine accountability."
A CIA spokesperson criticized the Times account of the memo, charging that Goss's words were "taken out of context." In fact, much of the rest of his statement conveyed the opposite point. "
http://tinyurl.com/f9xzf
Good article. This letter from Hoekstra just confirms what I've been suspecting all along.
Sulick and others referred to Goss’s aides dismissively as "the Goslings" and refused to take orders from them, claiming they were "political hacks" because they had worked for Goss in Congress. Many in the media jumped in, accusing Goss and his staff of conducting a "witch hunt" for firing Sulick.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R.-Pa.) believes Kappes was a disaster as head of the CIA's directorate of operations, and called him "the ringleader of an internal CIA rebellion" against Goss. "He was one of many in the CIA resistant to needed reforms."
House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R.-Mich.) said Kappes was guilty of "gross insubordination" for his behavior at the agency under Goss and complained that the administration never consulted Congress before choosing him. "You would think that on the No. 2 person they might have just said, 'Hey, what do you think of this guy,' but they never did," he told the Washington Times.
In Countdown to Terror, Weldon says Kappes point-blank refused repeated pleas -- backed by then-CIA Director George Tenet -- to travel to Paris to meet with a potential Iranian source who claimed to have intelligence on Iran’s nuclear programs and on Iran's ties to Osama Bin Laden.
Weldon encouraged Kappes to investigate the credentials of his source, but got nowhere. "Finally, Kappes threatened me too. He warned me to stop working with [the source]… Fortunately, Kappes has now resigned from the CIA."
http://tinyurl.com/ev2fr
Because liberals, Democrats, and liberal Democrats are above the law (where've you been?)
Stephen R. Kappes
http://tinyurl.com/fz4f5
Yes, they are; most of the time, but sometimes they aren't and a very few sometimes DO get their comeuppance.
Scheuer wrote a book anonymously called "Imperial Hubris" that criticized what he said was the administration's lack of resolve in tracking down the al-Qaida
It appears Hoekstra is attempting to begin the process of flushing out the RATS that undermine and jeopardize the national security interests within the intelligence community. I honestly hope that that New York Times catches some flak from the fallout.
That's not encouraging at all.
Freerepublic thread on that article:
The CIA 1--Bush 0
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1631596/posts
In the long run, in the long run.
"you glittering jewel of colossal ignorance."
LOL! As only Rush could put it!!
I understand what Hoekstra is trying to do .. I am just afraid this will not play out well
We don't have the media on our side .. heck, there a bunch on our side that haven't been on our side as of late
My fear is this will just be another Bush Bash and the real problems will be over looked .. yet again
It is unfortunate that the media is working against us (both as Americans and Conservatives) and the interests of this country (every single one of us, including the moonbat liberal neighbor we all know and loathe). It is also unfortuante that national security has become a political football for some.
Those on our side who seize upon every opportunity to engage in Bush-bashing are nothing more than shallow disruptors.
We both know that if it were a Democrat president, the New York Times would be defending the leaks as a "need to know" because they see it as their job to inform the public about the government, and at the same time, defend the Democrat president from all the criticism coming from the "hicks and hayseed idiots out there in fly-over country".
And the punishment for treason is ???????
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.