Replies

Peter King has Wilson & the CIA nailed...

snip

We were entering into a new and dangerous war and the president did not want to disrupt the national security leadership - so he reaffirmed his support of CIA Director George Tenet and no heads were made to roll.

Unfortunately, the CIA has not seen fit to return that loyalty - either to President Bush or to the national interest.

Consider the following:

# In the spring of 2002, when the CIA was coming under increasing scrutiny for its pre 9/11 failures, a memo was leaked suggesting the CIA had warned President Bush of the terrorist attacks more than a month prior to 9/11 and that he failed to take any action.

The resultant political firestorm succeeded in diverting attention from the CIA. It took several days to realize that this supposed warning consisted primarily of a 3-year-old intelligence report indicating that terrorists might hijack planes to obtain the release of prisoners and that no time frame was given.

# In May and June of this year, when weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, CIA sources began to leak that Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials had pressured its WMD analysts prior to the war, causing them to inflate their estimates, though these estimates were almost identical to those of previous years.

# In July of this year, Wilson charged in print and in repeated TV appearances that President Bush had lied to the American people in his State of the Union speech when he said the British government had learned that Iraq was attempting to purchase enriched uranium from Niger for its nuclear program. Wilson claimed he was basing his allegations on a secret mission to Niger he had carried out for the CIA last year.

The Wilson incident raises troubling issues and serious concerns. Why did the CIA entrust a non-CIA man with such a sensitive assignment? Wasn't the CIA aware that Wilson opposed the Bush policy in Iraq? How extensive was Wilson's investigation? Why didn't the CIA take action against Wilson when he went public against Bush and revealed the details of his mission?

Why didn't the CIA point out that Wilson's investigation never addressed what the president said in his State of the Union speech, that the British source was separate from the CIA's and that the British stand by their finding to this day. In other words, that despite Wilson's posturing and outrage, everything the president said about Niger was true.

Against this backdrop, isn't the position of Wilson's spouse at the CIA a matter of legitimate concern or debate? Isn't it more significant that we have a rogue spy machine operating at cross purposes with our national interest than who said what to Robert Novak?

And how much credibility should we give to Wilson, who shows off pictures of his wife, comparing her to an actress in a TV spy drama?

America is at war with international terrorism. For us to win that war, the CIA must be focusing its attack on Islamic fundamentalists - not spreading disinformation against the elected leaders of our nation.

The CIA must be made to realize that we don't have the luxury of being at war with ourselves. For the CIA to get that message, perhaps the time has come for some heads to roll.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) represents parts of Nassau and Suffolk counties.