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.
Um, both?
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."
Stephen Hayes...
So it's business as usual at the CIA. The White House took on the Agency. And the Agency won.
http://tinyurl.com/ke2ba
How do you know and why not?
bttt
Good guess, friend.
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 ???????
How do you know he hasn't got sting operations in motion?
I've long been of the opinion that a lot more goes on that's kept from us by the usual channels i.e. the media. When the President wants air time for anything, even to speak to the nation they just about make him get on his knees and kiss their feet. Never before has a President been covered by the press and media so little as GWB. They do everything in their power to shove everything he says and does into the background and cover it up with some trivial matter, unless of course they can make a huge scandal against him out of it, then they drag it on forever, spin everything and lie.
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".
Novak never published a name, but alluded cryptically to her in mentioning the curious fact Joe Wilson's wife got him appointed to do the field survey. That's all. The MSM filled in all the blanks....and it is THEY who published her name.
Hmm. Makes me wonder about Gen Hayden's plans for CIA reform. I believe Hayden to be a brilliant and ethical man with excellent leadership and managment skills and have to disagree with Hoekstra on his nomination.
But... Why would Hayden embrace a viper (Kappe?) as his deputy? I do not believe General Hayden is naive about the political inner workings at CIA. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer? Kappe is being unfairly portrayed by Hoekstra? Goss's "goslings" may have been as annoyingly prissy and inept as CIA career people perceived them to be?
There is more to this story...
You got that right. The GOP has political reasons for not going for the jugular. They need the Dem threat to keep conservatives unified within their tent.
Meanwhile, the Democrat communist scum is allowed to exert influence in DC while the political game is played out. Even in a time of war- sickening!
Michael Schuer was, at one time, an interesting figure. When he first went public, I was fascinated by what he was saying, but as time went on, it became clear that he had a slimy agenda. Now, he's just another traitor.
You mean "complaints" about non-consultation. After Hastert's hissy-fit over the Jefferson search, it's increasingly difficult to take any congress critter's complaints about Administration national security policies at face value.
Hoekstra complains about politicization of the CIA, and the resultant leaks on one hand, and the WH failure to inform the Congress of some programs on the other. He fails to mention the very strong possibility of some of these leaks originating in Congress (Jay Rockefeller, where are you?) He admits the glaring weakness of the CIA (for which Congress has oversight), but complains that the NID has appropriated too much of the disfunctional CIA's responsibilities.
Is Hoekstra genuine in his concerns, or is the goal to deflect attention from the failings of the good ol' boys club in an election year?
It's become almost impossible to judge where political grandstanding ends and sincere concern for national security begins.
Kappe is being unfairly portrayed by Hoekstra?
Just a thought, Maybe they don't like each other. I know it sounds sophomoric, but sometimes that's what it comes down to
(I reserve my God given right to be wrong)
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.