Posted on 09/26/2006 5:12:02 AM PDT by advance_copy
When it comes to CIA leaking, this passage from the November 10, 2005, American Prospect is interesting:
“The fact that the agency was leaking isn’t denied by some. ‘Of course they were leaking,’ says Pat Lang. ‘They told me about it at the time. They thought it was funny. They’d say things like, ‘This last thing that came out, surely people will pay attention to that. They won’t re-elect this man.’”
There are other smoking guns out there. Take NPR, more recently, on Iran. “The Pentagon has created a new desk to work on Iran policy. That worries some at the CIA, who point out that many of the new Iran-desk staffers are the same people who staffed the now-notorious Office of Special Plans in the run-up to the Iraq war.”
Forget for the fact that the “notorious” is nothing but blatant reporter bias and perhaps a fondness for conspiracy theory. The fact of the matter is that some in the CIA, rather than limit themselves to intelligence development and analysis, seek to involve themselves in the policy debate by leaking. A similar hit job was published by Warren Strobel at McClatchy—relying entirely on unnamed intelligence sources. Many reporters will publish CIA leaks without qualification or caring how they are simply viewed as dupes. To question sources or follow-up when claims prove false would mean that their contacts on their beats would dry up.
Regardless, often times the reporters’ political views coincide If John Negroponte and Pat Kennedy wanted to put an end to it, they could launch an investigation or shut-it-down. There are only two conclusions that can be drawn by the fact that they do not: 1) Either, they support the leaks to win policy battles, the so-called Armitage strategy; or, 2) They cannot control the leaks. This suggests that the bureaucracy leads them, rather than they lead the bureaucracy. In which case it is time for the White House to question their management competence.
Some of 1)... but most of 2).
Unfortunately, the bureaucracy has been playing politics forever. The first priority of the bureaucracy is to protect and expand the bureaucracy. The Richard Clarke episode creates a new inevitability: will any future President retain any senior advisors from the previous administration, regardless of seniority, expertise, even political neutrality? Can he/she afford to? How much of the CIA would have to be cleared out to eliminate the "politicos"? I'm afraid probably 50%.
mark
The sad fact is that not only are we at war with foreign terrorists, we've got plenty of homegrown ones in our own government. This administration needs to concentrate more on destroying these domestic terrorists or we'll never be able to win this war.
I know this guy. Im not surprised he wound up on the other side..
How about Rudy G for CIA chief?
Though remember Johnnie Mike Spann, first casualty in the war in Afghanistan...bitten to death by crazed savages.
There are good people at the CIA, heroes even. The leaking for domestic political purposes tarnishes true valor.
If the newsmen don't give up the leaker, then try them and their editor for treason and execute them. If they don't give up the name, then the sentence is carried out and if they give false names, the sentence is carried out. We won't find the leaker, but when when the leaker calls two other newsmen with some hot data, will they be so quick to publish if they may also be excuted.
When Clintoon left office a large number of political appointees in virtually every bureaucracy were moved laterally (and illegally) from 'political' positions to civil-service positions so the Bush admin could not get rid of them.
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.