Posted on 10/26/2005 11:29:49 AM PDT by davidtalker
One of the most difficult concepts to deal with in this CIA leak affair is the notion that CIA is full of Libs. Libs that would undermine this Administration. Most of us have, long ago, understood this existed in the State Department. But the CIA?
We know the history of the war on US intellegence services by Libs. Sen. Frank Church's Committee in the mid 70's eviscerated much of the agency. When I was in college (60's and 70's)they would run around yelling "CIA off campus."
My first inkling this was not as it seemed was listening and then viewing Tom Braden as he'd debate Pat Buchanan on radio in DC then on CNN. Braden, a Lib, was a CIA operative. Now we begin to see a great deal more of this phenomenon.The post 9/11 CIA seems to be at war with this Adminstration. The release of "Imperial Hubris" during the campaign by CIA agent Michael Scheuer was a blatant attempt to defeat Bush. Now, of course, we see the obvious Bush hate from Plame and Wilson in what some have said was a trap laid by the CIA to bring down this White House.
Freepers who have worked for the agency. I'd love to know are these people "rogues?" Or is the dominant culture. When did these Leftists begin their internal takeover? Your thoughts would be much appreciated. Thanks.
A friend from my weekend running club is retired Agency. He once said to me with a straight face that the Dems in Congress saved Latin America in the 1980s. Huh????
I'd have to say dominant culture, to the point that the CIA supported the Wilson/Plame gambit from start to finish.
Wilson is an old 60s leftist radical. Thirty years ago, he couldn't have gotten a security clearance, and marrying him would have killed any CIA NOC case officer's career.
Personally, I believe that the State Department should be also, but that's just me.
They recruit from leftist colleges you get what you pay for.
State and Justice are full of career homo leftist.
Unnnngghhh... If true, just tell me where to report for my forearm tattoo and re-education camp. Game over. (Being Mr. Pessimist today)
DiGenova, in a conversation with columnist Cliff Kincaid of the conservative group Accuracy in Media, pointed to the oddness of the event that got the current scandal rolling: The recommendation from now-unmasked CIA agent Valerie Plame that her husband, ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson, be sent on a trip to Africa to check out reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium for its nuclear weapons program from the country of Niger.
"It seems to me somewhat strange, in terms of CIA tradecraft," DiGenova said, "that if you were really attempting to protect the identity of a covert officer, why would you send her husband overseas on a mission without a confidentiality agreement, and then allow him when he came back to the United States to write an op-ed piece in The New York Times about it."
Another angle worth investigating is the CIA's own possible use of leaks. When columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame's identity, someone leaked the news that the CIA sent a referral to the Justice Department seeking an investigation. The referral was classified, writes Stephen Hayes in The Weekly Standard, and anyone who divulged it would have been breaking the law.
So who leaked the referral, and why doesn't the CIA refer this matter to Justice, as it did the Plame matter?
Hayes raises the possibility that the leak came from within the CIA and that the CIA's lawyers "are reluctant to call for an investigation for fear of what such an investigation might reveal."
There's one reason the CIA has been so ineffective for so long:
Because they're so completely out of touch with reality.
It's hard to give the President an accurate assessment of our enemies' capabilities when you see everything through Lib-colored glasses.
Absolutely. Kincaid has called this a carefully laid trap to bring down their adversaries in the Bush White House. You can definitely see the plausibility. One thing is certain. We have agencies at war with each other at a time of war. Other than that things are swell.
Couldn't our Pres. just fire them all and replace them with more trustworthy individuals?
BTW, doesn't it make you crazy to see the Libs scream about the Administration jeopardizing the cover of a CIA agent at time of war? Most of them despise the CIA. Most of them never admit we are at war. Then to whine the Bush Administration deliberately "outed" and patriotic undercover agent in the midst of a war. Sickening.
Trustworthy in the "loyality to the party" sense; or trustworthy in loyality to the truth sense?
Agree with what you said and all the points made on this thread.
I would only interject the following.
Bush realized this about a year ago hence the nomination and eventual confirmation of Porter Goss with the mandate to clean the rats out of the nest.
Ever since there has been a lot of squealing coming out of Langley so Goss must be having some degree of success.
So it only makes sense that those with the most to lose by the new Goss regime are going to try to exact their degree of revenge.
It might have been Bill Casey but anyway an old Washington hand said that when you become president you have to get your people in top positions in both Justice as well as CIA. Bush did not do this in 2001 (he might not have had the clout back then, who knows). But he didn't do it and here's where we are now.
Again another factor in the mix is where is GHWB (former CIA director) in all of this? It's a power play of truly Shakespearean proportions.
Looks like that's what he had in mind when he sent Goss to the CIA to clean house. Only problem is Goss finished his investigation of who needed to be broomed and then turned it over to congress recommending nobody be fired because it would be bad for morale. Better to have the administration brought down in a coup than cause the lefties to have a bad hair day!
"They recruit from leftist colleges you get what you pay for."
Bingo. The CIA is filled with analysts who in college majored in international studies, languages, etc. and most of these people did not go into these majors thinking that one day they would work for the CIA. I personally find it difficult to believe that many leftist radicals would want a job at the CIA but I am certain that the desk jockies at the CIA are filled people who are certainly left of center.
FWIW, I have a friend who worked (as a civilian) for a branch of the military doing research. He is a commited liberal and he said that he was very pleasantly surprised to find that the people in the group he was working were pretty much all very liberal. Surprising perhaps, but this is what is being turned out of our universities today. There are very few people graduating with advanced degrees from our universities who do not lean to the left.
There is a difference in the kind of officer who advances in peacetime, and the kind who advances in wartime.
I would imagine the same phenomenon would exist in an intelligence agency.
In peacetime you might be recruiting people with advanced degrees in Medieval French Literature. In wartime you might prefer someone learned Pashto while smuggling guns to the rebels.
Unless the people with the Medieval French Literature degrees have gotten control of the whole recruiting system and no longer value anything else, in which case you need to burn the whole thing to the ground and start again.
Sounds like a company fixxin to fold.
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.