CIA Purge

[2GOLD 0]

They used to shoot traitors.

Traitors to the country. Not "traitors" to the politicians.

 

Giving the enemy intel is a crime, being a left/right winger with a government job is normal, as far as DC goes.

Where was the outrage in 1994 when this happened?

-=Mike

That doesn't make it okay now.

 

I think Mike is pointing out the hypocrisy in this.

 

Obviously, it is not ok but you have some (keyword: some) right now who are using this as proof of the evils of the Bush adminstration.

 

Completely ignoring that the opposing party did it during the adminstration of one of the best Democratic Presidents ever is a little hypocritical.

Ok but I would hardly classify one article on this as "Outrage" I don't see this story on the nightly news, and being covered 24/7. It was one article that was posted here on the messageboard, doesn't sound much like Outrage to me. So in 1994, I am willing to bet you could dig up an article on Clinton firing CIA members.

 

Actually, I went to a few other little democratic boards to see if they reacted. Some REALLY overreacted and said this is the first step in the Nazi Bush regime.

 

Course, the extremist react to anything which is why I said some.

 

Not all, most realize this is a dual problem or a non-issue.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

 

Here's another article on the CIA/Bush squabble. It's damning of both sides, in my opinion.

[Guest Cerebus]

You guys are missing the point. What good is an intelligence agency that fights the President tooth and nail? We might as well go back to the USSR and see how the Politburo dealt with an upstart KGB the way we're heading.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You guys are missing the point. What good is an intelligence agency that fights the President tooth and nail? We might as well go back to the USSR and see how the Politburo dealt with an upstart KGB the way we're heading.

I agree that the CIA should work with the President. But if that means cherry-picking intelligence to conform to preconceived views--that might be going to far.

[Guest Cerebus]

You guys are missing the point. What good is an intelligence agency that fights the President tooth and nail? We might as well go back to the USSR and see how the Politburo dealt with an upstart KGB the way we're heading.

I agree that the CIA should work with the President. But if that means cherry-picking intelligence to conform to preconceived views--that might be going to far.

You're full of shit. I don't know what garbage you've been reading that put that in your head, but read this to start off.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

You guys are missing the point. What good is an intelligence agency that fights the President tooth and nail? We might as well go back to the USSR and see how the Politburo dealt with an upstart KGB the way we're heading.

I agree that the CIA should work with the President. But if that means cherry-picking intelligence to conform to preconceived views--that might be going to far.

You're full of shit. I don't know what garbage you've been reading that put that in your head, but read this to start off.

Whoa there, chieftain. No need for hostility. I'm not saying either side in this conflict is without fault. I was just making reference to the previous article.

A powerful "old guard" faction in the Central Intelligence Agency has launched an unprecedented campaign to undermine the Bush administration with a battery of damaging leaks and briefings about Iraq.

 

The White House is incensed by the increasingly public sniping from some senior intelligence officers who, it believes, are conducting a partisan operation to swing the election on November 2 in favour of John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, and against George W Bush.

 

Jim Pavitt, a 31-year CIA veteran who retired as a departmental chief in August, said that he cannot recall a time of such "viciousness and vindictiveness" in a battle between the White House and the agency.

 

John Roberts, a conservative security analyst, commented bluntly: "When the President cannot trust his own CIA, the nation faces dire consequences."

 

Relations between the White House and the agency are widely regarded as being at their lowest ebb since the hopelessly botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by CIA-sponsored exiles under President John F Kennedy in 1961.

 

There is anger within the CIA that it has taken all the blame for the failings of pre-war intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes.

 

Former senior CIA officials argue that so-called "neo-conservative" hawks such as the vice president, Dick Cheney, the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and his number three at the defence department, Douglas Feith, have prompted the ill-feeling by demanding "politically acceptable" results from the agency and rejecting conclusions they did not like. Yet Colin Powell, the less hardline secretary of state, has also been scathing in his criticism of pre-war intelligence briefings.

 

The leaks are also a shot across the bows of Porter Goss, the agency's new director and a former Republican congressman. He takes over with orders from the White House to end the in-fighting and revamp the troubled spy agency as part of a radical overhaul of the American intelligence world.

 

Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman who left with the former director George Tenet in July, acknowledged that there had been leaks from within the agency. "The intelligence community has been made the scapegoat for all the failings over Iraq," he said. "It deserves some of the blame, but not all of it. People are chafing at that, and that's the background to these leaks."

 

Fighting to defend their patch ahead of the future review, anti-Bush CIA operatives have ensured that Iraq remains high on the election campaign agenda long after Republican strategists such as Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser, had hoped that it would fade from the front pages.

 

In the latest clash, a senior former CIA agent revealed that Mr Cheney "blew up" when a report into links between the Saddam regime and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist behind the kidnappings and beheadings of hostages in Iraq, including the Briton Kenneth Bigley, proved inconclusive.

 

Other recent leaks have included the contents of classified reports drawn up by CIA analysts before the invasion of Iraq, warning the White House about the dangers of post-war instability. Specifically, the reports said that rogue Ba'athist elements might team up with terrorist groups to wage a guerrilla war.

 

Critics of the White House include officials who have served in previous Republican administrations such as Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA head of counter-terrorism and member of the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan.

 

"These have been an extraordinary four years for the CIA and the political pressure to come up with the right results has been enormous, particularly from Vice-President Cheney.

 

"I'm afraid that the agency is guilty of bending over backwards to please the administration. George Tenet was desperate to give them what they wanted and that was a complete disaster."

 

With the simmering rows breaking out in public, the Wall Street Journal declared in an editorial that the administration was now fighting two insurgencies: one in Iraq and one at the CIA.

 

In a difficult week for President Bush leading up to Friday's presidential debate, the CIA-led Iraqi Survey Group confirmed that Saddam had had no weapons of mass destruction, while Mr Rumsfeld distanced himself from the administration's long-held assertion of ties between Saddam and the al-Qaeda terror network.

 

Earlier, unguarded comments by Paul Bremer, the former American administrator of Iraq who said that America "never had enough troops on the ground", had given the row about post-war strategy on the ground fresh impetus.

 

With just 23 days before the country votes for its next president, both sides are braced for further bruising encounters.

[Guest Cerebus]

Don't take it personally, when talking about military matters my language gets foul real quick. Call it habit.

 

All due respect to Vince Cannistraro, he's been out of the buisness for a good 10+ years. Counter-terrorism in his time was a different animal than it is now and while he likely has more connections and contacts in the agency than you could shake a stick at...which is precisely why you should take everything he says with a big ass grain of salt.

 

The SSCI exposed a lot of bad shit going on in the CIA. No they didn't (supposedly) get it wrong on "WMDs" because they were pressured (had you read the SSIC conclusions you would have discovered that yourself) but because they ALREADY KNEW they were there. It had nothing to do with Bush, it had to do with what the SSCI called (and I think this is a great term) "groupthink" mentality. Oh and bullying other intelligence agencies and refusing to share information. Hell, when I was in the DIA we usually called CIA agents 'squirrels" since they horded EVERYTHING. Trust me, trying to wrangle up ANYTHING from them was like wrestling a male gorilla during mating season.

 

My point? Ditch the newspaper son and read the primary documents. You'll thank yourself for it later.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Thanks. Good advice.

 

 

But the documents are soooo boring.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Except the yellowcake story was TRUE.

 

Can you tell me more about this. I read otherwise.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/09/...ain562312.shtml

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Cerebus, I have a question.

 

Do you think the Intelligence Community's "collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing WMD program" (the groupthink dynamic) could have been reinforced by what Cannistraro referred to as "the [enormous] political pressure to come up with the right results"?

 

Obviously, the actions of Saddam in dealing with inspections played a large role in developing this presumption.

[Guest Cerebus]

Look at the date. July 8, 2003.

 

Remember the advice I gave you? Maybe you should follow it and read the Senate Intelligence report conclusions:

 

Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents2 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.

 

Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's [That would be Wilson -Cerebus] trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

 

(U) Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.

 

(U) Conclusion 15. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations should have taken precautions not to discuss the credibility of reporting with a potential source when it arranged a meeting with the former ambassador and Intelligence Community analysts.

 

(U) Conclusion 16. The language in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.

...

Conclusion 21. When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC official to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Oh, I thought Mike meant that Saddam actually did try to buy the yellow cake. I already knew that it was just a mix-up. I thought maybe something had come out later that it did actually happen.

[Guest Cerebus]

Cerebus, I have a question.

 

Do you think the Intelligence Community's "collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing WMD program" (the groupthink dynamic) could have been reinforced by what Cannistraro referred to as "the [enormous] political pressure to come up with the right results"?

 

Obviously, the actions of Saddam in dealing with inspections played a large role in developing this presumption.

I seriously doubt it. Knowing what I do about civillian intelligence agencie s in general, and the CIA i n particular, it was more of a prenotion. We believe that this is true therefore we will PROVE its true damn it! Of course that's the tip of the iceberg but I guess that answers your question.

 

Of course, don't take my word for it: (I think this is the third time I've linked this)

 

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

 

(U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Hehe...sorry I didn't get that far. I got bored. Man, you're like a teacher with the reading and the learning.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Sorry to keep badgering you. But do you think the people who said that the Bush administration was pressuring the IC were disgruntled employees and the like?

[Guest Cerebus]

But do you think the people who said that the Bush administration was pressuring the IC were disgruntled employees and the like?

 

Yes I do. Never forget that the CIA has ALWAYS had its own agenda which used to consist of covering their asses. But, more so than any other parts of the government including the military, the CIA has the unique ability to stamp "Confidential" or "Secret" on almost any dirty laundry and prevent the public from knowing their own fuck ups. That's bad enough. Now the CIA has its own political agenda. As the Budweiser frogs once said, "This can't end well."

 

Man, you're like a teacher with the reading and the learning.

 

Heh, yeah. I should note here that I NEVER watch TV news (with the exception of Sunday morning talk shows), listen to NPR on occasion, and am a subscriber to Jane's Intelligence Review, the Washington Post, the New Republic, and the Weekly Standard. That's as close to the Mainstream Media as I get. The vast majority of my information, though, comes from blogs (some I highly recommend about these types of issues are Intel Dump, Mudville Gazette, Winds of Change, and DefenseTech.org). Does this sound uppity and elitest? Maybe, but I don't give a fuck. When it comes to defense & intelligence matters, the only newspaper worth picking up is the Washington Post (and many times even they fuck things up). The reality is, you have to get good at being able to read the key parts of primary documents. No spin, no summary, no Dowdification, just pure first-hand info at your fingertips. That's why I get REALLY pissed off when people post things here, and many other boards, acitng like they're experts because they took an undergrad political science class and watch CNN or read Newsweek.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

the New Republic, and the Weekly Standard

 

Nice balance.

 

You have inspired me. I am going to aim higher in my pursuit of news and turn off the television. What do you think of the Economist? I just sent off for a subscription.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You guys are missing the point. What good is an intelligence agency that fights the President tooth and nail? We might as well go back to the USSR and see how the Politburo dealt with an upstart KGB the way we're heading.

The intelligence agency works for the country, not the President. It's expected from time to time there'll be Presidents not everybody gels with.

 

And in response to the "Clinton did it, too" shit: Well I'm sorry, I was kind under voting age and not paying that much attention to politics back then. I don't ever remember saying Clinton was flawless, but if you can point out an occasion I'd love to see it.

[Guest Cerebus]

 

Hate to sound like Mike, but disagreeing with the President is one thing. Actively leaking confidential information, revising reports, and releasing "insider accounts" in an effort to bring him down is a completely different animal.

 

And, frankly, to quote the Rock, I don't give two barrels of monkey piss what Clinton did or didn't do. The CIA is not an elected branch of government, hell its not a branch of government at all. What right do these clowns have to damage MY security, the security of my family, and the security of all Americans so they can damage the reputation of a president they don't like?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hate to sound like Mike, but disagreeing with the President is one thing. Actively leaking confidential information, revising reports, and releasing "insider accounts" in an effort to bring him down is a completely different animal.

Hello, welcome to what I said on page 1. Although "insider accounts" I don't really have a problem with. Anyone can be an "insider." My sister's cousin's brother twice removed's aunt's husband knows somebody who knows somebody who has coffee with somebody at the intelligence firm, I swear!

[Guest Cerebus]

I don't mind insider accounts either, but this is one of the few "insider accounts" that the CIA gave their full blessing on. Coincidence? Ask Victor Marchetti.