Tuesday, November 01, 2005
What is it about the CIA (and State)?
So what is the problem with CIA, and, in the same vein, with the State Department bureaucracy?
It's simple I think. They view US interests (amorally) as being aligned with local Arab tyrants who control the flow of oil. This is a perspective which dates to the founding of Israel, in which Truman essentially disregarded advice from the State Department and OSS/CIA and instructed the US Ambassador to the UN to lead the support for UN recognition of Israel. The CIA and State Department are bureaucracies which at the margin opposed the creation of Israel in the first place, and fight supporting it in favor of local Arab potentates at every turn. This antizionism crosses the border to antisemitism when fools like Lawrence Wilkerson then point a crooked finger at a Defense Department "Neocon Cabal" which has seized policy formulation away from the professionals at State and CIA. To be clear, when they say Neocon cabal, they mean Jews. Hollywood, Wall Street and now DC too. It is such an absurd stereotype it must be called it for what it is. It is hardly disguised code. And it fits with the characterization of Bush as dumb. The only cover they have is that neither Cheney or Rumsfeld are thought of as stupid. They, instead, are "manipulated". The Wilkersons and Scheuers and Clarkes and Wilsons/Plames mean Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. Then they accuse a small timer like Larry Franklin of leaking inconsequential information to Israeli representatives. That, folks, is the current day antisemitic equivalent of a merged "protocols of the Elders of Zion" and "Dreyfus Affair." Except the Russians and French were more effective.
So, there you go. At the root of CIA and State interference with the DOD and White House on Middle East policy is an amoral (immoral?) support for local Arab tyranny. 50 year old policy and bureaucratic support dies hard. And it takes a very thick skinned president to kill it. In this way, Bush bears an uncanny resemblance to Truman. It's not just the close election...
One man's opinion.
Timely and Ironic Update: Thanks to Instapundit, this link to A Joseph Wilson Rant from Gateway Pundit. It highlights Wilson's fixation, among other things, with his allegiance to the Palestinian cause and his distaste for Israel.
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Nov 01, 12:32:00 PM:
Just as I believe that the nomination of Harriet Miers was a shot at the "spineless" gentlemen R's who would hear the "expected" howl of their base (voters). Seems to have given them a bit of starch, hasn't it.
RE: State and CIA, we need
2006 and 2008 victories to get real clean out at these lefty bastions.
Rovian/Machiavellian plot would be to create a need for the public trial of one from our side. Then the fur will really fly, facts
like Wilson made another trip for CIA in 1999.
(please go to MacsMind for
chronology and details and
possible links to Oil for
Food)
If Libby pleas I am wrong. But I was not wrong in knowing that Miers would withdrawal within 3 days of her nomination.
And consider that GW keeps giving Abbas just about everything he asks for. "Giving enought rope
to hang himself" not only comes to mind here - but seems underlying tactic to
these three problems.
By 
TigerHawk, at
Tue Nov 01, 12:46:00 PM:
A couple of randomly related points.
First, Jewish or not, Douglas Feith is, by all accounts, both stupid and obnoxious. There are various published accounts of his behavior in the run-up to the Iraq war, some of which was extremely unprofessional (if true), and accomplished soldiers like Tommy Franks (again, allegedly) think he's a complete idiot.
Second, Ralph Peters handles this question quite differently in his book New Glory, which I recommend very highly (CP, you really need to order it and read it, which you will be able to do on any long plane flight). He hammers on the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, including Rumsfeld, very hard. He is very, very hard on Rumsfeld.
Peters is also tough on a number of the others in the group, including Doug Feith. Interestingly, he does not mention Paul Wolfowitz, who he thinks very highly of.
Third, Scheuer's book -- at least if you mean Imperial Hubris -- was not actually a novel. Perhaps you were being sarcastic. It is an important book to read. As anti-Bush as Scheuer appears on television, he is even more anti-Clinton. In this regard his perspective is quite similar to Ralph Peters, the difference being that Scheuer was (I believe) willing to give John Kerry the benefit of the doubt and Peters was not (Peters is intensely critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the war, but admits that he held his nose and voted for Bush in 2004 as the least bad alternative). Anyway, Imperial Hubris is very much worth reading.
Fourth, Richard Clarke is a blowhard and his book is lame. Against all Enemies, unlike Scheuer's book, is a partisan hack job. Clarke's book is riddled with inconsistencies and unprincipled denunciations of the Republican administrations that he worked for. In particular, he asserts that the Clinton administration was the only presidency in the last twenty five years to care about the threat of terrorism, but the text of the book reveals otherwise. It is almost as if Clarke wrote the book with some political objectivity, and then grafted on some anti-Bush paragraphs here and there to fit it within the framework of a presidential campaign.
All in all, I of course totally agree with the point that you have been making repeatedly: that the MSM has utterly failed to report the real scandal, which is that the CIA has been working to undermine the policies of the President of the United States. It is astonishing that the Left hates Bush so much that it is utterly untroubled by the idea that the CIA is attacking an elected American president. If the CIA had turned on Clinton this way the Democrats and the press would be going insane.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Nov 01, 12:53:00 PM:
One final point: Scheuer and Clarke attack the Bush administration from entirely different perspectives. Scheuer is a CIA guy all the way, and believes that the only people between American freedon and eternal enslavement are the Clandestine Service of the CIA and the United States Marines. In Scheuer's conception, everybody else is a wimp. Clarke, on the other hand, is an executive branch guy all the way, at least if he is calling the shots. He thought that the CIA and the military were a bunch of chickens, largely unwilling to go in and snatch terrorists and do other risky covert operations that Clarke thought necessary. So Clarke and Scheuer attack Bush policy from virtually the opposite points of view, a fact that was lost in the press coverage last year.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Nov 01, 04:26:00 PM:
Guys:
I love Peters. I like Rumsfeld. Peters hates Rumsfeld. Why? He's an Army guy, and Rumsfeld has been a bitch and a half to the Army. Peters wants more boots on the ground. Among other reasons. That's his beef with Rumsfeld. He's not an anti-Israel guy. Far from it. But he and Rumsfeld are on different pages when it comes to the Army and PEters hates him for it.
Scheuer is an SOB antisemite, in my view, for sure. And there's alot of that in the CIA that blurs the anitzionism thing with the antisemitic thing. His book is smart and knowledgeable, but his perspective is deeply and terribly flawed. His anti-executive perspective is very CIA. And guys like him are simply apopolectic that alot of their work over the years is being unwound. Resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan by the "mujahedeen." Undone. That whole crowd was CIA. They may hev put Osama in business originally. Saddam? In business to counter Iran. The list goes on. Old habits die hard.
Clarke is anti Bush, full stop. He'll juump on anything that helped him shoot at Bush. There is something between his BS and the Sandy Berger document scandal that I have not figured out. He is also no friend to Israel.
Ultimately, all these guys have their own agenda, but it aligns nicely with undermining the current administration's policy -- and much of the CIA momentum is antizionist to an extreme...which was after all the point of my post. A marriage of convenience is all, but definitely unholy.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Nov 01, 06:14:00 PM:
"I previously ranted that the entire Wilson Plame sham..."
< rant >
Way to make yourself irrelevant, CP. Anyone who refers to the Plame affair without recognizing the threat to national security posed by those willing to out a CIA agent, and therefore her entire international WMD proliferation operation, has made it clear that they don't take the terrorism threat seriously.
When the next terror weapon goes off in Bombay or Sri Lanka or Miami, know that it may not have happened if not for the craven politics of our current administration interrupting CIA operations designed to stop such activities.
Have your conversation about how the CIA stops the DoD and the White House from prosecuting war the way they'd like to, but please don't pretend that losing CIA operations to a political vendetta is small potatoes lest someone think you don't respect the Rule of Law upon which our democracy rests.
< /rant >
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Nov 01, 07:00:00 PM:
Precisely which CIA operation are you referring to SH? The one which prevented the 1993 WTC bombing? Or of course 9/11?
I don't believe the CIA has covered itself in glory in its mastery of the terror threat. Of course, we may differ here. I would not be shocked if that were the case. But if you're suggesting that the spouse of a former Ambassador who wrote a politically motivated op ed piece during an election year was some fabulously important covert Matahari about to bring al qaeda to its kness, well, I think Patrick Fitzgerald has debunked that concept already. Speaking of irrelevance...I do like her Audrey Hepburn look in Vanity Fair. It's so...how can I say it...covert; so secretive; so Austin Powers; yeah baby.
Enjoy the trial of Scooter Libby. It should be a real wing ding. Right up there with Martha Stewart as a trial of the century.
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed Nov 02, 09:00:00 AM:
O.K. I thought so.
Your position is that the executive branch can reveal the identities of undercover CIA operatives working on WMD nonproliferation as part of the greater GWOT.
I hope all the Republicans run on that stance.
Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, and making false statements used to be something the GOP held as contemptible offenses, but I guess it's o.k. if you're a Republican, eh?
National Security and Integrity in Government - two more things your guys won't be able to run on unless they defend our American Rule of Law.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Nov 02, 10:29:00 AM:
SH - I commented earlier that if Libby is found guilty of this stuff, he should pay. Without a hint of partisanship, they are contemptible offenses, no less so for a republican or a democrat. We aren't talking about the President currently, I would point out. And I happen to think both prosecutorial expeditions were a waste of time, and detrimental the managing the affairs of the country. I wonder if you agree.
By Gordon Smith, at
Wed Nov 02, 01:49:00 PM:
I disagree, CP. It's an egregious charge, unmasking a covert operative to avenge a political vendetta. It's important that we pursue George W. Bush's stated intention of integrity and lawfulness.
It's the Rule of Law that holds the whole system together. Without it, we're just another bunch of screaming meemies without any rules.
If maintaining the integrity of the White House is detrimental to managing the affairs of the country, then I'm not sure what kind of management we're protecting.
p.s. thanks for the civil tone
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Wed Nov 02, 02:25:00 PM:
I have to say I love the self-proclaimed "< /withering rebuttal >"
I've got to start ending my comments with those - < /brilliant point>, < /near-genius expostulation>, < /absolute truth>
That's good stuff.
< /mockery>
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Nov 02, 04:56:00 PM:
SH - she wasn't a covert agent. Fact. She has been at Langley for 6 years. Her husband wrote an op-ed piece for the NYT. They did a Vanity Fair Story. Please. There was no violation of the law with respect to outing an agent. Otherwise Fitz would have filed that charge. SO let's not go wandering off the reservation please.
My point was that, just as Clinton's perjury was unrelated to an underlying crime, so it seems that Libby's alleged perjury was also not the result f an underlying crime. That is why I would argue that both prosecutorial expeditions were a waste. By suggesting there was an underlying crime, you are either disingenuously misrepresenting the facts again, or you simply don't understand. So which is it?
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Nov 03, 11:58:00 AM:
Fitzgerald says in his report that she WAS a covert agent, and he explanded on this point in his press conference when he underscored the gravity of her being outed.
He has not yet charged anyone with outing her. Karl "Official A" Rove and the VP are still in the running for a nasty charge or two.
Far from off the reservation, I'm reciting the findings of the Special Counsel.
I wish you would stop calling me a liar, CP. Talk about disingenuous...geez.
Go read the 22 page indictment and get back to me. I'll be right here on the reservation.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Nov 03, 12:06:00 PM:
SH - nobody --NOBODY - has been charged with a violation of the IIPA. Again, you disingenuously dodge the question. Ole. You dance away from el toro again. Pacifist or partisan? That's the old question. Prosecutorial abuse or not? Akin to Clinton situation or not? Covert agent or not? Not covert, no violation.
We will all wait I guess, hmmm?
By Gordon Smith, at
Thu Nov 03, 05:21:00 PM:
Cardinalpark,
Maybe Hoolies are from Mars and Cardinals are from Venus, but it's baffling to me that you turn simple assertions into arcane rhetorical gymnasts.
Put simply:
Valerie Plame WAS covert. She had not been out of the country in more than five years, so the IIPA doesn't apply. However, the fact remains that she was a covert operative working on nonproliferation of WMD.
No one has been charged with a violation of the IIPA. Correct. But one of the most powerful men in the White House has been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Why? Who's ass is this guy covering and why?
Fitzgerald's investigation, conducted secretly, without 22,000 leaks like Ken Starr, has been nothing if not professional.
The abuse we need to be talking about is the abuse of power by those at the top. Cheney, Rove, Libby, and maybe GWB himself made it their business to attack Joe Wilson. The abuse that allows the VPs office to withhold documents from the Senate intelligence committe re: evidence of WMDs previous to the war.
This White House went to war on flimsy pretense. Then when dissent arose, they worked to smear the dissenters. In this case, they went so far as to blow a NOC. This demonstrates, if not a breach of the letter of the law, a breach of the promise to put our national security above political vendettas. It's irresponsible and it's wrong. You may legalistically duck and dodge all you like, but please stop saying that Plame wasn't covert just because she was domestically covert for 6 years. Please don't say that nobody did anything wrong only because they haven't been charged with a crime. And please stop pretending that I'm anything other than direct with you. It's tiring and obtuse.
p.s. you use the word disingenuous too much. try thesaurus.com
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Nov 03, 06:21:00 PM:
SH - Sorry. I thought disingenuous was polite. But you're right, I used it too much to describe you. I should use evasive; and fabricator; or even outright liar. I will also take more diplo lessons from TH.
We do agree on the Fitz investigation. Very professional; no leaks. I would observe equally that so was the White house - very professional, no leaks. The same cannot be said of the Clinton White House during the Starr investigation. They set a leak-fest record.- ironic ginve it was zippergate, afterall.
On abuse of power, we hopelessly disagree. Here's what I see. Mr Wilson published an "opinion" in the NYT about the "benign" nexus between Iraq and Niger. He then promptly joined the Kerry campaign as an advisor. My my. How interesting. Was this before or after Mr. Berger left the Kerry campaign in disgrace for filching documents from the National Archives. Another matter.
Furthermore, Mr. Kristof published an oped in the same place which said Mr. Wilson was sent by the VP, a fabrication. The implication was that of course the VP was in the know. A complete and untter fabrication, to go suitably hand in hand with Mr. Wilson's fabrication.
The White House was perfectly entitled to correct the record. The VP did not send Mr. Wilson; he was sent by the CIA and recommended by his wife; and, oddly, didn't have to sign a confidentiality agreement. Mighty strange for a CIA mission meant to achieve something other than an op-ed piece.
And of course, as the Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee concluded, the only addition to the factual record Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger in fact achieved was CONFIRMATION (not refutation)of a meeting between Iraqi and Niger officials to discuss commmerce (could it be the purchase of some valuable local assets...like uranium?). How amazing. Of course, intelligence agencies across the globe agreed that Iraq was pursuing a weapons program, and Mr. Powell was very articulate on the subject at the UN. But whatever. Powell, intelligence agencies around the world, or Wilson? Who to believe? So tough to decide.
As to Mrs. Plame's status, let us recall that it was Mr. Novak who published her employment...something which he confirmed with a telephone call to the CIA...that's COVERT all right.
No, Screwey, I don't see abuse of power. I see lots of Democratic Party election related dirty tricks, all of which failed - from Wilson's fraudulent Op-ed, to Rather's fraudulent National Guard memo's. I see the NYT and CBS operating as organs of the Kerry election campaign, whether it is Joe Lockhart or Joe Wilson. I see an assist form some incompetent intelligence types like Plame and Clarke.
The other thing I see is pretty poor and ineffective White House responses to the dirty tricks - a weak repsonse to Wilson and certainly Rather. The public blogosphere and the swift Boat guys were a million times better at organizing PR than the White House.
But i am certain you see something else. That's ok. Mr. Bush won. Mr. Kerry lost. So the policies of the US government are Mr. Bush's. This probably irks you. Sorry again.
