Attention Citizens, a Blue Dress Special
Well Porter, what are you going to do now? Is our illustrious CIA Director serious about protecting intelligence information or is he just talking political smack? In October 2003, Goss reacted to the unauthorized disclosure of classified information (e.g., the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame) by commenting:
I would say there's a much larger dose of partisan politics going on right now than there is worry about national security. . . .But I would never take lightly a serious allegation backed up by evidence that there was a willful -- and I emphasize willful, inadvertent is something else -- willful disclosure, and I haven't seen any evidence. . . . Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation.
In other words, he would act if he saw evidence that someone in the Bush White House had blown their load in public. Well, in the words of Herman Melville, “Thar she blows”. A recent flood of evidence in the Scooter Libby obstruction and perjury case erases all doubt. According to recently released documents in the case, the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name was neither accidental nor inadvertent. It was deliberate. Current and former Bush Administration officials told Jason Leopold that:
Vice President Dick Cheney and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley led a campaign beginning in March 2003 to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson for publicly criticizing the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq.
Exposing Valerie’s classified identity was part of this plan. But Dick Cheney and his nasty band of marauders did not stop there. We now know that Dick Cheney directed the leak of classified information for purely political gain that touched on but extended beyond the Plame affair. Murray Waas reports that Scooter told the grand jury that he was:
authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" in the summer of 2003 to disclose classified information to journalists to defend the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence in making the case to go to war with Iraq, according to attorneys familiar with the matter, and to court records.
In Friday’s op-ed complaining about “loose lips” and “leaks”, Porter Goss sets out a new standard that does not require a semen stained blue dress. Porter says:
I take seriously my agency's responsibility to protect our national security. Unauthorized disclosures undermine our efforts and abuse the trust of the people we are sworn to protect. Since becoming director, I have filed criminal reports with the Department of Justice because of such compromises. That department is committed to working with us to investigate these cases aggressively. In addition, I have instituted measures within the agency to further safeguard the integrity of classified data.
If Porter Goss is serious about going after unauthorized disclosures then he should start with Dick Cheney. The Vice President’s access to classified material should be suspended. That’s what should happen if Goss were serious about this issue.
But it looks like Goss is more concerned about political cover for Bush than national security. The selective nature of the outrage sure suggests that what we are witnessing is political theatre designed to intimidate and silence political opponents. They don’t want to staunch all leaks; just the ones that make them look bad. The Bush Administration and its political allies want to be free to leak information when it suits their purpose.
- Leaks are okay if you are going after a distinguished U.S. Ambassador who helped blow the whistle that the President did not tell the truth to the American people about Iraq’s supposed efforts to acquire uranium in Niger.
- Leaks are okay if, on the eve of the 2004 Republican Convention, you release classified info to reporters about an Al Qaeda mole in order to burnish your candidate’s image.
- Leaks are okay if you are trying to circumvent the intelligence community’s insistence that there is no operational link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. You give the stuff to conservative reporter Stephen Hayes and then have Vice President Cheney point to that information to justify his views, which the CIA have said repeatedly are wrong.
Remember--leaks are bad if they show the Bush Administration is violating the law, ignoring Bin Laden, or not paying attention to flood waters filling New Orleans. Folks who tell the truth must be punished. Those who lie must be protected. And to think I once thought of George Orwell as a writer of far-fetched fiction.
Larry
Given that ideally we should be going after Bin Laden etal not as a war but as a police and intelligence effort what impact is the Bush Administrations abuses having on real agents?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 11, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds like Goss is in the Schlesinger mold, who reportedly announced on his arrival "I'm here to make sure you guys don't screw the President".
Yep, the devil in a blue dress has apparently arrived. To offer mitigating circumstances it seems Libby will say he was following orders. Is that a sort of offer to roll over on those superiors?
February 11, 2006 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can all rest easy knowing that Mr. Goss is not going to embarass the administration. Ok, so Dick Cheney violated federal laws by conspiring in outing Valery Plame, but the terrorists aren't likely to have been aided by him doing that. And, we all know that the terrorists are the worst, most deadly foes our country has ever faced. Why, they are so bad ah...well they are so bad that they... ah...they boo the NY Yankees?
Seriously, expecting any Bush appointee to do anything to knowingly embarass Bush really is naive. It just isn't going to happen. 9/11 changed all of that. (Whatever that means.)
Hoppy in SacramentoFebruary 11, 2006 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
He's a Brownie. He's a hack, and he's doing a heck of a job. For Bush, intelligence serves only one purpose - Rive talking points.
For an inisde look at policy by slogan Pillar's Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq
February 11, 2006 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy - you're right that it's naive to expect any Bush appointee to embarrass the WH (except perhaps Brownie 2006).
But let's not forget - by blowing Valerie Plame's cover, the WH recklessly compromised the lives and work of countless other CIA and foriegn agents that are still in the field working with terrorists and/or nuke traders.
Just because Goss is going to do all in his power to protect Cheney and punish NSA whistleblowers doesn't make the VP's actions any less criminal, treasonous, or potentially lethal.
BTW, does anyone remember this? It is true I was in CIA from approximately the late 50's to approximately the early 70's. And it's true I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have.
-- Rep. Porter Goss, March 3, 2004, Washington, DC
February 11, 2006 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Johann
Great article. So, when does Dick Cheney get indited for ordering the outing of a CIA agent in violation of US law? I'm not holding my breath.
February 11, 2006 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of Porter Goss's "interest" in "exposing leaks", well, that translated means "Death to whistleblowers!"
Read this open letter to Goss by Sibel Edmonds:
Whistleblowers Are Not Protected, Mr. Goss
http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=8534
Money quotes:
"Mr. Goss, since you proudly quoted from the Rob-Silberman Report released in March 2005, let me do the same and present you with another quote: "In just the past 20 years the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, NRO, and the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy have all been penetrated. Secrets stolen include nuclear weapons data, US cryptographic codes and procedures, identification of US intelligence sources and methods (human and technical), and war plans. Indeed, it would be difficult to exaggerate the damage that foreign intelligence penetrations have caused." It appears that the only ones not privy to our so-called sensitive government and intelligence information are the American citizens, since our enemies and allies have been successfully penetrating all our intelligence agencies (including yours sir) and nuclear labs and facilities. Sir, with all due respect, you have not even succeeded in protecting your own agencies, offices and facilities against foreign penetration; you seem to be incapable of conducting appropriate background checks on your own employees; you failed to protect us against the 9/11 attacks; and you have failed in gathering intelligence and reporting it accurately on the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. With this kind of record how can you go on lecturing the Congress and the American people on your superiority and inherent authority to do whatever you wish, however you wish, and without having to provide any report or any answer to anybody, including the United States Congress?
Last year, the CIA, your agency, classified the entire findings of the Inspector General’s investigation into the failures of CIA managers prior to 9/11. Sir, I believe you made the case for this classification based on your intention to protect the wrongdoers within the CIA bureaucracy from being "stigmatized." Is this what your op-ed intended to say? Did you mean to say that these national security whistleblowers may end up stigmatizing the wrongdoers and incompetents within the rank and file of the CIA by divulging information that you decided to classify to prevent exposure of embarrassing and criminal activity? Was that a Freudian slip, since nowadays the lines get blurry between classification for national security purposes and classification to protect the agency’s bureaucrats?"
And while we're discussing coverups, how about the latest rumor that the CIA "rendition" aircraft from Afghanistan are "rendering" more than terrorist bodies? Word is the CIA is back in the business of shipping heroin out of Afghanistan to finance black operations.
Big surprise.
Richard Steven Hack
www.computerproblemssolvedcheap.com
February 11, 2006 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that mean that he was in the CIA with Bush Sr., while he helped us get involved in that god-awful bay of pigs fiasco?
Just wondering...
Peace and such,
TDW
February 11, 2006 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Larry, I haven't had the opportunity to thank you for all you have said, written and done for our country. It takes courage to do what you are doing. You have my admiration and undying gratitude.
Do you know anything about the FEMA Detention Centers that are being talked about all over the net? There is a site that has them listed, for every state.
There is also the new contract with KBR to build more and there are already 800 listed.
I am thinking of checking out the ones in my state to see if what they are saying is true.
Peace and such,
TDW
February 11, 2006 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Ah Porter's a man of action Larry..a Hack's Hack Contrast the "get to the bottom, fire those responsible" Bush in the Wilson Case. If Ashcroft hadn't recused himself (Turd Blosson ran his campaign - against the dead guy???), there never would have been a grand jury. As it was, Bush dragged his feet and delayed the start of the investigation by three months - enough time to destroy the incriminatning missing emails...
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Federal agents have interviewed officials at several law enforcement and national security agencies in a criminal investigation into The New York Times' disclosure of a U.S. domestic eavesdropping program, the newspaper reported.
In a story posted to its Web site to appear in its Sunday editions, The Times said the investigation was focused on circumstances surrounding its disclosure late last year of the highly classified program.
Officials and others interviewed by the Times said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry and possible criminal charges, the Times said.
Many described the investigation as aggressive and fast moving, with the initial focus on identifying government officials who have had contacts with Times reporters, particularly those in the newspaper's Washington bureau.
It said an FBI team had questioned employees at the FBI, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the CIA and the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and that prosecutors had taken steps to activate a grand jury.
President George W. Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act" and CIA Director Porter Goss told a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on February 2"
It is my aim, and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information."
Real intelligence, real harm..here someone found out that Bush was covering up a crime.....Besides AlQaeda has known this for at least 7-8 years...he isn't snooping on anyone else right? He said so.
The scumbags should be working on FISA indictments instead
February 11, 2006 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
CIA planning for Bay of Pigs began under Eisenhower. Bush Sr. was not a CIA employee at that time.
Tom
February 12, 2006 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to your final bullet about the Cheney-Hayes nexis...
One of my favorite quotes:
How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then believe what they read. (Karl Kraus)
February 15, 2006 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find that all these good Christian Republicans couldn't keep their pants on. Did they miss the Sunday school lesson where it said they could lie, cheat, steal, and kill so long as they practiced abstinence only when it comes to sex?
Well, if we have to find semen on the sofas in the hospitality suites at the Watergate before they completely lose their credibility, it looks like they'll oblige.
April 28, 2006 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink