Article

2004-11-21 Home Front: WoT

CIA shake-up too much like a political purge

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2004-11-21 8:36:15 AM|| || Front Page|| [11132 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 be interesting to see if Newsday (ethical pt - aren't they one of those papers accused of inflating circulation nos. to get more ad revenue?) was so apoplectic when Clinton fired all US Atty's and replaced them with his own people? Goss needs to weed the staff, and leakers should go first

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-21 8:52:12 AM|| 2004-11-21 8:52:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 They conveniently sidestep the vital question of whether the CIA needs housecleaning in order to accuse a Republican administration of a neo-Stalininst purge. These guys need new story angles.

Posted by Raj 2004-11-21 10:49:19 AM|| 2004-11-21 10:49:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Hey, if CIA employees' political beliefs are trumping their intel gathering and dissemination professionalism, let the purge begin.

It's not like were sending them to a Siberian labor camp, or doing a 9mm double tap to their craniums.

Posted by gb506 2004-11-21 11:11:07 AM|| 2004-11-21 11:11:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The unbelievable "leaks" started long before the Woodward book with the "slam dunk" nonsense, so I guess the several years of misbehavior was a clairvoyant pre-emptive retaliatory campaign, or something. Sheesh.

One thing no one ever seems to note about the "leaks" is how idiotic they make CIA analysts look. They mostly have involved forecasts or analysis that are jaw-droppingly dumb, and obviously so. My personal favorite still has me waiting for the Shi'a and Kurds to turn on us in Iraq -- ya know, they were looking at their watches and would do so by a time-certain if we hadn't magically transformed Iraq into Orange County, at least according to the geniuses at CIA and State/INR who "leaked" their assessment to that effect.

So there's a whole 'nother layer to this. The policy-advocacy leaking and sniping have been astounding, but take a look at the substance of the leaks and it's even more troubling. The gist of most of these comments to the press have reflected a cluelessness no less striking than that of your average Dem Hill staffer or "anti-war" incumbent. It's one thing to have a Carl Levin floundering around in the Senate and being outvoted and marginalized -- it's another if the supposed national brain trust is churning out undergraduate drivel for decision-makers ....

Oh, and how about the "Anonymous" book-approval matter? To me that's in a whole separate category. If I were Goss I'd have started (who knows, maybe he did) with a simple process: anyone who was in the chain that signed off on the stupid book and its author blabbing to the public would be shown the door.

Of course the above-noted point applies in spades to the book and the "Anonymous" author: THIS is the analytical level of our best analysts working our most important national security problem? Yikes. I think the low-level analytical shops in the far-flung theater commands of WWII showed 100 times the sophistication and insight that we often seem to get from the best-and-brightest at Langley and Foggy Bottom these days.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-11-21 11:31:22 AM|| 2004-11-21 11:31:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#5
anyone who was in the chain that signed off on the stupid book and its author blabbing to the public would be shown the door.

Procedures established long ago allow officials in the Intelligence Community to publish a personal work. There's a review process to determine whether the work contains classified information.

The officials who reviewed this book did their assigned task. On what basis do you propose to fire them? What classified information did they allow to be published?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 12:31:12 PM|| 2004-11-21 12:31:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Mike, its called "methods and sources". Just the fact that we *knew* something is often enough to tip off how we got that info - and permanently close off the source. THats why truly professional agencies (like the N* agencies) are NEVER in the spotlight.

The CIA has become a cesspool of self-interested b-crats who only worry about budget, thier ability to command money and people, and buck passing so they can shift the blame. Those kind of folks became the lead in the CIA fromthe early 90's on (starting under Bush Sr). WHen the wall came down they thought they had no mission, so they started turf wars. And under Clinton it only got worse with political ppointees, and no real oversight (Clinton essentially ignored the intel agencies unless he needed them to bolster his policies).

This is a house-cleaning that was long overdue. This is a failed agency and needs to be severely shaken up. The attempts of the agency to inject itself into the political campaign are shameful - and thier two-faced dealings show that. Good analysts and operators at the bottom are being ignored, and only the "politically correct" stuff is allowed up the pipeline. Anything that makes a sub-director's dept look bad, or the section look bad, get silenced, unless its politically useful to the higher ups.

The CIA has become a very political agency, and has cased to funciton properly in many areas. The best remedy is intel reform, but the Congress stupidly passed that up. SO the next b3est thing is to make heads roll, especially political leakers, buck-passers and others who have forgotten their oath of office - loyalty to the Constitution, not the Democratic Party or their boss. And thats the grounds that many should be fired for: insubordination, disloyalty, and incompetence. Thats enough justification to do what Goss needs to do.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-11-21 12:48:07 PM|| 2004-11-21 12:48:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Mike, there's no presumption of any CIA employee having the right to publish advocacy material directly related to his scope of work -- and no limitation that classified info is the only thing any publication must avoid.

Or perhaps it's just me. I can't recall the hundreds of titles penned by serving intelligence agency analysts that took contentious issue with contemporary government policy on matters of war and peace. In fact, I can't think of any, prior to "Imperial Hubris." Then again, maybe it's just that no serving analyst ever disagreed with government policy and felt like publishing a book for, say, the last 50 years. Or perhaps there were but they understood that wasn't appropriate for serving staff.

I hope Goss removes or sidelines anyone in the various chains who tolerated both the book and the various (unintentionally self-damning) "leaks". CIA's job is to provide info and analysis to the president, not to provide half-baked policy commentary to the press. If you can't understand why the latter is a firing offense and important to the national interest, then I can't help you.

Recall a few years back the incredibly lame State Dept. guys who ostentatiously quit to voice their vehement belief that the US should plunge itself wastefully and pointlessly into the inconsequential barbarism of the Balkans? At least they followed the familiar path: quit your public post, wherein you're obliged to support (in the functional sense) and execute national policy, in keeping with your oath to the Constitution, and THEN exercise your right to make a buck while pushing idiotic policy ideas. This isn't that hard, Mike.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-11-21 1:55:57 PM|| 2004-11-21 1:55:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#8
Re #6 (OldSpook)its called "methods and sources". Just the fact that we *knew* something is often enough to tip off how we got that info

Is there any such info in the book? If so, I haven't read anything about it. I haven't read the book itself, but the reviews I've read give me the impression that the author's main thesis is, explicitly, that our war on terrorism creates more terrorists than it eliminates, and, implicitly, that Scheuer thinks that he himself should be running the CIA.

The CIA has become a cesspool of self-interested b-crats who only worry about budget, thier ability to command money and people, and buck passing so they can shift the blame. ... This is a failed agency and needs to be severely shaken up. ....

That's pretty harsh, OldSpook. Maybe you should be running the CIA, since you know where all the corruption is.

... the next best thing is to make heads roll, especially political leakers ....

Who are they? How do we know that an intelligence report was leaked by a particular CIA official? Practically all these finished intelligence reports are available to officials in other agencies -- to officials in DoD, in the FBI, in Congress, and in the Cabinet.

It's easy to say Goss should fire all the political leakers. It's kind of harder to say exactly who they are.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 1:59:27 PM|| 2004-11-21 1:59:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 no sh*t? what insight

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-21 2:04:15 PM|| 2004-11-21 2:04:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Who are they?

Just watch for the ones headed towards the exits ....

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-21 2:12:00 PM|| 2004-11-21 2:12:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#11
Re #7 (Verlaine)
Thousands of people work in the Intelligence Community, and some of them desire to publish their personal works. On one extreme, there are people who want to publish poetry, gardening advice, and historical research. On the other extreme there are people who want to publish personal opinions about current security issues. For all such publishing proposals there are standard review and approval procedures.

In general, a staff member (usually a low-ranking peon) is assigned to read the drivel and to coordiante an administrative approval or disapproval. If the publication is disapproved, then the author can appeal. Ultimately the disapproval must be based on some concrete security concern, not simply on the bureaucrats' personal opinions about the work's merit or political appropriateness.

If a maverick analyst decides to start publishing his personal opinions attacking the Administration's policies, then he basically is committing career suicide. His superiors would certainly try to counsel some good sense into him, but if he nevertheless insists, then he can exercise his rights.

Why should his colleagues be punished?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 2:15:14 PM|| 2004-11-21 2:15:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Wow, first Aris and now Mikey S writes something I can get behind. Old Spook should run the CIA!

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-21 2:27:45 PM|| 2004-11-21 2:27:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Correct me if I'm wrong. No serving CIA employee has the "right" to publish anything he/she desires on any topic related to their work. The latitude of managers in disapproving such publication goes well beyond counseling and well beyond the narrow matter of classified information.

If this is not correct, please document it and also explain why, as noted earlier, there have not been "dissenting" policy books churned out for decades from CIA. Only Scheuer was "career suicidal" since 1947? I don't think this explains the historical pattern.

"Punishment" isn't the issue. Removing managers who exhibit a lack of professionalism is the issue. Allowing subordinates to campaign against government policy while on the exec. branch payroll demonstrates an utter lack of professionalism, especially in a national security agency. We've got a big free country where anything, and I mean anything, can and does get published and hyped, no matter how idiotic (ask your local Barnes & Noble manager to let you browse through their soon-to-be-remaindered mountains of stupid anti-Bush books). The CIA's job is hard enough, so I'd like them to focus on their job, which isn't to offer cheap-seat criticism on policy issues. Therefore I'd be happy if Goss pushes out, on whatever basis he can, the managers who share or encourage or tolerate this sort of thing.

Posted by Verlaine 2004-11-21 2:56:56 PM|| 2004-11-21 2:56:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#14
No serving CIA employee has the "right" to publish anything he/she desires on any topic related to their work.

A CIA employee has a right to publish a work that does not reveal classified information.

I'm sure many CIA employees publish works all the time, but they aren't identified as CIA employees in the publications. A famous example is E. Howard Hunt, who published many novels about espionage while he worked in the CIA.

I never served in the CIA, I served 14 years in USAF Intelligence. For a while I served in a Pentagon position, and I myself reviewed articles for publication, and I myself proposed my own articles that were reviewed by others. From the latter experience I know that such efforts are frowned upon by superiors, to say the least.

I don't know where I would find a link to the CIA's employee publication policy. Would a link to the US Constitution's First Amemendment suffice?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 3:14:47 PM|| 2004-11-21 3:14:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 We are all proud of your service Mike.
Now. Show me the damn links.

Posted by Shipman 2004-11-21 3:25:55 PM|| 2004-11-21 3:25:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 I know OC when I see it. Let it go Mike. It's not healthy. I will agree the Kofi Kofi and Koko are innocent if you will relax a bit.

Posted by Shipman 2004-11-21 3:27:34 PM|| 2004-11-21 3:27:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Scheuer said he gave the Clinton Administration 10 opportunities to kill OBL, which they declined in every case. Leaving aside for the moment what this says about the Clinton Admin., I doubt OBL knew we were that close to him that often. That sort of info is valuable to our enemies because it tells them we may be more clever than they think about tracking them down, so in future they will work harder to cover their tracks, and our job will be more difficult.

Posted by V is for Victory 2004-11-21 5:29:40 PM|| 2004-11-21 5:29:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#18
Scheuer said he gave the Clinton Administration 10 opportunities to kill OBL ..... That sort of info is valuable to our enemies because it tells them we may be more clever than they think about tracking them down ....

That's pretty vague.

Here's something more concrete: The CIA reviewed the book before publication and determined that the book did not reveal any information that was classified or that endangered national security.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 6:41:09 PM|| 2004-11-21 6:41:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 A CIA employee has a right to publish a work that does not reveal classified information

Not quite. Employees agree to a variety of restrictions as part of their employment and that is quite explicit.

As an example, someone I know rather well sought approval to publish an unclassified research paper that referenced a project done for the CIA. 4 levels of security review in 2 different intel agencies agreed no classified data were involved and that the publication of the paper would not allow others to piece together new insights from unclassified data.

It took 2+ years and 2 re-reviews before it got to the journal to begin the academic peer-review process and eventual publication. Along the way, several CIA employees had their names removed as co-authors.

Posted by rkb 2004-11-21 6:54:13 PM|| 2004-11-21 6:54:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I served 14 years in USAF Intelligence.

For those not familiar with military career paths, Mike gives us a bit of a yardstick to apply to his opinions.

Assuming he had no service in another specialty, that means 14 years service -- not a common point at which to leave voluntarily. A good but not stellar NCO might hold the rank of Master Sgt by that point; someone who was still a Tech Sgt would be a below-central-mass performer. An officer (assuming he did not have prior enlisted time before commissioning) should be a Major at that point. 14 years is a bit late, but depending on when we're talking about (70s, 80s, 90s) it would be possible to stretch being a Captain out to the 13th year before being passed over for promotion a second time and forced to separate.

None of this should be read to indicate that Mike's service was anything other than valuable -- and I am glad he did serve. However, it does put his experience of the wider issues re: publishing out of the intel community into some perspective. A Master Sgt, Captain or recently promoted Major is responsible for executing existing polices -- but does not create them or work on the larger tradeoff issues at stake in the CIA story we're discussing.

FWIW.

Posted by rkb 2004-11-21 7:11:33 PM|| 2004-11-21 7:11:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Mikey your ignorance is showing (surprising given that you claim to have served - and in a security clearance positon required positon). Many of us who defend the Constitution give up a lot of the rights enshrined in it. Amongst the heaviest one that is given up is the First Amendment. 14 years in USAF (ESG/AIA?) intel should have taught you that. Pre-publication cleareance is routine - but internal support fo the agency is NOT. Its quite unusual.

ALong those lines - here is a question for you: How many NSA people do you see publishing stuff like this? Bamford is about the only author anyone hears publishing reasonable critical things about the NSA, and he is an outsider. And even then, the things he claims have never been confirmed nor denied.

Secondly, USAF you were involved with is probably SIGINT/IMINT. HUMINT is another world entirely, and not always amenable to technical resources being thrown at it. You should have known that.

Third as a near-career USAF type, you should know the responsibility of the agencies is the *execution* of policy, and when asked, advice to executives when forming policy - but NOT *opposition* to it after the fact, nor political involvement toward those aims. You should have known that once policy is set, you don't leak and malign; you salute and execute.

Finally, the issue was not the document and its contents, it was the SELECTIVE nature of the agency allowing the author to speak - it was the very act of taking sides politically that calls the whole thing into question. And I note you continue to dodge that - and that is the CENTRAL point of the argument here. Mike - the question you are avoiding and dancing around and trying to weasel yourself away from is:

Should the CIA be allowed to attempt to politically influence the electorate by selective leaking of information and support of various books? Should the higher echelons allow political leanings to color their actions?

The answer, as any *professional* intel person would tell you is a resounding NO. The fact that you seem to have difficulty answering this marks you as a partisan, not a pro. Same goes for those within the agency - and yes I do know where some of them sit, I used to work for a few - and avoided a few others. They are relatively well known, especially in operations and analysis, where results are obvious and cannot be hidden from those doing the work.

On a personal level - my opinion brings to mind a question: who in the USAF serves only 14 years? You're one hitch away from 20 and retirement. That sounds supect given the absence of other conditions. Mike were you booted out? Were you RIFFED? Or are you still in (and if so, why are you posting here on subject matter that could comprmise your activities?) I suspect you're being disingenuous about your service - either its tenure or the content or the nature of your service (or perhaps the whole thing), given your attitude. You sound more like a clerk, not an ops person or an analyst.

As said, famously, "on the internet nobody knows you're a dog, but they can tell when you are a sone-of-a-bitch".

And one son-of-a-bitch to another, I think you're being dishonest.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-11-21 7:36:19 PM|| 2004-11-21 7:36:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 RKB, I agree with part of your evaluation, but the rank structure of the Air Force, and especially those serving in intelligence did not allow most E-6 (TSgt) to be promoted to E-7 (MSgt) until about the fifteen year point, and a lot of Techs retired in that rank. I spent 26 years in the Air Force, including four years in the Reserve. Twenty-two of those years were spent in imagery intelligence - the people that read out all that satellite, U-2, and SR-71 imagery, plus the stuff taken by tactical reconnaissance. I've also had about 20 articles published in the past 30 years that were subjected to evaluation. Most of those dealt with things far removed from my job - stamp collecting, archeology, photography, etc. I, too, worked for a year in Washington, including doing liaison duties with other intelligence organizations in the area (DIA, CIA, NSA, etc.). I know perhaps 30 CIA people, most working photo interpretation. There are HUGE problems in the agency, and they NEED a thorough housecleaning. It's been an agency without strong outside supervision for 20 years at least. The hiring practices need to be overhauled. The agency hires primarily from four colleges, and they're all VERY liberal. People are given responsibility with little or no knowledge about the subject, and aren't forced to become familiar. The material we received from CIA was always double-checked, because the number of mistakes were phenomenal for what is supposed to be the nation's premier foreign intelligence agency. Their imagery reports were good, but the rest of it was best used in the latrines.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-11-21 7:37:23 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-11-21 7:37:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 I only skimmed the article and don't have time to read the posts above - but I feel very reassured by this. If Newsday is having a hissy fit, then Goss must be doing something right!

Posted by 2b 2004-11-21 7:50:05 PM|| 2004-11-21 7:50:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Folks - don't get me wrong - the problems in CIA started under Bush Sr. And were subject to neglect by Clinton who never really "got" the military and intelligence communtiy, other than the "clean hands" types higher up int he agency. The problem is that to get work done, you have to get your hands dirty. Intelligence is not a clean business on the ground. The satellite and electronics guys can have thier comfy chairs, shift work and air conditioning. But this war will require us to deal with some unsavory types, and get our hands dirty. Satellites and SIGINT have yet to find Bin Laden (since some moron in the military leaked things in the late 90's about interceptions of sat-phones). And the CIA management is too PC and risk averse to stick their necks out and risk thier careeer for the good of the country - they cravenly carp and push for politicians who will give "more of the same" (Kerry) instead of forcing a change of course and change of managment needed to effect that change of course.

And its the latter part that is inexcusable in my view - because they are putting their division, thier section, their career ahead of the nation and the Constitution that we are there to defend. And yet there are some here who continually pick at nits to defend the indefensible.

Its sad - thats bascially the same mindset as those whom Goss is after. And peopel like that brought us 9/11 and will do so again: there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Thats who Goss must go after: the self blinded who want to do things the same-old way we did before 9/11: PC, politics and personal fiefdoms.

I am sure Goss will screw things up at least a little, but in this case the harm done to the IC will far be outweighed by the benefits of having a fully functional and engaged CIA aligned for fighting the war on terror instead of fighting (for or against) the re-election of the President.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-11-21 7:50:32 PM|| 2004-11-21 7:50:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 OP, re: promotion rates, that's why I caveated with regard to which decade - promotion rates did differ somewhat. I do know good NCOs who retired at 20 as an E-6 in the 70s and early 80s - including an uncle I'm quite fond of. (FWIW, my husband is retired USAF from the space side of the house ....)

I don't speak from personal domain expertise in the intel world - just to be clear - although I do remember one rather memorable Xmas party at which 1/2 of the attendees were ex-U2 and SR-71 pilots and the other 1/2 had multiple PhDs in some arcane disciplines .... LOL

Posted by rkb 2004-11-21 7:52:19 PM|| 2004-11-21 7:52:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 There is a very good and simple reason why the CIA or any other intelligence agency MUST not make policy or try to influence policy making: It will compromise the credibility of its information it gives to the President. The President can not judge as to how this information, that might lead to a war, was obtained. If he believes that the agency has its own agenda, he will not fully trust the info he is given. And that would be a disaster.

It's certainly a frustrating job to be a spook. You will be blamed for things that go wrong and rarely get open credit for things that went right. You may not even tell your spouse what you are doing. That's why a spook must be a real patriot, absolutely committed to serving his country without ever been lauded in public... AND be fiercely loyal to the President, whether you share his policies or not.

If you can't deal with that, your only choice is to quit and shut up. Forget your ego.

As for the info: German intelligence services often complain that the info highway is a one way street. That may be exaggerated but I dare say that the CIA receives better info from "friendly" intelligence agencies than it provides to them. Plus an attitude that often pisses off professionals. When CIA specialists who claim to know it all about a certain Middle Eastern country and then cannot decipher an "Allahu aqbar" written in Arabic, something is wrong.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-11-21 9:52:03 PM|| 2004-11-21 9:52:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 rkb, I think that you are unfairly inferring that Mike S was riffed. There are many considerations that go into the decision to leave the service that have nothing to do with promotion, most involve family. I know many good men who left mid-career because of the efforts to get rid of the VietNam "hump" during Carter years. Quite frankly, I also knew men who were passed over for Major and Lt Col who finished their 20 in the enlisted ranks.

Posted by RWV 2004-11-21 10:47:23 PM|| 2004-11-21 10:47:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 The Clintons, Commies, and DemLeftProgressives are mainstream/midwest majority "GOOD SOCIALISTS" in BLUE, i.e. the BLUE STATES; Republicans = AMERICA-MINORITY Americanists, Rightists, and Ultra-Rightist SOcialists/Nazis/HITLERISTS, i.e. Non-Leftists and Non-Communist Socialists, the "BAD SOCIALISTS" in RED, THE "REDS', the RED STATERS. The values of the Founding Fathers = LIMITED GOVERNMENT, REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVEERNMENT, FEDERALISM, FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, INDIVIDUALISM,... etc. > values of outcasts, rejects, criminals/mafiosi, terrorists and militant separatists, i.e. ANTI-SOCIALISTS. THE LEFT WILL PLAYING THESE MIND GAMES ALL THE WAY TO POTUS HILLARY AND ANTI-USA OWG.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2004-11-21 10:57:43 PM|| [http://n/a] 2004-11-21 10:57:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 yeah! what jm is say! im think...

Posted by muck4doo 2004-11-21 11:03:25 PM|| [http://www.meatismurder.blogspot.com] 2004-11-21 11:03:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#30
Re #20 (rkb)

When I entered the USAF in 1978, there were no officer slots open, so I served my first two years as an airman before I was accepted into Officer Training School.

I was an officer for 12 years and was promoted every time I was considered. I was selected to serve on the staff of the Air Force Chief of Staff for Intelligence when I was a captain.

I voluntarily separated in 1992, the only year when the USAF allowed personnel to voluntarily separate and receive severance pay. Since the Cold War had ended, the USAF preferred that a maximum number of people separate voluntarily, so that the USAF would not have to force them out.

I accepted the offer because I had a very narrow specialty, HUMINT, where there was little possibility I would be promoted to lieutenanct colonel. This was especially so because all the Services' HUMINT organizations were to be transfered into DIA.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 11:43:28 PM|| 2004-11-21 11:43:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#31
Re #21 (OldSpook):

How many NSA people do you see publishing stuff like this?

Few people in the Intelligence Community publish their own works, and when they do they often don't identify themselves by their work. Most people, no matter what their professions, are not motivated to write and publish their own works. Those who do serve in the Intelligence Community are so motivated will experience a lot of hassle. Their motivations will be suspected and criticized, and the review process will annoy everyone who is involved.

HUMINT is another world entirely, and not always amenable to technical resources being thrown at it. You should have known that.

What does this have to do with anything I wrote?

You should have known that once policy is set, you don't leak and malign; you salute and execute.

That's why I say that Scheuer committed career suicide.

By the way, you seem to have the impression that I have defended Scheuer and his book. I haven't. I have defended George Tenet from the insinuation that he actively promoted Scheuer's book.

... it was the SELECTIVE nature of the agency allowing the author to speak - it was the very act of taking sides politically that calls the whole thing into question.

Scheuer complied with the formal rules for publishing his work, and so he was allowed to publish his work. The CIA couldn't do much about it beyond reassign him to shuffle paperwork for the rest of his career, which was to be his fate, which was why he quit.

Should the CIA be allowed to attempt to politically influence the electorate by selective leaking of information and support of various books? Should the higher echelons allow political leanings to color their actions? The answer, as any *professional* intel person would tell you is a resounding NO. The fact that you seem to have difficulty answering this marks you as a partisan, not a pro.

I don't have any difficulty at all answering "no" to those questions.

I have difficulty accepting the accusation that George Tenet actively promoted Scheuer's book. Do you accept that accusation? Do you think that the pros in the CIA accept it?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-11-21 11:58:50 PM|| 2004-11-21 11:58:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Mike, its called "methods and sources". Just the fact that we *knew* something is often enough to tip off how we got that info - and permanently close off the source. THats why truly professional agencies (like the N* agencies) are NEVER in the spotlight.

The CIA has become a cesspool of self-interested b-crats who only worry about budget, thier ability to command money and people, and buck passing so they can shift the blame. Those kind of folks became the lead in the CIA fromthe early 90's on (starting under Bush Sr). WHen the wall came down they thought they had no mission, so they started turf wars. And under Clinton it only got worse with political ppointees, and no real oversight (Clinton essentially ignored the intel agencies unless he needed them to bolster his policies).

This is a house-cleaning that was long overdue. This is a failed agency and needs to be severely shaken up. The attempts of the agency to inject itself into the political campaign are shameful - and thier two-faced dealings show that. Good analysts and operators at the bottom are being ignored, and only the "politically correct" stuff is allowed up the pipeline. Anything that makes a sub-director's dept look bad, or the section look bad, get silenced, unless its politically useful to the higher ups.

The CIA has become a very political agency, and has cased to funciton properly in many areas. The best remedy is intel reform, but the Congress stupidly passed that up. SO the next b3est thing is to make heads roll, especially political leakers, buck-passers and others who have forgotten their oath of office - loyalty to the Constitution, not the Democratic Party or their boss. And thats the grounds that many should be fired for: insubordination, disloyalty, and incompetence. Thats enough justification to do what Goss needs to do.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-11-21 12:48:07 PM|| 2004-11-21 12:48:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Mikey your ignorance is showing (surprising given that you claim to have served - and in a security clearance positon required positon). Many of us who defend the Constitution give up a lot of the rights enshrined in it. Amongst the heaviest one that is given up is the First Amendment. 14 years in USAF (ESG/AIA?) intel should have taught you that. Pre-publication cleareance is routine - but internal support fo the agency is NOT. Its quite unusual.

ALong those lines - here is a question for you: How many NSA people do you see publishing stuff like this? Bamford is about the only author anyone hears publishing reasonable critical things about the NSA, and he is an outsider. And even then, the things he claims have never been confirmed nor denied.

Secondly, USAF you were involved with is probably SIGINT/IMINT. HUMINT is another world entirely, and not always amenable to technical resources being thrown at it. You should have known that.

Third as a near-career USAF type, you should know the responsibility of the agencies is the *execution* of policy, and when asked, advice to executives when forming policy - but NOT *opposition* to it after the fact, nor political involvement toward those aims. You should have known that once policy is set, you don't leak and malign; you salute and execute.

Finally, the issue was not the document and its contents, it was the SELECTIVE nature of the agency allowing the author to speak - it was the very act of taking sides politically that calls the whole thing into question. And I note you continue to dodge that - and that is the CENTRAL point of the argument here. Mike - the question you are avoiding and dancing around and trying to weasel yourself away from is:

Should the CIA be allowed to attempt to politically influence the electorate by selective leaking of information and support of various books? Should the higher echelons allow political leanings to color their actions?

The answer, as any *professional* intel person would tell you is a resounding NO. The fact that you seem to have difficulty answering this marks you as a partisan, not a pro. Same goes for those within the agency - and yes I do know where some of them sit, I used to work for a few - and avoided a few others. They are relatively well known, especially in operations and analysis, where results are obvious and cannot be hidden from those doing the work.

On a personal level - my opinion brings to mind a question: who in the USAF serves only 14 years? You're one hitch away from 20 and retirement. That sounds supect given the absence of other conditions. Mike were you booted out? Were you RIFFED? Or are you still in (and if so, why are you posting here on subject matter that could comprmise your activities?) I suspect you're being disingenuous about your service - either its tenure or the content or the nature of your service (or perhaps the whole thing), given your attitude. You sound more like a clerk, not an ops person or an analyst.

As said, famously, "on the internet nobody knows you're a dog, but they can tell when you are a sone-of-a-bitch".

And one son-of-a-bitch to another, I think you're being dishonest.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-11-21 7:36:19 PM|| 2004-11-21 7:36:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Folks - don't get me wrong - the problems in CIA started under Bush Sr. And were subject to neglect by Clinton who never really "got" the military and intelligence communtiy, other than the "clean hands" types higher up int he agency. The problem is that to get work done, you have to get your hands dirty. Intelligence is not a clean business on the ground. The satellite and electronics guys can have thier comfy chairs, shift work and air conditioning. But this war will require us to deal with some unsavory types, and get our hands dirty. Satellites and SIGINT have yet to find Bin Laden (since some moron in the military leaked things in the late 90's about interceptions of sat-phones). And the CIA management is too PC and risk averse to stick their necks out and risk thier careeer for the good of the country - they cravenly carp and push for politicians who will give "more of the same" (Kerry) instead of forcing a change of course and change of managment needed to effect that change of course.

And its the latter part that is inexcusable in my view - because they are putting their division, thier section, their career ahead of the nation and the Constitution that we are there to defend. And yet there are some here who continually pick at nits to defend the indefensible.

Its sad - thats bascially the same mindset as those whom Goss is after. And peopel like that brought us 9/11 and will do so again: there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Thats who Goss must go after: the self blinded who want to do things the same-old way we did before 9/11: PC, politics and personal fiefdoms.

I am sure Goss will screw things up at least a little, but in this case the harm done to the IC will far be outweighed by the benefits of having a fully functional and engaged CIA aligned for fighting the war on terror instead of fighting (for or against) the re-election of the President.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-11-21 7:50:32 PM|| 2004-11-21 7:50:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by OldSpook 2004-11-21 12:48:07 PM|| 2004-11-21 12:48:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by OldSpook 2004-11-21 7:36:19 PM|| 2004-11-21 7:36:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by OldSpook 2004-11-21 7:50:32 PM|| 2004-11-21 7:50:32 PM|| Front Page Top

00:00 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:58 Mike Sylwester
23:50 trailing wife
23:49 Red Lief
23:44 trailing wife
23:43 Mike Sylwester
23:38 BillH
23:35 RWV
23:30 PBMcL
23:19 RWV
23:17 mhw
23:03 muck4doo
22:57 JosephMendiola
22:52 anonymous2u
22:47 RWV
22:47 Justrand
22:38 JosephMendiola
22:33 JosephMendiola
22:02 lex
21:52 True German Ally
21:50 Frank G
21:48 mhw
21:40 SC88
21:31 CornÃ®liÃ«s