Hoekstra - CIA Group "Intentionally Undermined" Administration

The NY Times yesterday featured a Lichtblau-Shane story centered around a once-confidential letter to President Bush from Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.  Here is the Times lead, but stay with me, since they buried a great tidbit:

In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.

The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.

But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.

Yeah, yeah.  But the Times also offers a .pdf of the letter itself, which includes this (my typing, and emphasis added) on the topic of Bush's decision to bring back Steve Kappes as Deputy Director of the CIA:

I understand that Mr. Kappes is a capable, well-qualified, and well-liked former Directorate of Operations (DO) case officer.  I am heartened by the professional qualities he would bring to the job, but concerned by what could be the political problems that he could bring back to the agency.  There has been much public and private speculation about the politicization of the Agency.  I am convinced that this politicization was underway well before Porter Goss became the Director.  In fact, I have long been convinced that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies.  This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets.  I have come to the belief that, despite his service to the DO, Mr. Kappes may have been a part of this group.  I must take note when my Democratic colleagues - those who so vehemently denounced and now publicly attacked the strong choice of Porter Goss as Director - now publicly support Mr. Kappes’s return.

Is the Times kidding?  The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee is "convinced" that a CIA faction is intent on discrediting the Administration and that the Plame story is part of their scheming, and the Times can barely mention it?  (Or maybe I'm kidding - the WaPo does not mention it at all.  Did I pick a bad morning to switch to decaf, or did they?  More on the WaPo below.)

Here is the entire Lichtblau/Shane coverage of this "strong and well-positioned group" whose existence is alleged by Hoekstra:

Mr. Hoekstra (pronounced HOOK-stra) complained publicly about the choices when they were announced, but his private letter to Mr. Bush was much harsher. He warned that the choice of Mr. Kappes, who he said was part of a group at the C.I.A. that "intentionally undermined the administration," sends "a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over."

And much later:

Mr. Hoekstra has been one of the strongest advocates in Congress for a crackdown on leaks of classified information to the media, a cause championed by both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Well.  If the Times is stuck for ideas as to why it might be newsworthy to mention that Chairman Hoekstra thinks that the Joe and Valerie Show was staged by a "strong and well positioned group" within the CIA determined to "intentionally undermine[] the Administration and its policies", let me suggest two possible story angles:

(1)  Libby's defense team has been alluding to the possibility that the CIA referral of the Plame leak was a bit of a put-up job, that there was no real harm done by the leak, and that her classified status may have been a bureaucratic legacy rather than an indication of her current role at the CIA.   Sounds like Hoekstra might agree - should anyone care, and should the Times report on this?

(2)  *IF* Bush pardons Libby, arguing that he was a hapless victim of a CIA faction out to undermine the Administration, will the Times want it readers to be surprised? 

Let's file this under "Opportunities Missed" - it might have made for great journalism if the Times had asked Mr. Kappes to comment on whether he was a prime leaker to the press, and whether his goal was to undermine the Administration.  Then again, the Times may already know the answers.

For another view of the politicization of the Plame leak, Walter Pincus, Plame leak recipient, belongs in the mix:

Pincus believes that the Bush administration acted obnoxiously when it leaked Valerie Plame’s identity, but he has never been convinced by the argument that the leaks violated the law. “I don’t think it was a crime,” he says. “I think it got turned into a crime by the press, by Joe” — Wilson — “by the Democrats. The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it’s got to be investigated — never thinking that it was going to turn around and bite them.”

WAPO WATCH:  Is it a naive domestic burgundy whose presumption will amuse you?  Noooo, it is the lead of the WaPo story:

In a sharply worded letter, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee has told President Bush that the administration is angering lawmakers, and possibly violating the law, by giving Congress too little information about domestic surveillance programs.

"Domestic" surveillance programs?  Says what, the letter?  Here is an excerpt:

I want to reemphasize that the Administration has the legal responsibility to “fuly and currently” inform the House and Senate Intelligence Committees of its intelligence and intelligence-related activities…. I have learned of some alleged Intelligence Community activities about which our committee has not been briefed.

The Hoekstra letter doesn't single out "domestic" programs; the Times doesn't single out "domestic" programs.

I think the WaPo needs to re-check the Times website, read the letter again, and try again.  If they want to revise their lead to mention a chat with a source familiar with the preparation of the letter, that's fine.  But originalists are stumped.

[UPDATE:  Hey, I win - the Wapo cuts and runs in their Monday story:

Hoekstra's remarks left unclear the nature of the intelligence programs he alluded to in his letter. He did not specify whether they involved domestic surveillance...]

THEN AGAIN:  The always astute Laura Rozen links to the Times story and asks "what else is there in the way of domestic surveillance programs that House intelligence committee chairman Peter Hoekstra doesn't feel Congress has been fully briefed on?"

Am I looking right past something?  The only appearance of "domestic" in the Times story is, per my word search, right here:

But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.

Baffling.  [Also baffling - the excerpt I attribute to Ms. Rozen has disappeared from her site.  Should I get new glasses now, or hope she is in the midst of a doublecheck?]

LOVE LETTERS:  After the break, extensive fair use excerpts from a Times profile of Steven Kappes as he prepared to walk across the Potomac and return to the CIA.

Poised to Come Back to the C.I.A., a Former Official Who Has Become a Symbol
By MARK MAZZETTI (NYT)

WASHINGTON, May 29 - In his old office at the Central Intelligence Agency, Stephen R. Kappes once hung a World War II-era British poster that announced, ''Keep Calm and Carry On.'' He ignored this admonition 18 months ago, when he resigned in anger after bitter clashes with senior aides to Porter J. Goss.

But now Mr. Goss has been forced out as the agency's director, and Mr. Kappes is poised to return, with a promotion. He would become deputy director, under Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who won Senate confirmation on Friday.

A man of military bearing and a storied past, Mr. Kappes would become the first person since William E. Colby in 1973 to ascend to one of agency's top two positions from a career spent in the clandestine service. General Hayden has said that his return would be a signal that ''amateur hour'' is over at the C.I.A., which has seen little calm since Mr. Kappes's departure.

A no-nonsense former Marine officer who insists on addressing his elders as ''sir,'' Mr. Kappes speaks Russian and Persian; served as the agency's station chief in Moscow and Kuwait during a quarter-century at the C.I.A.; and played a pivotal role in the secret talks with Libya that culminated in December 2003 in the agreement in which Col. Muammar el-Qadaffi agreed to give up his chemical and biological weapons program.

His appointment has not been formally announced, but intelligence officials as well as Mr. Kappes's friends say he will probably take the deputy director position.

Mr. Kappes, 54, declined to be interviewed for this article, having spent most of his professional career trying hard not to be noticed.

Veteran intelligence officials say his expected return is being celebrated within the agency, and some Democratic lawmakers have even characterized Mr. Kappes as a savior who will rescue a moribund agency.

Some critics, including Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, have portrayed his return as a victory for a hidebound C.I.A. bureaucracy that resists all change. There has even been grumbling among White House officials that Mr. Kappes, the former head of the clandestine service, criticized the Bush administration and its policies after he left the agency in 2004.

  People who know Mr. Kappes well reject these descriptions as simplistic.

''I would suggest that we dismiss all of the breathless characterizations of Steve Kappes either from his critics or the people trying to counter his critics,'' said Milton A. Bearden, who served for three decades in the C.I.A.'s clandestine service. ''The simple fact is that he is a very solid choice to come to the agency at a time when it is extremely wobbly.''

John E. McLaughlin, deputy director of the C.I.A. from 2000 to 2004, said Mr. Kappes would ''bring a sense of leadership and professionalism to the agency's operations division.''

Mr. Kappes, a Cincinnati native, joined the C.I.A. in 1981 after five years in the Marine Corps, where he once commanded a platoon of the Marines' legendary ''silent drill team'' in Washington that performs a tightly scripted rifle ceremony before thousands of spectators each year.

In 1988 he became the deputy chief of a secret C.I.A. station in Frankfurt, the agency's hub for collecting information about Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's government in Iran. From Frankfurt, case officers debriefed Iranian exiles and built up a network of agents inside Iran.

Mr. Kappes later transferred to the Middle East, where he served on the agency's task force before the Persian Gulf war of 1991 and re-opened the C.I.A. station in Kuwait after the war's end.

After running the C.I.A. station in Moscow in the late 1990's, Mr. Kappes returned to C.I.A. headquarters, where he ascended to the top echelon of the directorate of operations, now known as the national clandestine service.

His time at C.I.A. headquarters was marked by an occasionally stormy relationship with the lawmakers who oversee the intelligence community.

One of the biggest successes of Mr. Kappes's career came after he became the clandestine service's second-ranking official and was put in charge of coordinating the C.I.A's effort to penetrate the secret network of a Pakistani nuclear scientist, A. Q. Khan.

Dr. Khan had for years been using the black market to sell nuclear blueprints and centrifuge parts, and in October 2003, American and European authorities intercepted a freighter bound for Libya loaded with nuclear bomb-making material.

Soon afterward, Colonel Qaddafi agreed to allow American and British inspectors to tour suspected nuclear sites, and Mr. Kappes was put in charge of a team that began negotiating directly with the colonel over ending Libya's programs for unconventional weapons.

Former intelligence officials said Mr. Kappes was given the assignment because he had both the background and the temperament for the delicate negotiations with a longtime American adversary.

''You don't send just anyone to do this,'' Mr. McLaughlin said. ''It was an enormously difficult, complicated and high-stakes mission.''

After several rounds of talks led by Mr. Kappes, the Bush administration was able to announce in December 2003 that Libya had agreed to abandon the programs.

  Yet Mr. Kappes's career track veered off course in late 2004, when Mr. Goss and many of his top aides came to the C.I.A.

The incident that directly led to his resignation occurred in November 2004, shortly after Mr. Goss took over at the agency. Patrick Murray, who was Mr. Goss's chief of staff, ordered Mr. Kappes to fire his deputy, Michael Sulick, after Mr. Sulick had a testy exchange with Mr. Murray.

  Mr. Kappes, who at the time was in charge of the C.I.A.'s clandestine service, refused and chose to resign instead.

  After leaving the agency, he became an executive vice president at ArmorGroup, a private security firm based in London.

Those who know Mr. Kappes say he bears no grudges for the circumstances of his departure. But while many inside the agency are eagerly awaiting Mr. Kappes's return, his reputation as a taskmaster who does not suffer fools gladly has some bracing for what could lie ahead.

''The really good people are happy he's coming back,'' said a former top C.I.A. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because Mr. Kappes's return has not yet been made official. ''The ones who are scared of him should be scared of him.''

They like him.  They really like him.

Comments

[Eggmont]

The real answer is Bush getting used by Plame was part of a larger plan before the war started. It goes back to the speech because Bush mentioned he doubled the size of the CIA and planned this for other agencies, which led us to Plame and Wilson.

You'll find most of the promontions out of the Plame mess are Russian experts.

As far as SWIFT being Plame related like the NSA leak and her work with domestic poltical groups; I might send a doubter right here:

Canada’s new government will be relentless in its efforts to prevent terrorist crimes," Minister Flaherty said. "We are taking an international leadership role to combat terrorist financing by devoting substantial new funding to bolster our analytic, investigative and prosecution resources."
Minister Flaherty announced that Toronto has been selected as the permanent headquarters of the secretariat of the Egmont Group. An organization of 101 of the world’s financial intelligence units, the group includes the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC). Canada’s new government will contribute $5million over the next five years to help the secretariat get established.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/news06/06-033e.html

-----------

DOD pulled some DEA out of the Caribean just before the SWIFT leak and I would wonder if someone is playing with Rumsfeld right about here;

swift deregulation and simplification of business formalities

CARIBBEAN FINANCIAL ACTION TASK FORCE-

-------------
Senate Intelligence Committee;

It may not be about Hoekstra, but the fact that Rockefeller did a good job.

[clarice]

Yom, that is a brilliant catch.
Eggmont what you posted seems important but is so cryptic it flew over my head.

[SteveMG]

The head of the House intelligence committee openly claims that the President of the US during a time of war is being undermined by a rogue element in the CIA and the NY Times says not a word about that.

Does anyone - even our occasional visitors from the la-la-land known as the Daily Kos - believe that if we had a liberal Democrat president being undermined by a rogue conservative element in the CIA that the NY Times would not have mentioned this?

Time for my tired - but accurate - cliche.

The bias in the press is not that they tell you want to think; the bias is that they tell you what to think about.

Or, in this case, what not to think about.

SMG

[pgl]

The CIA is using the Plame story to discredit the White House? Now that turns the whole matter on its head. Maybe some folks don't like the Stephen Kappes appointment but this in no way justifies the outing of a CIA agent.

[Redcoat]

SteveMG,

I would imagine this cabal within the C.I.A is one of the sources for the leaks the NYTimes prints.

I suspect that Kappes will be reclassified from a "former" to a "current" Anonymous Source in future Times stories that undermine our security.

[noah]

pgl...so Armitage should be prosecuted if he is the leaker, no?

[Specter]

pgl,

correction - CIA "management type" which reads as Bureaucrat. Agent? LOL. Whe said that?

[SunnyDay]

You know, pgl and cleo, and the other leftistas who post here are not up to date on the facts, or they refuse to accept them. That question has been asked and answered so many times, it's just a waste of energy to keep going in circles and that dead horse, trying to find a way to beat it some more.

I bet they do not bother to answer the Armitage question.

It just doesn't fit
they must omit.

[SunnyDay]

oopsie! around the dead horse.

[Redcoat]

pgl

Maybe some folks don't like the Stephen Kappes appointment but this in no way justifies the outing of a CIA agent.

I am unaware of anyone using this as a justification,it does however tarnish the Halo of Mrs.Wilson.

[Jeff]

Tom - Are you sure "the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events" refers to the post-Novak push by Kappes' strong and well-positioned CIA cabal, and not the mind control they exercised from February 2002 on to set up the administration with bad intel to go to war and get it to participate with Robert Novak in blowing Plame's cover?

[JJ]

Time for my tired - but accurate - cliche.

The bias in the press is not that they tell you want to think; the bias is that they tell you what to think about.

Nothing tired about it.

And the MO is to leave out essential parts; and this MO is currently rising to incredible heights.

When a news story's intro becomes a thesis instead of simply a lede, watch out. That's the signal to turn off the serious news expectation and turn on the filtering mechanisms.

Usually the real news is buried down in the message somewhere, as many catch. TM, we are thankful for your big filters. :)

Gad! I'd pay extra bucks to the Libby defense team just to see Times' articles dissected for reliability! Maybe that's coming...

[clarice]

If I were a high school teacher, I'd assign TM's blog to my students to better teach them how to read a newspaper and recognize all the propaganda tricks.

[ghostcat]

Kappes is back because of his knowledge of Iran and the Khan nuclear network. But he wouldn't come back until Goss was shown the door. Compromise is.

[SteveMG]

Jeff:
not the mind control they exercised from February 2002 on to set up the administration

Wait a second Jeff.

Parallel universe time.

Imagine Rep. Jane Harman, chair of the House Intelligence Committee, writing a letter to President Kerry and in it she states that groups in the CIA were undermining the Kerry Administration's war on terror policies.

You think the NY Times would not include that allegation anywhere in their coverage?

Nothing? Nada?

SMG

[Semanticleo]

Interesting speculations, all.

I suppose the 45 year-old threat by JFK to dismantle the CIA after they screwed him on intel for Bay of Pigs, may yet be accomplished
if this thread bears fruit.

Then we will have only military intelligence and the NSA. Not good.

Just to throw a little water on the bare assumptions borne by Maguire, I suppose the
'Aspen' communique signals some truth about the sexual fireworks between 'Suite' Judy
and Libby. I mean, if there was no reason for Libby to fear retribution for Wislonian hijinks, what other explanation could there be. Just some soap opera lather for the vicarious lurkers.

[clarice]

The Hoekstra letter is short and uncomplicated. The NYT could only have described it as they did to (a) cover their rears yet again on the leaks and (b) protect the leakers or those like Kappes who we know did protect them.

There simply is no other way to explain this piece of crappy reportage.

[Jeff]

SMG - I am of course asking a question about Hoekstra's letter and perspective, not about the Times' strange article about it. Best as I can tell, this is an idle threat from Hoekstra to the administration to toe the rightwing line in the evidently ongoing war between the right and the CIA. Hoekstra is pissed his buddy Goss got fired, and pissed that Kappes has been rehired, and fearful that the cough cough rightwing intel reformers have been abandoned by the Bush administration, so he is threatening to make things a little more difficult for the Bush administration. I doubt he will, no Republican these days seems to be genuinely able to stand up to the Bush administration. But in any case, my question went to what Hoekstra is talking about, and whether it is as reasonable as what Tom is talking about, which I doubt.

[SteveMG]

I am of course asking a question about Hoekstra's letter and perspective, not about the Times' strange article about it.

Right.

But one of TM's reasons (apparently) for posting this story was the failure by the Post and Times to include Hoekstra's charges.

You have no comment on that?

And no comment on my imaginary scenario where a Democratic chair writes to a Democratic President about individuals underming the president's national security policies.

I will propose to you that had this been conservative figures in the CIA accused of undermining a liberal administration, that the press (as a whole) would be giving those accusations great coverage.

But of course, I also think that most newsrooms look at the world through a left-of-center perspective and report on it accordingly.

You think otherwise.

SMG

[Semanticleo]

"I will propose to you that had this been conservative figures in the CIA accused of undermining a liberal administration, that the press (as a whole) would be giving those accusations great coverage."

Jeez. Liberally-biased media. Will this canard ever be cooked L'Orange?

[Redcoat]

Clarice,

Right on both counts.

It's all about the leaks.

[pgl]

Up to date on the facts? Sorry but Specter's SPIN that Plame was only a management type is quite and has been thoroughly discredited. Now if Armitage is the leaker (yes, the rightwing spin continues) then throw him under the bus1

[pgl]

BTW - Specter's spin is quite OLD. Sorry for the typo. Also check out Kosh Marshall on some real spin from Hoekstra.

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

Pincus also wrote a puff piece (cribbing a bit from Mazzetti) on Kappes that mentions Feinstein's support as well as Warner's.

I wonder if Pincus refers to Kappes in private as 'old reliable'? Not a very impressive rehire at all.

[JM Hanes]

pgl

Specter's spin? LOL! Do you actually not realize that "managerial type" is a direct quote from the State Dept. memo describing Plame?

[clarice]

RB, I had a dispute with Mac about the rehire some time ago.When the monkeys run the zoo...and that does seem to describe CYA--to the extent that they can demand the rehire of Kappes who protected a leaker in the agency (likely MOM cause the report said the leaker was a "she"), they cease to be of significant value. Moynihan was right r=years ago when he called for the Agency to be disbanded.

[Redcoat]

JM Hanes

Who are you going to believe,

The State Department,or Kosh Marshall?

[Rick Ballard]

Clarice,

This could be the result of a small tear that I just discovered in my Reynolds Wrap Sunday chapeau but could the Times be providing cover for someone with their neck in a DoJ noose? The Times has more than one source in the CIA hog pen and dumping a few more "confidential" pieces of information may be a means of distraction.

[Syl]

Jeff is simply implying that Hoekstra is a conspiracy theorist.

Nice, eh?

[clarice]

So how did the letter make it to the NYT? It wasn't CC'd to the CIA. Someone in the WH or on Hoekstra's staff saw that the paper got it. Why? (a) they are pissed off at the treachery at Langley,(b) a message re that to Negroponte or to the WH or to Gonzales,(c) to help Libby.

All reasonable speculation invited.

[Redcoat]

Clarice:

Perhaps as a message to Kappes?

A warning?

[clarice]

Maybe, but I believe Hoekstra made his displeasure about the rehire known at the time.

[lurker]

This is old news.

[moneyrunner]

Jeff, is conspiracy speculation a hobby or a full time occupation? Can we take Hoekstra's words at face value? Why not?

[Redcoat]

Yes,but his private letter is very specific,and much more forceful,and hits at some very disturbing trends within the agency.

Hoekstra is paraphrased as having "complained",which could be merely Congressional posturing,his private letter is more of an accusation.

Displeasure I would guess would be par for the course,but he is almost at the point of characterizing Kappes and friends as seditious.

[lurker]

Do we really want Kappes back in CIA?

[clarice]

I don't, but the imlication at the time of his rehire is that the sedition would only get worse if he weren't. As good a reason to close down the agency as I can think of.

[Pofarmer]

"Then we will have only military intelligence and the NSA. Not good."

Why? Either one of those agencies is much more accountable than the CIA was or currently is, and both are actually getting results and have humint in the field. The CIA is just sifting other peoples garbage, at this point.

[lurker]

So...one way of hiring Kappes is to isolate him from classified information as much as possible. Or, give him disinformation in order to catch him leaking, then fire him?

I wasn't happy when I learned he was to be hired back.

Which one was spawned from OSS - FBI or CIA?

I would be happy to see the CIA disbanded altogether by realignment or absorbed through other organizations.

[lurker]

Both UN and CIA have been very ineffective and go out of their way to destroy WH, USA, Israel, etc.

I anticipate that the UN will collapse the same way as League of Nations.

[lurker]

Hahahaha!!

Tom Delay will come back FULL FORCE if the appeal court doesn't overturn it.

That's why Lampoon is starting his ad campaign...long before Tom's started his.

Will the appeal court overturn it? Doesn't look like it at this time.

[Redcoat]

Lurker

Which one was spawned from OSS - FBI or CIA?

The C.I.A.

They devolved from an effective military intelligence/operative group to a bunch of petty bureaucrats.

[crosspatch]

I believe that this is all about the existance of WMD and the efforts that had to be applied to get both a classified and unclassified summary of the WMD found in Iraq.

If you will remember, Rick Santorum got wind of this WMD that had been found and went to Hoekstra for more information. Hoekstra didn't know anything about it and it was only after explicitly going to the intelligence community and referring to things by codenames in his specific requests, was any information given to him which Santorum and Hoekstra then took public at a press conference in June.

The timing of all of this would be about right. I suspect the NYT has stumbled on the documents surround Hoekstra's anger that he didn't know about the Iraq WMD.

[clarice]

I kinda think so, too..And then, after Hoekstra released what he had and asked for a full declassification (everyone who's seen it says the still classified stuff is very damning), some guys in DoD poohpoohed it.And the doc remains classified.

[Pofarmer]

"They devolved from an effective military intelligence/operative group to a bunch of petty bureaucrats."

Yep, and very politically charged ones at that. I really think the CIA is more dangerous than useful, at this point. And, they can't ACT on anything. At least DOD can act on it's intelligence without another layer of buearacracy, and none of it is Domestic, anyway.

[Tom Maguire]

Tom - Are you sure "the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events" refers to the post-Novak push by Kappes' strong and well-positioned CIA cabal, and not the mind control they exercised from February 2002 on to set up the administration with bad intel...

Well, who knows what is in his heart? I guess the "Conspiracy Heavy" theory is that the whole Plame-wilson show ran from a CIA script starting in Feb 2002; "Conspiracy Light" is that the CIA seized its opportunity following the Novak column.

I'm a "Light" guy, and I hope Hoekstra is, but who knows?

That said, Hoekstra's reference to "the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets" would seem to fit well with the 2003-2004 period.

I just happen to have this quote from the Pulitzer-winning, Cheney-annoying, prison-revealing Dana Priest handy, which arguably touches on CIA motivation:

Dana Priest: I don't actually think the Plame leak compromised national security, from what I've been able to learn about her position. As for my article, we tried to minimize that by not naming the countries involved and, otherwise, no, I don't believe it compromised national security at all.

So the CIA was upset because...?

[crosspatch]

I can understand if there was a reluctance to release the information in full. We don't want to send terrorists on a "treasure hunt" for WMD in Iraq.

By the way, Santorum's radio interview with Hugh Hewitt is available here at radioblogger. At about 6 minutes 50 seconds into the interview, he talks about the process of discovering the information.

I heard more information about the trouble Hoekstra had from another source which I can't recall at the moment but it was an interview, not a written report. Possibly Fox.

[section9]

Strangely enough, OSS operated directly under the aegis of George C. Marshall and the War Department. It was a supremely effective intelligence agency that sent American nationals on dangerous missions deep into the heart of the Reich and Imperial Japan's extended Empire. The C.I.A. has become a hidebound, beureaucratically ossified agency that is the laughinstock of the intelligence world. It conducts intelligence campaigns against sitting American presidents because that's what it can do, as opposed to killing bin Laden or finding out the true nature of the Iranian Manhattan Project.

That's what CIA is supposed to do. CIA has been effectively routed out of Iran and North Korea for some time. The fact that the agency even employs the likes of Valerie Wilson should indicate to any casual observer the level of seriousness with which this once formidable agency approaches its tradecraft. Real intelligence agencies, like Mossad, MI-6, or France's SDECE, probably keep their exposure to CIA to a bare minimum. One doesn't want one's state secrets published in the New York Times, does one? Poster above was correct-CIA has been reduced to sifting through other people's garbage.

The only truly effective intel outfits we have right now operate for Donald Rumsfeld-the spooky Pentagon outfits. They get results. They are task oriented and don't have a cumbersome station chief template to work around. If the CIA were gone tomorrow, we'd survive, although CIA has a lot of great analysts. They're just not being used properly.

[Tudalu]

Well, these people already openly mourn the loss of Zarqawi.

What can really surprise us at this point?

[Extraneus]

Why would the NYT and lefties even here be supporting this person for a high position at CIA? Who's ever even heard of him? Besides, do these folks even want a CIA? For what purpose?

Obviously there's more here than meets the eye. I'm partial to Rick's speculation.

And btw, do we know any more about why Mr. Kappes left in the first place? Was he pushed out by Goss, or such a principled guy that he decided on his own to just vamoose because things were so "wobbly" under the new Director?