Powered by TypePad

« Tom DeLay, Dan Rostenkowski, And A Partial History | Main | Matt Drudge, Social Critic and Comic »

November 19, 2004



Apparently there are some at the C.I.A. who don’t want to gang bang for the Republican party. Can you blame them?

Cecil Turner

Nope, don't blame 'em at all. But when they decide to leak to reporters, they're at best being partisan, and likely breaking the law. It's totally unprofessional behavior in an intelligence agency, and I have zero sympathy for 'em when they get fired for it.

The fact that the vast majority of the leaks are critical of Goss is a pretty good indicator he's twisting the right tails. Faster, please.

The Kid

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Left feared the CIA and the FBI.

The Peanut Farmer and a sailor defanged what was effective in the CIA by getting rid of the guys who knew how to be nasty, crafty, and wise, and someone left the barn door open for the KGB. As for the FBI, looks like their focus on organized crime (can we say “Mafia”?) didn’t upset many folks, nor did their attention to the far-right whackos. But they got pretty soft and PC too.

Today nobody’s afraid of the CIA or the FBI.

I agree with Cecil – faster.


Funny how partisans complained that the CIA didn't have perfect information (not that that's possible) regarding a whole host of issues--9/11, terrorism, bin Laden, Iraq, WMDs. Now the process of addressing those issues becomes gang banging for Republicans. That's not even credible.

Keep at it, antiphone, and not only will no one vote for Democrats, but no one will even listen to your silly opinions. A list of complaints is not an action plan.

Faster, please.


the process of addressing those issues

Here’s what http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/july-dec04/cia_11-15.html”>Jane Harman said about that.

I think Porter Goss has every right as the president's nominee and someone confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate to change the agency. And I might like those changes or I might not, but he has a right to make them.

It's the way he's making them that concerns me. It's also where he's making them. The directorate of operations, which is the spy service of the CIA, is not the crowd that wrote the national intelligence estimate on Iraq that was wrong, and it's not the crowd that lost the clues leading up to 9/11, either.
It's the crowd that has people in the field, with whom I visited last week, who are excellent, and who are our eyes and ears in the Middle East...

I would at least trust her to know where changes are being made.


It's the crowd that has people in the field, with whom I visited last week, who are excellent, and who are our eyes and ears in the Middle East..."

Excuse me, but our eyes and ears in the Middle East are pretty much non existant thanks to our PC Policy of spying. That is exactly why the shuffle. And if the people Jane visited are excellent, pardon my partisan ways, but the sooner they go the better.



Here’s a pop quiz for all the Porter Goss group-thinkers.

Michael V. Kostiw, chosen by CIA Director Porter J. Goss to be the agency's new executive director, resigned under pressure from the CIA more than 20 years ago, according to past and current agency officials....

Do you know why? Faster please!

Cecil Turner

"Do you know why?"

Anyone who's been paying attention will immediately identify the infamous "pound of bacon" incident (wherein, for those who haven't, "past and current agency officials" leaked information from Kostiw's personnel file to discredit the choice, which resulted in him being withdrawn from consideration for the executive director position). Which of course spawned the dustup between Murray, Kappes, Sulick, and an unnamed "associate deputy director of counterintelligence," which ended with Kappes's and Sulick's resignations (covered in creditable detail by our estimable host here), the gist of which was:

Referring to previous media leaks regarding personnel, he said that if anything in the newly appointed executive director's personnel file made it into the media, the counterintelligence official "would be held responsible," according to one agency official and two former colleagues with knowledge of the conversation. [emphasis added]
Now that we're all up to speed, I'm having a hard time seeing your point. Kostiw's 20-year-old shoplifting incident, especially devoid of context, isn't very revealing. Is he kleptomanic, was he practicing tradecraft, or did he crack under pressure? Obviously each (and subsequent events) would have vastly different implications for his suitability for current CIA positions. However, the recent leaking provides very pertinent information about the leakers--especially the ones working in counterintelligence. Whatever their qualifications, they're obviously part of the problem, and spending considerable effort trying to obstruct solutions.

"Faster please!"

Amen, brother. Testify!

The comments to this entry are closed.