Salon.com News | The CIA revolt against the White House (subscription or day pass required): In President Bush's State of the Union address, national security was a core theme, and with good reason: Recent polls show Bush enjoys far more popular support for his aggressive foreign policy and terror-fighting tactics than on domestic issues. Undoubtedly, the president's reelection campaign will tout two swift, decisive military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, and argue the homeland is more secure since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
... IRAQ was a swift decisive military campaign? Then why on earth have more US soldiers died since the declaration of victory than before?
But for almost a year, the White House has been quietly fighting a contentious battle at home on the national security front -- against the U.S. intelligence community itself. Vocal retired intelligence officials, and anonymous active ones, have protested repeatedly that the White House has coerced intelligence agencies to rig findings and analysis to suit administration aims. An egregious example: The long-held goal of removing Saddam Hussein from power, by unilateral war if necessary. The consequences of such White House intimidation could be disastrous, the intelligence veterans say, with the integrity of their work -- and national security -- put at grave risk. The latest salvo was launched this week when a group of respected former CIA officials, led by decorated analyst Larry C. Johnson, sent a letter to Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert demanding that Congress hold the White House accountable for deliberately revealing the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. Johnson, who also served as deputy director for the State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism, says the administration's political tactics are clear. "With this White House, I see an outright pattern of bullying," he told Salon in an interview Thursday. "We've seen it across different agencies, a pattern of going after anybody who's a critic. When people raise legitimate issues that may not be consistent with existing administration policy, those people are attacked and their character is impugned."
Well, it will be interesting to see how, and if, this plays out. I should think that the leadership in Congress would think it in its own best interest to do all it can to bury this letter and the concerns expressed therein.
...Since Attorney General John Ashcroft has recused himself from the Plame investigation, are you comfortable that the Department of Justice is doing an adequate job with the case?
- It's only one part of the puzzle. I think that for its part the Department of Justice is probably on target, particularly with Ashcroft stepping aside. But what I fear here is that they'll come back and say, "We couldn't find evidence of a crime, and therefore no crime was committed." But it's not the legal statute that should be the standard here -- it's the moral statute that should be the standard, because it's U.S. national security and the lives of intelligence personnel that are at risk.
Well ... no, actually, it shouldn't be the moral statute, whatever that would be. Not for the Department of Justice, in any event. They are charged only with investigating and enforcing the written laws of this country; I do not think that we particularly want or need a Justice department -- particularly an Ashcroft-led Justice department -- enforcing what it would consider to be the "moral statutes" of the land.
Posted by iain at January 26, 2004 12:15 PM
