The CIA 'old guard' goes to war with Bush
By Phillip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 10/10/2004)
A powerful "old guard" faction in the Central Intelligence Agency has
launched an unprecedented campaign to undermine the Bush
administration with a battery of damaging leaks and briefings about
Iraq.
The White House is incensed by the increasingly public sniping from
some senior intelligence officers who, it believes, are conducting a
partisan operation to swing the election on November 2 in favour of
John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, and against George W Bush.
Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman who left with the former
director George Tenet in July, acknowledged that there had been leaks
from within the agency. "The intelligence community has been made the
scapegoat for all the failings over Iraq," he said. "It deserves some
of the blame, but not all of it. People are chafing at that, and
that's the background to these leaks."
Relations between the White House and the agency are widely regarded
as being at their lowest ebb since the hopelessly botched Bay of Pigs
invasion of Cuba by CIA-sponsored exiles under President John F
Kennedy in 1961.
There is anger within the CIA that it has taken all the blame for the
failings of pre-war intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons
programmes.
Former senior CIA officials argue that so-called "neo-conservative"
hawks such as the vice president, Dick Cheney, the secretary of
defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and his number three at the defence
department, Douglas Feith, have prompted the ill-feeling by demanding
"politically acceptable" results from the agency and rejecting
conclusions they did not like.
In the latest clash, a senior former CIA agent revealed that Mr Cheney
"blew up" when a report into links between the Saddam regime and Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist behind the kidnappings and beheadings
of hostages in Iraq, including the Briton Kenneth Bigley, proved
inconclusive.
Other recent leaks have included the contents of classified reports
drawn up by CIA analysts before the invasion of Iraq, warning the
White House about the dangers of post-war instability. Specifically,
the reports said that rogue Ba'athist elements might team up with
terrorist groups to wage a guerrilla war.
Critics of the White House include officials who have served in
previous Republican administrations such as Vince Cannistraro, a
former CIA head of counter-terrorism and member of the National
Security Council under Ronald Reagan.
"These have been an extraordinary four years for the CIA and the
political pressure to come up with the right results has been
enormous, particularly from Vice-President Cheney.
"I'm afraid that the agency is guilty of bending over backwards to
please the administration. George Tenet was desperate to give them
what they wanted and that was a complete disaster."
With the simmering rows breaking out in public, the Wall Street
Journal declared in an editorial that the administration was now
fighting two insurgencies: one in Iraq and one at the CIA.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Harper
<[email protected]> wrote:
> 50 Former U.S. Diplomats, Retired Military Say Bush Should Not Be Trusted
Diplomats are appointed. Who appointed them? They are "former"
diplomats, so it obviously wasn't Bush who appointed them.
Take with this: ----> . <---- (Grain of salt)
Kevin
A scenario just as likely.
They screwed up and don't want to admit it.
"Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The CIA 'old guard' goes to war with Bush
> By Phillip Sherwell in Washington
> (Filed: 10/10/2004)
>
> A powerful "old guard" faction in the Central Intelligence Agency has
> launched an unprecedented campaign to undermine the Bush
> administration with a battery of damaging leaks and briefings about
> Iraq.
>
> The White House is incensed by the increasingly public sniping from
> some senior intelligence officers who, it believes, are conducting a
> partisan operation to swing the election on November 2 in favour of
> John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, and against George W Bush.
>
> Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman who left with the former
> director George Tenet in July, acknowledged that there had been leaks
> from within the agency. "The intelligence community has been made the
> scapegoat for all the failings over Iraq," he said. "It deserves some
> of the blame, but not all of it. People are chafing at that, and
> that's the background to these leaks."
>
> Relations between the White House and the agency are widely regarded
> as being at their lowest ebb since the hopelessly botched Bay of Pigs
> invasion of Cuba by CIA-sponsored exiles under President John F
> Kennedy in 1961.
>
> There is anger within the CIA that it has taken all the blame for the
> failings of pre-war intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons
> programmes.
>
> Former senior CIA officials argue that so-called "neo-conservative"
> hawks such as the vice president, Dick Cheney, the secretary of
> defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and his number three at the defence
> department, Douglas Feith, have prompted the ill-feeling by demanding
> "politically acceptable" results from the agency and rejecting
> conclusions they did not like.
>
> In the latest clash, a senior former CIA agent revealed that Mr Cheney
> "blew up" when a report into links between the Saddam regime and Abu
> Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist behind the kidnappings and beheadings
> of hostages in Iraq, including the Briton Kenneth Bigley, proved
> inconclusive.
>
> Other recent leaks have included the contents of classified reports
> drawn up by CIA analysts before the invasion of Iraq, warning the
> White House about the dangers of post-war instability. Specifically,
> the reports said that rogue Ba'athist elements might team up with
> terrorist groups to wage a guerrilla war.
>
> Critics of the White House include officials who have served in
> previous Republican administrations such as Vince Cannistraro, a
> former CIA head of counter-terrorism and member of the National
> Security Council under Ronald Reagan.
>
> "These have been an extraordinary four years for the CIA and the
> political pressure to come up with the right results has been
> enormous, particularly from Vice-President Cheney.
>
> "I'm afraid that the agency is guilty of bending over backwards to
> please the administration. George Tenet was desperate to give them
> what they wanted and that was a complete disaster."
>
> With the simmering rows breaking out in public, the Wall Street
> Journal declared in an editorial that the administration was now
> fighting two insurgencies: one in Iraq and one at the CIA.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
50 Former U.S. Diplomats, Retired Military Say Bush Should Not Be Trusted;
Bush Has Made America More Vulnerable To Terrorists
9/28/2004 4:15:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: National Desk, Political Correspondent
Contact: (Read only)
WASHINGTON, /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today 50 former high- level diplomats,
generals and admirals declared President Bush has made America less safe and
called for his ouster.
Members of the group are available for interview, including in Miami, where
several are giving public presentations this week in the run up to the
Presidential Debate on Thursday. Several are fluent in Spanish.
The group released a public statement that says President Bush has
squandered American lives and should not be trusted.
"The claim that we are safer is the biggest lie of this campaign season,"
states the group. "Now we are bogged down there in a quagmire with no
solution in sight."
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37086
"Bob Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>A scenario just as likely.
>
> They screwed up and don't want to admit it.
>
> "Florida Patriot" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The CIA 'old guard' goes to war with Bush
>> By Phillip Sherwell in Washington
>> (Filed: 10/10/2004)
>>
>> A powerful "old guard" faction in the Central Intelligence Agency has
>> launched an unprecedented campaign to undermine the Bush
>> administration with a battery of damaging leaks and briefings about
>> Iraq.
>>
>> The White House is incensed by the increasingly public sniping from
>> some senior intelligence officers who, it believes, are conducting a
>> partisan operation to swing the election on November 2 in favour of
>> John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, and against George W Bush.
>>
>> Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman who left with the former
>> director George Tenet in July, acknowledged that there had been leaks
>> from within the agency. "The intelligence community has been made the
>> scapegoat for all the failings over Iraq," he said. "It deserves some
>> of the blame, but not all of it. People are chafing at that, and
>> that's the background to these leaks."
>>
>> Relations between the White House and the agency are widely regarded
>> as being at their lowest ebb since the hopelessly botched Bay of Pigs
>> invasion of Cuba by CIA-sponsored exiles under President John F
>> Kennedy in 1961.
>>
>> There is anger within the CIA that it has taken all the blame for the
>> failings of pre-war intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons
>> programmes.
>>
>> Former senior CIA officials argue that so-called "neo-conservative"
>> hawks such as the vice president, Dick Cheney, the secretary of
>> defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and his number three at the defence
>> department, Douglas Feith, have prompted the ill-feeling by demanding
>> "politically acceptable" results from the agency and rejecting
>> conclusions they did not like.
>>
>> In the latest clash, a senior former CIA agent revealed that Mr Cheney
>> "blew up" when a report into links between the Saddam regime and Abu
>> Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist behind the kidnappings and beheadings
>> of hostages in Iraq, including the Briton Kenneth Bigley, proved
>> inconclusive.
>>
>> Other recent leaks have included the contents of classified reports
>> drawn up by CIA analysts before the invasion of Iraq, warning the
>> White House about the dangers of post-war instability. Specifically,
>> the reports said that rogue Ba'athist elements might team up with
>> terrorist groups to wage a guerrilla war.
>>
>> Critics of the White House include officials who have served in
>> previous Republican administrations such as Vince Cannistraro, a
>> former CIA head of counter-terrorism and member of the National
>> Security Council under Ronald Reagan.
>>
>> "These have been an extraordinary four years for the CIA and the
>> political pressure to come up with the right results has been
>> enormous, particularly from Vice-President Cheney.
>>
>> "I'm afraid that the agency is guilty of bending over backwards to
>> please the administration. George Tenet was desperate to give them
>> what they wanted and that was a complete disaster."
>>
>> With the simmering rows breaking out in public, the Wall Street
>> Journal declared in an editorial that the administration was now
>> fighting two insurgencies: one in Iraq and one at the CIA.
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
>
>
I'd bet you could find any number of former "experts" to publicly agree with
Kerry (or Bush for that matter). a high level position in a Kerry
administration is quite the incentive for a washed up has-been forced out
for incompetence.
The fact is that it does not really matter who says what. Any political
campaign can come up with people to support it who seem credible at first
glance. And making vague charges and repeating Kerry campaign sound bites
verbatim does not make them more credible.
"Jeff Harper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 50 Former U.S. Diplomats, Retired Military Say Bush Should Not Be Trusted;
> Bush Has Made America More Vulnerable To Terrorists
>
> 9/28/2004 4:15:00 PM
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To: National Desk, Political Correspondent
>
> Contact: (Read only)
>
> WASHINGTON, /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today 50 former high- level diplomats,
> generals and admirals declared President Bush has made America less safe
> and called for his ouster.
>
> Members of the group are available for interview, including in Miami,
> where several are giving public presentations this week in the run up to
> the Presidential Debate on Thursday. Several are fluent in Spanish.
>
> The group released a public statement that says President Bush has
> squandered American lives and should not be trusted.
>
> "The claim that we are safer is the biggest lie of this campaign season,"
> states the group. "Now we are bogged down there in a quagmire with no
> solution in sight."
In article <TeSad.8137$ER4.5875@trndny04>, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles"
<"Charles Krug"@cdksystems.com> says...
> Because I'm a SW Engineer, people assume that I "know how to fix
> computers," whether Mac or PC, running any operating system on earth
>
Boy, do I know that syndrome. I keep explaining to people that SCADA
systems using Unix(ish) operating systems and C programs do not qualify
me to explain why Bill Gates latest abomination keeps crashing.
And by now I've been retired long enough that I don't even remember how
to do those :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
Kevin Craig <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<111020040256539002%[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Harper
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 50 Former U.S. Diplomats, Retired Military Say Bush Should Not Be Trusted
>
> Diplomats are appointed. Who appointed them? They are "former"
> diplomats, so it obviously wasn't Bush who appointed them.
>
> Take with this: ----> . <---- (Grain of salt)
>
> Kevin
Just cause they are "former" or "retired" does not change their
credibility or lack there of. However, the fact that they are no
longer actively involved in policy decisions probably does mean they
do not agree with the current administration. In some people's eyes
that somehow bestows instant credibility to them. In reality it just
means they don't agree with the Bush administration.
Without reading why they think this way its hard to attach any level
of credibility to what they are saying. They could be guys like
Richard Clark who was the architect of the failed Clinton approach on
terrorism who is trying to rehabilitate himself now by bashing what
Bush does while failing to acknowledge his own lack of success in
dealing with terror when he had that responsibility.
I am suspicious of anyone who parrots the Kerry line, as I would be if
they were just repeating Bush sound bites.
Personally, I think the Clinton people now putting words into Kerry's
mouth are doing him, the Democratic party, liberals, and the US as a
whole a great disservice. It would make for a much better debate and
a much clearer choice if John Kerry would just come right out and say
what he really thinks. Most people appreciate forthrightness and
after eight years of Slick Willy don't like having to parse every word
to figure out just what a politico really means (or might mean).
Its pretty clear Kerry does not think the US should engage in
unilateral action in our own interests. He has flat out said this
many times, and has come close to saying it in the debates a couple
times but managed to reign himself in without actually saying it.
On 11 Oct 2004 08:48:04 -0700, bob peterson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kevin Craig <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<111020040256539002%[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Jeff Harper
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > 50 Former U.S. Diplomats, Retired Military Say Bush Should Not Be Trusted
>>
>> Diplomats are appointed. Who appointed them? They are "former"
>> diplomats, so it obviously wasn't Bush who appointed them.
>>
>> Take with this: ----> . <---- (Grain of salt)
>>
>> Kevin
>
>
> Just cause they are "former" or "retired" does not change their
> credibility or lack there of. However, the fact that they are no
> longer actively involved in policy decisions probably does mean they
> do not agree with the current administration. In some people's eyes
> that somehow bestows instant credibility to them. In reality it just
> means they don't agree with the Bush administration.
>
I've heard them called "The 102nd Chairborn Brigade of Retired
Generals." Similar names for diplomats.
I hold responsible the plethora of "24 Hour News" stations. They have
airtime to fill, so they fill it with whoever looks good.
"Retired X" gives him instant credibility on all matters X, so you have
nonsense like a former Quartermaster General talking about combat
operations. Amazing that his focus is on supply chain, no?
Because I'm a SW Engineer, people assume that I "know how to fix
computers," whether Mac or PC, running any operating system on earth.
"Embedded systems running VxWorks" is only meaningful to people in my
field and "Doing my time in JetDb back-end Purgatory" is just my way of
not admiting I'm a Windows developer this week.
But on TV, I'd be billed as an "Expert" on everything computer related
from PDAs to supercomputing clusters, regardless as how silly it seems
to me.
I've the Perfect look for radio, and the perfect voice for silent films.
[email protected] (bob peterson) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> Just cause they are "former" or "retired" does not change their
> credibility or lack there of. However, the fact that they are no
> longer actively involved in policy decisions probably does mean they
> do not agree with the current administration.
Or they retired. Then they can afford to disagree without fear of
retribution. I take it as a fact that someone disagrees with
an administration when they SAY they disagree, as the aformentiond
persons supposedly have done.
--
FF