It may turn out — in the great war being waged by disaffected members of the intelligence community network against the Neocon cabal inside the Bush administration — that Valerie Plame Wilson is as incidental as Monica Lewinsky was in the unending campaigns against Bill Clinton.
While the White House-spoonfed pundits nitpick over Joseph Wilson’s veracity and Valerie Wilson’s photo in Vanity Fair, the intelligence community is in a full-court press to undo the Bush administration’s gross mishandling of intelligence information, officers, agents, and agencies.
Imagine you’re in that community, and you witness the following:
- Neocon ideologue David Wurmser and the members of the post-9/11 newly created Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans — none of whom are experts in analyzing and assessing raw intelligence — are given carte blanche to cherry-pick and artificially produce “evidence not only linking Iraq to Al Qaeda, which we now know was false and which the CIA all along believed was false,” said Mother Jones reporter Robert Dreyfuss in an interview with his subject former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman on Democracy Now!, Nov. 6, 2003.
- “As the campaign against Iraq intensified, a former aide to Cheney told me, the Vice-President’s office, run by his chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, became increasingly secretive when it came to intelligence about Iraq’s W.M.D.s. As with Wolfowitz and Bolton, there was a reluctance to let the military and civilian analysts on the staff vet intelligence,” writes Seymour Hersh in an October 2003 New Yorker interview of V.P. Cheney’s spokesperson Cathie Martin who — like Wurmser — is being eyed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
- “[E]ven before [9/11], a number of senior White House officials sought to brand the CIA as soft in its analysis and unwilling to offer more clear-cut views on the threats to America.” WSJ, Oct. 28, 2005
- There are endless more examples of which you are also aware.
The retired/active intelligence community will not stand down and allow a Neocon cabal to dismantle its historic structure — allowing ideologues to place sensitive intelligence in the hands of wholly unqualified amateurs such as David Wurmser.
Take another look at this graphic from the Wall Street Journal, posted in Catnip’s WSJ news summary last night. Catnip also quoted BoomanTribune contributors Patrick Lang and Larry Johnson in today’s WSJ piece:
Any indictments would be a “huge deal … because they will help restore hope that the system works,” said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department.
Beyond the very large, and networked, community of retired intelligence officers, there are all of the active agents and analysts who were pressured or coerced in the run-up to the war. Many of them are joined in gunning for the Neocon cabal that created and marketed its own fictional rationales for the Iraq war.
The intel community also sees grave danger in the erosion of power of the CIA — and the rearranging of the deck chairs on Bush’s Titanic:
Pressed by Congress to revamp the nation’s intelligence agencies after the 2001 terrorist attacks, Mr. Bush this year created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, putting intelligence agencies under one roof. The director, John Negroponte, has been stripping out some units of the CIA and placing them under his direct control. He has also been seeking to institute standard procedures across the intelligence community, such as ways to handle clandestine agents. […….]
[S]ome inside the intelligence community see the changes as unwarranted attacks on their operations. They also see it as adding another level of bureaucracy that impairs quick response to terrorist threats.
“There’s been a huge wedge between what the analysts think and what the Bush administration wants them to say,” said Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA’s special unit targeting Osama bin Laden before quitting in 2004. WSJ
Just as the Republicans seized on Monica Lewinsky as a convenient, scandalous, and easy-to-sell story, so too, in a way, has the intelligence community, and those of us opposed to the war in Iraq, seized on the story of Valerie Plame Wilson.
But make no mistake about my foci. Besides countering the inevitable quibbling counterpoints of desperate Republicans, I think it’s critical to keep this all-out war — against the selling of wholly bogus reasons for the Iraq war — foremost in our minds.
As for the Wilsons, as I wrote the other day, Joe Wilson’s civil rights have been violated. By the way, I found it fascinating to hear Pat Buchanan, last night on MSNBC, bring up Joseph Wilson’s civil rights issue as a possible indictment charge. And Valerie Wilson Plame’s career has been badly damaged, and her sources compromised:
[A]ny sources she may have drawn, the current career, those people who were in real trouble. Any future work she might have been able to do as a 20-year veteran, very experienced, is lost. Plus, and most importantly, all around the world anybody who is thinking of working for U.S. intelligence as a spy now sees that from time to time, at least, the U.S. hurts the home team and that’s not good. (Patrick Lang on CNN, Oct. 27, 2005)
And, below, Larry Johnson tells us the chilling account of what happens to you when your husband crosses the Bush administration — your life is threatened, but you can’t get any protection:
BLITZER: Were you surprised that, after her name was revealed, that she posed for pictures, that famous picture in “Vanity Fair,” that she posed for pictures elsewhere with her husband? Because a lot of people have suggested, you know what? This was no big deal.
JOHNSON: Well, that’s…
BLITZER: It’s small potatoes. And look at her. She’s sort of flaunting it.
JOHNSON: Yes. With the benefit of hindsight, I don’t think Joe and Valerie would have done that again.
But they also recognized, at the time when they did it, her career had been completely destroyed. And she had received death threats overseas from al Qaeda. So, as a result of that outing…
BLITZER: How do you know she got death threats from al Qaeda?
JOHNSON: I have heard it directly from people that have been told that there was a threat.
BLITZER: Because she is a…
JOHNSON: Because…
BLITZER: … a former CIA operative?
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: … operative and outed by Robert Novak.
There were three people that were identified as having a threat. And she was contacted by the FBI.
BLITZER: Does she get security protection…
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: She did not.
BLITZER: Why didn’t she?
JOHNSON: She called…
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: She still works for the CIA.
JOHNSON: She called CIA and was told, you will have to rely upon 911.
BLITZER: Larry, we will continue this conversation.
Larry, thanks very much.
JOHNSON: Thanks, Wolf.
BLITZER: Larry Johnson, former CIA officer, worked at counterterrorism at the State Department as well.
The intelligence community is an active arm of all that is wrong with America. Simply because there is a split amongst them does not mean we should look to disaffected members like Johnson and Lang. Listen to Seymour Hersh, not Lang and Johnson.
The CIA is a horrific organization. Period. Comprised of extremely provinical paranoid, ignorant people who confuse their access to technology with intelligence. They are the most base,crude and violent of American people.
What they have done all over the world, in Latin America (They now have a super secret leader in foreign intelligence whose name can only be revealed as “Jose”…that in itself just sound SO STUPID.) in Europe, in Asia is just criminal behavior. If there is an axis of Evil it’s starts with the CIA and all like minded covert organizations.
If Patrick Lang and Larry Johsnon (a Republican) are you new heroes you can forget about anything called hope. It is despair, not hope that they offer.
I will continue to rely on honest folks that are calling BS on this administration. I believe Larry Johnson and Pat Lang over anyone in this cabal any day!
Yes, the CIA has problems.
But I’m with you ALL the way, Alohaleezy.
Stu, please read this to find out what Larry Johnson thinks of extraordinary rendition, for example.
You can’t condemn with such a broad brush. There have been rogue elements and rogue politicians who’ve used the CIA … but we NEED INTELLIGENCE, for chrissakes!
And the wholesale departure of the best analysts is NOT what the American people need!
I did not condemn them. I condemn the organization from which they came from which they have been tainted.
They did work for the CIA didn’t they?
They may be terrific people, NOW. I can’t imagine that being true while they were working for the CIA. Just the atmosphere of such an organiztion requires a kind of conformity to the overall focus and intent that a individual cannot escape without acquiescing. They can quit. And they can survive. I think that’s what these two guys did.
But there are other people like George Galloway, and Seymour Hersh and even Amy Sullivan who are better sources of information. There are many others, I can’t think of right now.
These people should not be above criticism and neither should your precious Patrick Fitzgerald
First, please go read their bios.
Their bios are summarized in every story that they post here. And the links to their stories are above the fold.
After you’ve read their bios, please comment further.
I’m not trying to shut you down — just point out some critical facts about their careers that it seems you don’t know about.
I did more than read thier bios. I went to google and didn’t find anything.
Their bios…..Larry Johnson was triained in paramilitary oeperations….what does that mean. …what did he do with that training….he’s an expert….well experts are people who other people say are experts. To me if you say you are an expert, I know right away that you are a fool. If you can’t predict, you don’t have any understanding of the present. Experts are people who interpret. Scientists can be experts, They can predict with certainty. CiA analysts are simply people with opinions. They cannot be experts.
Patrick Lang…. I can’t make anything out of what he diid as an agent in his Bio or on google. He’s also an expert.
I personally never get caught up with some one’s resume. Or their extensive experience. What do they have to say.
Education is myth. The so called “peasants” of this world have gotten a very bad rap. You know the people in straw hats who are always smiling and don’t know how to read or write.
I have found in my limited experience no difference in the intelligence of a peasant and that of an expert.
I would rather listen to a peasant, not only is it more interesting and informative, it just as intelligent.
Illiteracy is not as bad as you might think.
But again I couldn’t find anything about their history that didn’t come across as a resume.
call you Stupiddy for nothing.
You are in favor of having illiterate peasants in charge of our intelligence community?
No need to respond to that.
Oh absolutely. Because I know illiterate peasants and there is no difference in their intelligence and mine or possibly, yours.
What I am saying is illiteracy is not what literate people think it is. Intelligence is not related to education. You don’t have to be educated to understand things. This maybe requires more explanation but I not prepared. If y ou don’t get to know the people in straw hats who are always smiling…and not as an “aid” worker, by the way….you may never know this.
But we don’t need intelligence agencies. They just cause trouble. They get all caught up in chasing phantoms and then they create phantoms.
Witness the myth of Bin Laden and Al Queda. Al Zawahari.
Ok, now you’ve just contradicted yourself:
First you were saying you needed information about them to “consider their opinions”, now you say:
I personally never get caught up with some one’s resume. Or their extensive experience. What do they have to say. [emphasis mine]
So which is it? Do you not like what they have to say? If so why not?
I’m sorry Brinnanine. I don’t understand. I’m open to whatever information anyone can give. Getting caught up in the stuff is another matter.
But why can’t we all take a critical look at who these people are. Maybe they are the greatest people on Earth and I am competely wrong.
I could be wrong. But I am not saying they are bad. I am saying the CIA, is , in my opinion an awful, double awful organization and anyone who worked for them I would view very cautiously. But you have to stay open. It doesn’t mean that they could not be execeptional people. There it seems to me, always exceptions.
one of the things that makes Lang and Johnson’s analysis interesting is that they both worked in the analytic and the operational sides of intelligence. That is kind of unusual.
They both had a role in operations that I think were misguided. Lang had a role in the Phoenix Operation in Vietnam, but as part of the CORDS end of it. The CORDS end of it was the humanitarian/civilian side of a very harsh hearts and minds program. Building schools and health clinics, and so forth. The Phoenix program is understandably one of the most controversial programs in CIA history. But it was a complex and wide ranging program, and it was very effective in some areas, while it was indefensibly brutal in others. Lang’s end of it was the effective end of it. I think that experience as a young man gives him a very good perspective on what works and what doesn’t, what is morally acceptable, and what isn’t.
Johnson had a brief role as an operative in our Latin America policy in the 1980’s (right at the beginning of his career), before becoming an important analyst for Latin America. We all know the Contras were the main focus of our policy at that time. I opposed our Contra policy at the time, and I still do. But there is a difference between setting a policy and carrying it out. And Larry had nothing to do with Iran-Contra, which was carried out mainly through the NSC, and at a high level of the CIA’s operations side.
The bottom line is that there are two roles for the CIA. One is analysis. And that should not be politicized. Our policy makers need the best available intelligence, and they need it straight.
The other side is operational. Most of that is stealing information which is needed for good analysis. We need that too.
Only a small percentage of what the CIA does, comes into the category of messing with other governments like we did in Iran or Chile. And those decisions are made by the President and his National Security Council.
Well, where did you get this info? I would like to read it.
It sounds like both were involved in not so good “stuff” I am not condemning them for that. I have not reason to condemn them. But to have a crtitical sense is invalubale isn’t it. But just keep it mind where they have been and what they have done.
Larry Johnson…I have seen him on TV…he is really pissed off about Valerie Plame. He is also a republican, I think. He’s really quite conservative. He’s entitiled to be, but shouldn’t that be something we are aware of. And just exactly what he has done while in the CIA.
Being an analyst sound very important. You know ….I hear that word and it makes be think of someone doing what? What does an analyst do?
Is there a difference between George Bush setting a policy in Iraq and the soldiiers who carry it out? I don’t think so. I think it is part of a whole process. And the American people who voted for him and the American people who allow him to continue by believing that he is simply misguided and not intentionally destructive.
an analyst like Larry would read all the Latin American papers, noting the most interesting developments. Then he would read all the secret cables from the various stations around Latin America, sifting out the most pertinent facts. This would include intelligence gathered by the operational side, through bugging, theft of docs, talking to contract agents, etc. He might even get a report from satellite and signal intelligence.
Then he would pull it all together and write a daily report, which would be circulated up the chain of command.
He also would be available to answer specific questions that the President, Congressmen, or others wanted.
No smiling peasant could do that job.
No smiling peasant would ever have reason to. You seem to value the ability to read secret documents. It’s all non sense boo. It’s garbage. The CIA deals with garbage. They rolll around in it, they cover themselves with it. It’s a place for people who are genreally dark, cold, perverse, self important, rigid, morbid and absolutely provincial. Morbidity is absolutely essiential.
I have been told by my super secret contacts that I cannot identify because of the extreme danger it would pose not only to them but to our national security and even the very moral fabric of this great nation, that the CIA is made of largely of Mormons.
Is this true?
this is trollish b.s.
but to answer your question, the CIA has a overrepresentation of Mormans. Just like our prisons are overrepresented by blacks. But it is not true that the CIA is ‘made largely of Mormons’.
Don’t start the troll thing.
So it is true….I really didn’t know that there is an overrepresentation.for sure.
THe person who told me this was quoting a CIA agent and the CIA agent said the CIA is about 40% Mormon.
I don’t understand the analogy between blacks in prisons and mormons in the CIA. But ….it is giving me ideas for some great satire.
Where do you think Hersh gets his information from? Intelligence and military personnel who don’t agree with the policies.
Well, he’s a point man. It’s not just people who oppose politices it’s people for many many different reasons, not all of them noble who go to him. It’s also ordinary people. He’s not easy to get through to. I have tried. But it’s possible through his agent.
He also get his information by the way through his own efforts.
True enough, but now you’re contradicting yourself. First you said not to listen to the intelligence people and to listen to people like Hersh. So I pointed out that Hersh gets most of his secret information from those same intelligence (or military) people you are saying not to pay attention to.
Hersh has said himself that the Abu Ghraib & My Lai leaks were from people who were appalled at the events…. people within the military or intelligence communities. He trusts them, which is something you are refusing to do.
Sure, sometimes there will be other motivations for revealing info… politics is politics and human nature is human nature. So you get more than one source, or you balance that info. Just as we should be doing with Larry Johnson’s and Pat Lang’s posts. Take them with a grain of salt, but recognize they are continuing to try and bring down this cabal of murderous neocons along with us… what happens afterwards and if we all still agree, well, that’s another matter entirely.
Sometimes the CIA and intelligence is useful and important. Sometimes it furthers imperialistic and brutal policies. But that is systemic and not what every single individual who works for those agencies thinks or feels… hell, some could say by leaking info they are holding true to the ideals they (and we) believe in… or should they just quit and then we stop finding out this stuff because everyone who agreed with us no longer has access to it?
Perspective is everything.
I don’t see a contradiction and don’t try to negate everything Is say with that tiresome “your contradicting yourself argument” unless it’s really clear.
I wish all the CIA guys would quit. The world would be a better place.
But tell me, what good things does the CIA do? Sincerely, I don’t know.
I think the CIA are an arm for business interests rather than personal interests of americans and thier security. Whether it’s oil in the Mideast or Pineaaples in Honduras…that’s where you will find them.
Don’t Lang and Johnson now work for corporations in need of security etc. I think that’s is what I read. They appear to be corporate agents. That’s not a crime…I am not condemning them….that’s what they do. And it would appear to be realted to what they had been doing previously for the CIA. One thing….naturally leads to another.
Normally, as in the case of Ozzie Guillen…he was a shorstop who stayed in baseball to become a manager in baseball…..not an anaylst for the Rand Corporation.
you really can’t see the contradiction between saying ‘you can’t trust, so you should not pay attention to intelligence agents… instead you should listen to people like Hersh because they know the truth’ and the fact that Hersh gets his ‘truth’ from those same intelligence people?
If you don’t get that contradiction, I don’t know what else to say.
See. I did not say you “should not trust” or “you should not pay attention to” intelligence agents. I made a suggestion of some people who came to mind that seem to me to be preferable. But that’s me .
I just think it too bad that some people are using other people who are essientially coming from a conservative background to buttress their liberal views.
Hersh gets information from many people, I suppose, not exclusively CIA agents.
But I see your point and I think it’s overreaching. If you feel this is a serious contradiction then go ahead and believe it.
You know, Stu, I have defended your opinions before about various things, and I don’t completely disagree with you about the insitutution of the CIA. The sysetmic problems are everywhere.
That said, I think your villification of Lang and Johnson is a bit over the top. As with your wide brush ont he military, you again take it too far…these two people have SERVED and continue to SERVE the people of this country — I feel well-served by the two of them, as a citizen.
Really, individuals and institutions are NOT interchangable and when individuals, from whatever ailing insitution, speak out and try to shine light in dark places, they should not be smacked down for their associations — that kind of thing smells to much of McCarthy-sim for my tastes.
Amen, sister.
Ditto! This statement from you Stu was way over the top. Thank God we have people like Pat and Larry that are trying to clean up the mess that has been made of this country.
You and I cannot work for an organization without being affected by it.
You cannot say that if you work for a corrupt organization that you are not affected by it.
Lang and Johnson maybe the best that can come from the CIA, they may be people who have been disullisioned, but you have to wonder why they would work for an organization like this in the first place and what did they do. What did they do. That’s a legitimate question. You ought to know if you are going to consider their opinions.
Do you have any idea what the CIA has done? They are used to support as a rule repressive governments all over the world. They fumble and bumble, they are incredibly incompetent and misinformed and they have done almost nothing useful.
We are all being sucked into a vortex, that is taking us backward in time and without the confidence to see that you and I are doomed.
There is nothing over the top, just under the cover
You cannot say that if you work for a corrupt organization that you are not affected by it
Well, first off, I didn’t say that. But neither can YOU say HOW a person is affected — you assume negatively, but that is only speculation on your part. As with the military, I will judge (should I feel I am in a position to do so), individuals by their actions and not by some generalization about their associations. That’s me. You may choose to do differently, but I think you close off many opportunities to learn things when you do.
You want to say that all military peronnel are tainted by the fact that they chose a certain career, here youa re doing it again with the CIA. I do not see this as a productive way of roganizing and categorizing my world.
I am quite informed about history and the CIAs actions in the world, thank you. I think that there is plenty of information about both of these gentlemen available, should you choose to peruse it, on top of the fact that they have both been forthcoming about describing their experience and backgrounds…..enough for me to consider their opinions, that’s for sure. I know a lot more about them than I do you, for instance.
You may feel doomed. I do not.
When everybody starts lauding someone like Patrick Fitzgerald or even Juan Cole, I think they make themselves too vulnerable.
Can you tell me about these two people Lang and Johnson and how they have been forthcoming about their experiences….I looked briefly on google and didn’t find anything. I’m not being sarcastic…I just didn’t find anything of any depth.
Thanks
read their diaries on this site — look at their blogs.
And your alternative is?
I am not as cynical as you are I guess. I do not think we are doomed and will fight with all I have, all I am to get “our” country back. I believe people like Larry and Pat, once insiders that know the inner workings of the intelligence community, can help us do that. They are true patriots no matter what they have done in the past, to come forward and call both the CIA and this Cabal to account.
Something else I should have made clear:
Nowhere in the above piece am I advocating for the intelligence community. I am reporting what I have observed — for some time now — what the hell is going on.
Others have noted this too. It is a fascinating spectacle to watch. Who will emerge victorious? The Neocons or the longtime intel guys?
But, if I had to choose between only those two — and in the real world, my choices are far more complex — I’d side with Larry and Pat and their friends.
So would I.
There is a battle it seems to me.
It’s a battle between conservative elements in the nation.
The liberals are not even involved. Isn’t that amazing? Where are the democrats to support Lang and Johnson’s opposition to Bush. They aren’t saying anything.
Aw oh…..I think I’m contradicting myself again.
but this is the best I’ve read anywhere. It describes a band of patriots working to save their country. They have my undying gratitude for going above and beyond the call of duty. Literally. American heroes.
God bless them.
(Stu, This is a great day and should be a great discussion. “Don’t be a prick.”)
PS Libby resigned earlier today, cnn reports
Thanks, Susan – you’ve provided the essential text.