Well, he didn’t actually say that, of course. Knowing Bush, he probably used language a tad more coarse than that, but the end result comes to the same thing, as demonstrated in this story by Shane Harris in the National Journal today:
The CIA has imposed new and tighter restrictions on the books, articles, and opinion pieces published by former employees who are still contractors with the intelligence agency. According to several former CIA officials affected by the new policy, the rules are intended to suppress criticism of the Bush administration and of the CIA. The officials say the restrictions amount to an unprecedented political “appropriateness” test at odds with earlier CIA policies on outside publishing. […]
The publications review process “was designed to assure agency personnel that their First Amendment rights would be protected as long as they did not compromise security,” Aftergood said. “That relatively enlightened position has now been abandoned.”
The CIA acknowledged for the first time last week that the Publications Review Board subjects former officials under contract to a two-part test. “First, material submitted for publication cannot contain classified information,” CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano wrote in an e-mail. “Second, it cannot impair the individual’s ability to do his or her job or the CIA’s ability to conduct its mission as a nonpartisan, nonpolicy agency of the executive branch.”
Remember, we are talking about former CIA employees voicing their own opinions publicly on matters not related to any classified information to which they might be privy. This is not an attempt to prevent national security secrets from being leaked. No, this is purely and simply an attempt to stifle legitimate criticism of the Bush administration and its numerous policy failures. And this squashing of dissenting views also extends to current CIA employees:
All current and former CIA employees have long been required to submit manuscripts for books, opinion pieces, and even speeches to the agency’s Publications Review Board, which ensures that the works don’t reveal classified information or intelligence sources and methods. The board has not generally factored political opinions into its decision-making, former CIA officials say. But in recent years, former employees have written memoirs and opinion pieces challenging the CIA and the Bush administration, particularly for its use of prewar intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. The board did not find that any of those pieces revealed secrets, a fact that makes the CIA’s new review standards troubling, former officials and intelligence-community analysts said.
Many of those experts believe that public criticism provides an important source of alternative analysis — something the CIA needs to understand terrorism, global disease, and other emerging threats. But the White House and CIA Director Porter Goss view spies-turned-authors as political liabilities who embarrass an already battered administration, former officials said. The CIA is now aggressively investigating — using polygraphs in some cases — employees who are suspected of leaking classified information to journalists, and last week the agency said it fired a senior official, Mary O. McCarthy, reportedly for having unauthorized contact with the news media.
Imagine the a poisonous atmosphere among current CIA employees engendered by Porter Goss’ witch hunt against dissenters. Aggressive use of polygraphs? Firing long time operatives merely for having contacts with reporters who aren’t on Goss’ approved list (i.e., anyone not on the Fox News payroll)?
What do you think that does to analysts ability to fairly and objectively assess intelligence about critical issues such as Iran’s nuclear program? It can’t help their ability to formulate an accurate and timely analysis of critical matters if they have to worry that their opinions will be held against them, and may mark them for retaliation by Bush officials looking for the intelligence to support decisions previously arrived at.
As for the former CIA analysts and operatives who still consult with CIA, it sends an even more chilling message. Speak publicly (or even anonymously to a journalist) and risk losing your livelihood. It also sends the message that it might not be wise to offer up conclusions privately that don’t match Bush administration expectations, even if you don’t speak out publicly. As a basis for obtaining the best advice and the greatest diversity of viewpoints to present to policy makers on intelligence matters, its a recipe for disaster. And that’s not just my uninformed opinion:
Former officials who have been contacted by the CIA or made aware of the policy warned that it could backfire. “If this is the direction in which it’s going … the agency would be shooting itself in the foot,” said one former official who was involved in contracting with outside experts to solicit reviews of draft intelligence assessments. “At a time when the agency is being criticized at least as much as it ever has for ‘groupthink,’ unchallenged assumptions, and not practicing alternative analysis rigorously, this is one of the last changes it ought to be making.”
The former official predicted, “Those contractors who tend to express opposing viewpoints would be among the first to terminate their contracts.” If they bolt, the agency’s efforts will have been for naught: The CIA will have lost them, and they’ll publish their writings anyway, because the new policy review doesn’t apply to former employees who don’t have CIA contracts, the former official explained.
But then, Bush and Co. have never believed in using intelligence to shape policy. They’ve always been more interested in intelligence as a means to justify and sell pre-determined policies of aggressive war to the American people. In that respect, I’m sure they think this crackdown by Director Goss is just what the doctor ordered.
“It’s just ridiculous that the biggest threat to the CIA seems to be the grumblings of former employees,” Moran said. Aftergood concurred, saying, “It’s bizarre that the CIA is in such a weakened state that it feels the need to suppress criticism.”
Isn’t that the Bush Presidency in a nutshell? Suppressing criticism of our Dear Leader?
