Sunday, November 14, 2004
As I browsed the Internet this morning, I came across an article by Walter Pincus and Dana Priest of the Washington Post regarding dissatisfaction in the CIA with the new head – Porter J. Goss. It appears that many senior officials at the CIA do not like his way of doing business. This is very good news. The CIA needs a thorough shake-up and the people complaining are probably the ones who need to be shown the door.
The CIA is a deeply flawed institution. This is not because, as the left and other anti-Americans everywhere would have you believe – that it spies too much and does too much covert action. It is because it does too little of both.
Furthermore, its analysts – the people who sit at desks and make reports about what is going on in the world, have failed too often lately. Their bias has gotten in the way of objective analysis and our country is poorly served as a result.
The CIA deals with intelligence. Good intelligence warns you of advance attacks, tracks the activities of your enemies, and allows you to better plan your own course of action. In short an intelligence agency is supposed to be the eyes and ears of the nation. (As a matter of course, we also have the CIA carry out covert activities but it is not clear that is necessarily an “intelligence” function.)
Let’s take a look at the CIA’s recent track record. There was no warning of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. There was no warning of the 9/11 attacks. We did not know “shoe bomber” Richard Reid was going to try to take out the airliner he was flying on. The CIA thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but don’t know where they are now, or if Iraq had them at all. We did not know of the scope of Libya’s WMD programs. We still do not know the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar (the head of the Taliban), or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
On the positive side, it must be noted the CIA seems to have had some success with the predator program. They successfully using the unmanned aerial vehicle to launch a hellfire missile and kill six suspected al-Quaeda terrorists in Yemen on November 3, 2002.
The worst problem with the CIA, however, is that certain individuals there believe they should be setting policy – not just gathering information for the policy-makers. And when the policy-makers do not agree with them, they go to the press or friendly members of congress and complain about the ineptitude, intransigence, or just plain stupidity of the policy-maker. The mainstream press likes to portray this as “whistleblowing” as if these malcontents are disclosing evidence of official malfeasance rather than just public griping about being ignored.
This is like having the grocery clerk demanding the right to decide what you should have for dinner, and if you decline, they complain to all your neighbors that your food choices are lacking in nutrition, taste, common sense, etc.
The problems at the CIA are perfectly represented by the incident with former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. The British told us that Iraqi officials had gone to Nigeria in order to attempt to buy uranium “yellow cake.” This was a very big deal because it would have constituted a clear violation of United Nations Security Counsel resolutions (although there were plenty other violations that the corrupt UN had not seen fit to do anything about.)
The CIA was asked to check on this report from the British. Rather than send an experienced spy, or at least someone with experience in arms control or even uranium mining, they sent Wilson, a career diplomat at the State Department.
The whole episode is addressed in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s “Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq." On July 12, 2004, Michael Ledeen wrote an article for National Review Online discussing the overall report and the specific role of Ambassador Wilson:
===
The best part of the report is the thorough discrediting of former Ambassador Wilson, who duped just about every self-proclaimed “investigative journalist” in America. Wilson is the husband of a CIA officer who was sent by the CIA to Niger to check on an allegation — based at least in part on some documents given to the American embassy in Rome — that Saddam's minions had approached the Nigeriens with a request for uranium. Wilson had told everyone that the Nigeriens had denied it, and he personally told the Washington Post and others that the documents in question were probably forgeries because names and dates were wrong.
Well, the report says that Wilson had not seen the documents, so he couldn't have had any serious basis for claiming that names and dates were wrong. Worse yet, the Nigeriens told him about an Iraqi delegation that had gone there in '99, and that the Niger's prime minister “believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.” As the Wall Street Journal elegantly put it, Iraq asked to expand trade, and Niger had only two exports: uranium and goats.
The Wilson story gets even better. He had sworn that his CIA wife had had nothing to do with his appointment as special emissary, but the report quotes a memo from his wife recommending him for the post. And Wilson had chewed out the vice president for standing by the claim, famously made by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, that British intelligence had reported Iraqi requests for uranium from Niger. Wilson said, in effect, the veep knew of my report but he just dissed it. Not true. “CIA's briefer did not brief the vice president on the report (that Iraqis had indeed discussed uranium in Niger), despite the vice president's previous question about the issue.”
Oh, I see. The vice president of the United States asks for information about the story. The CIA sends this lout to Niger. He hears from the prime minister of the place that the story is true, and reports as much to the CIA (while saying the opposite to the pressies). And the CIA never bothers to tell Cheney. Is this not a scandal?
===
A few more things about Ambassador Wilson must be pointed out. He was a big supporter of continuing with the old Iraq policy of containment through United Nations sanctions and he was a liberal democrat who loathed President Bush and actively campaigned for John Kerry.
So the CIA chose the unqualified spouse of one of their bureaucrats to check on an intelligence lead that may: 1) buttress a policy that said spouse opposes; and 2) lend support to the claims of a President that said spouse opposes. Then, after choosing the clearly wrong man for the job, the CIA lets him do a half-assed tea-party tour of the country in question. Finally, despite his ineptitude and bias the unqualified spouse still gets evidence confirming the intelligence lead but mischaracterizes in his public statements.
This, then, is how the CIA does business. On a sensitive matter of literally life and death you don’t use a qualified spy – you use a biased political hack who gets hired for the job because of his wife. When, after all, said hack uncovers information that contradicts the conventional wisdom at the CIA, lie about it and bury the report.
This is an institution that needs a major overhaul and a good thorough purging of the lazy incompetents who have been running the show there. It’s time to clean house and Porter Goss seems to be off to a good start.
The CIA is a deeply flawed institution. This is not because, as the left and other anti-Americans everywhere would have you believe – that it spies too much and does too much covert action. It is because it does too little of both.
Furthermore, its analysts – the people who sit at desks and make reports about what is going on in the world, have failed too often lately. Their bias has gotten in the way of objective analysis and our country is poorly served as a result.
The CIA deals with intelligence. Good intelligence warns you of advance attacks, tracks the activities of your enemies, and allows you to better plan your own course of action. In short an intelligence agency is supposed to be the eyes and ears of the nation. (As a matter of course, we also have the CIA carry out covert activities but it is not clear that is necessarily an “intelligence” function.)
Let’s take a look at the CIA’s recent track record. There was no warning of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. There was no warning of the 9/11 attacks. We did not know “shoe bomber” Richard Reid was going to try to take out the airliner he was flying on. The CIA thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but don’t know where they are now, or if Iraq had them at all. We did not know of the scope of Libya’s WMD programs. We still do not know the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar (the head of the Taliban), or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
On the positive side, it must be noted the CIA seems to have had some success with the predator program. They successfully using the unmanned aerial vehicle to launch a hellfire missile and kill six suspected al-Quaeda terrorists in Yemen on November 3, 2002.
The worst problem with the CIA, however, is that certain individuals there believe they should be setting policy – not just gathering information for the policy-makers. And when the policy-makers do not agree with them, they go to the press or friendly members of congress and complain about the ineptitude, intransigence, or just plain stupidity of the policy-maker. The mainstream press likes to portray this as “whistleblowing” as if these malcontents are disclosing evidence of official malfeasance rather than just public griping about being ignored.
This is like having the grocery clerk demanding the right to decide what you should have for dinner, and if you decline, they complain to all your neighbors that your food choices are lacking in nutrition, taste, common sense, etc.
The problems at the CIA are perfectly represented by the incident with former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. The British told us that Iraqi officials had gone to Nigeria in order to attempt to buy uranium “yellow cake.” This was a very big deal because it would have constituted a clear violation of United Nations Security Counsel resolutions (although there were plenty other violations that the corrupt UN had not seen fit to do anything about.)
The CIA was asked to check on this report from the British. Rather than send an experienced spy, or at least someone with experience in arms control or even uranium mining, they sent Wilson, a career diplomat at the State Department.
The whole episode is addressed in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s “Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq." On July 12, 2004, Michael Ledeen wrote an article for National Review Online discussing the overall report and the specific role of Ambassador Wilson:
===
The best part of the report is the thorough discrediting of former Ambassador Wilson, who duped just about every self-proclaimed “investigative journalist” in America. Wilson is the husband of a CIA officer who was sent by the CIA to Niger to check on an allegation — based at least in part on some documents given to the American embassy in Rome — that Saddam's minions had approached the Nigeriens with a request for uranium. Wilson had told everyone that the Nigeriens had denied it, and he personally told the Washington Post and others that the documents in question were probably forgeries because names and dates were wrong.
Well, the report says that Wilson had not seen the documents, so he couldn't have had any serious basis for claiming that names and dates were wrong. Worse yet, the Nigeriens told him about an Iraqi delegation that had gone there in '99, and that the Niger's prime minister “believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.” As the Wall Street Journal elegantly put it, Iraq asked to expand trade, and Niger had only two exports: uranium and goats.
The Wilson story gets even better. He had sworn that his CIA wife had had nothing to do with his appointment as special emissary, but the report quotes a memo from his wife recommending him for the post. And Wilson had chewed out the vice president for standing by the claim, famously made by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, that British intelligence had reported Iraqi requests for uranium from Niger. Wilson said, in effect, the veep knew of my report but he just dissed it. Not true. “CIA's briefer did not brief the vice president on the report (that Iraqis had indeed discussed uranium in Niger), despite the vice president's previous question about the issue.”
Oh, I see. The vice president of the United States asks for information about the story. The CIA sends this lout to Niger. He hears from the prime minister of the place that the story is true, and reports as much to the CIA (while saying the opposite to the pressies). And the CIA never bothers to tell Cheney. Is this not a scandal?
===
A few more things about Ambassador Wilson must be pointed out. He was a big supporter of continuing with the old Iraq policy of containment through United Nations sanctions and he was a liberal democrat who loathed President Bush and actively campaigned for John Kerry.
So the CIA chose the unqualified spouse of one of their bureaucrats to check on an intelligence lead that may: 1) buttress a policy that said spouse opposes; and 2) lend support to the claims of a President that said spouse opposes. Then, after choosing the clearly wrong man for the job, the CIA lets him do a half-assed tea-party tour of the country in question. Finally, despite his ineptitude and bias the unqualified spouse still gets evidence confirming the intelligence lead but mischaracterizes in his public statements.
This, then, is how the CIA does business. On a sensitive matter of literally life and death you don’t use a qualified spy – you use a biased political hack who gets hired for the job because of his wife. When, after all, said hack uncovers information that contradicts the conventional wisdom at the CIA, lie about it and bury the report.
This is an institution that needs a major overhaul and a good thorough purging of the lazy incompetents who have been running the show there. It’s time to clean house and Porter Goss seems to be off to a good start.
- posted by Thomas @ 3:06 PM
