A Few Questions for the CIA
Over at Powerline, Scott Johnson has some important questions for the CIA about Joe Wilson:
(1) Why wasn't Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger made subject to a confidentiality agreement?
(2) Did the Agency contemplate that Wilson would publicly discuss the trip at will upon his return?
(3) Did the agency anticipate that if he did so, it would attract attention to the employment of his wife by the agency?
(4) Why did the Agency select Wilson for the mission to Niger to check out such an important and sensitive matter given his lack of experience in intelligence or investigation?
(5) Was the Agency aware when it selected him for the mission of his hostility to the Bush administration?
And in this piece, Johnson asks some tough questions about the CIA's willingness to allow CIA analyst Michael Scheuer to publish a conveniently pre-election attack on the Bush administration.
Of course, there are a couple other answers that we'd all like to know:
-- Who at the CIA leaked word that a criminal referral had been sent to the Justice Department in the wake of the alleged "leak" of Valerie Plame's status?
-- Who at the CIA leaked information about the agency's imprisonment of Al Qaeda terorrists overseas?
At least we may end up getting some information about the latter. And that should be just the beginning -- for it's becoming increasingly clear that the CIA has been waging its own partisan war against the Bush Administration.
(1) Why wasn't Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger made subject to a confidentiality agreement?
(2) Did the Agency contemplate that Wilson would publicly discuss the trip at will upon his return?
(3) Did the agency anticipate that if he did so, it would attract attention to the employment of his wife by the agency?
(4) Why did the Agency select Wilson for the mission to Niger to check out such an important and sensitive matter given his lack of experience in intelligence or investigation?
(5) Was the Agency aware when it selected him for the mission of his hostility to the Bush administration?
And in this piece, Johnson asks some tough questions about the CIA's willingness to allow CIA analyst Michael Scheuer to publish a conveniently pre-election attack on the Bush administration.
Of course, there are a couple other answers that we'd all like to know:
-- Who at the CIA leaked word that a criminal referral had been sent to the Justice Department in the wake of the alleged "leak" of Valerie Plame's status?
-- Who at the CIA leaked information about the agency's imprisonment of Al Qaeda terorrists overseas?
At least we may end up getting some information about the latter. And that should be just the beginning -- for it's becoming increasingly clear that the CIA has been waging its own partisan war against the Bush Administration.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:43 AM
8 Comments:
Faintly amusing. The facts are not on your side. You do know what facts are, right?
According to Pew research, 43 percent, now say U.S. and British leaders were mostly lying when they claimed before the Iraq war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Bush and Rove's 3rd Grade "I didn't do it, Jimmy did" strategy of deflection is NOT working.
You might want to just change the subject because no believes you people anymore. Learn a new dirty trick, will you?
"-- Who at the CIA leaked information about the agency's imprisonment of Al Qaeda terorrists overseas?"
Hilarious!!. According to Sen. Trent Lott (REPUBLICAN, Miss): the information in the Post story was the same as that given to Republican senators in a closed-door briefing by Vice President Dick Cheney last week. "Every word that was said in there went right to the newspaper," he said, and added, "We can't keep our mouths shut."
source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/08/tuesday/index.html
Carol -
I thought you were calling Arianna's Post..."Toast"
What are you doing blogging over there?
Congrats!
I believe that knowing that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al. knowingly LIED to get us into war in Iraq trumps all your falsely-righteous, paltry 'concerns'. Really, tell Mehlman (RNC) that they are slipping. Where is Rove when you need him? Oh, that's right...
Two-thousand plus U.S. deaths (and counting), 200$B (and counting) and international standing (priceless)are no match for these overwrought, pitiful questions/arguments which took you two weeks to concoct since the first Fitzgerald indictment came down.
Before you get started on the recent CIA leak regarding the secret prisons I remind you to be consistent above all( a sign of a logical mind and superior intellect). Your talking point should be: " What is the problem? We already knew that there was torture taking place, why does location matter? This is just as serious (or not according to you)as revealing the identity of an undercover agent who drove into Langley everyday!!! ( agitation provided)".
We are losing track of what is important in the secret prison issue. The scandal is not in having revealed the existence/location of these secret terrorist prisons. The scandal, in any sane person's mind, is that they exist at all.
(5) Was the Agency aware when it selected him for the mission of his hostility to the Bush administration?
Can you provide proof of this prior hostility towards the Bush administration?
Let me get this straight, you're angry at the Joe Wilson for speaking the true about the outright lies Bush told during the State of the Union about Iraq. Joe Wilson is a hero. The one question we should be asking is: Does a president whose administration lies to get us into an immoral war deserve to be impeached immediately?
(1) Why wasn't Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger made subject to a confidentiality agreement?
Because of the 1st amendment, you have this backwards. You need a reason to make it confidential, not the other way around.
(2) Did the Agency contemplate that Wilson would publicly discuss the trip at will upon his return?
Probably not. So what?
(3) Did the agency anticipate that if he did so, it would attract attention to the employment of his wife by the agency?
I don't think anyone anticipated how low the Bush administration would go. Come on, outing a NOC with some lame lie about nepotism to try to discredit the guy? From an administration full of this much nepotism no less? It just doesn't make sense.
(4) Why did the Agency select Wilson for the mission to Niger to check out such an important and sensitive matter given his lack of experience in intelligence or investigation?
How about, because if you want to find out if one government tried to purchase a commodity item from another, a former Ambassador is an *excellent* choice. Shall we compare that to choosing a failed lawyer judging horses as head of FEMA?
(5) Was the Agency aware when it selected him for the mission of his hostility to the Bush administration?
There's no reason to believe he *had* any hostility to the Bush administration, until it started to go to war with intelligence he'd already debunked.
Post a Comment
<< Home