Politics and the C.I.A.

[struggle4progress]

<snip> Now, Douglas Jehl of The Times has obtained a memo, circulated on Monday, in which Mr. Goss appeared to be signaling his displeasure with leaks about intelligence on Iraq during the presidential campaign. He reminded his staff twice that they work for a secret agency and said all dealings with the public and with Congress would be handled by his team.

He dutifully noted that the C.I.A.'s job is to "provide the intelligence as we see it - and let the facts speak to the policymaker." But Mr. Goss added language that has reportedly sent a chill through the intelligence agencies: "I also intend to clarify beyond doubt the rules of the road. We support the administration and its policies in our work. As agency employees we do not identify with, support or champion opposition to the administration or its policies."

Certainly, the C.I.A. should not be taking sides in presidential campaigns. Many of Mr. Bush's supporters claim that high-ranking members of the agency attempted to undermine the president's re-election - if Mr. Goss has evidence of that, he should present it. But it's inappropriate for him to suggest that it's the job of the C.I.A. "to support" a particular administration and its political decisions.

The C.I.A.'s loss of public credibility in recent years has been due, in part, to a perception that the agency saw how much the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq and cooked its conclusions to support that goal. What the country wants, and deserves, is an agency where intelligence operatives feel free to tell the administration that policies are based on wrong or incomplete information. They should be able to blow the whistle on mistakes and wrongdoing to the appropriate bodies in Congress without having to go through Mr. Goss's palace guard. <snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/opinion/18thu2.html?th

[bogey18]

1. Did you see the gentleman on 60 minutes?

Retired from the CIA after 22 or 23 years, he said that our policies toward Osama and Al Quaeda made it virtually inevitable that we would be the victims of a nuclear attack? He certainly had an air of credibility.

If you think the rhetoric about "for us or against us" was chilling the first time around, let's see what this government looks like after a Republican controlled congress gets done wiping their ass with the Bill of Rights and stacking every agency and every level of the judiciary with those wonderful "like-minded" dead eyed Christian soldiers.

I am afraid for this country, and I am especially afraid for the world my 18 yr old daughter is inheriting from us.

The only thing that matters in this government is loyalty - unquestioning, uninformed, unswerving, undying.

The emperor has no brain and we are all going to pay the price.