Sympathy for the Company?
[Posted by Karl]
On Friday, Instapundit Glenn Reynolds sardonically commented:
I’D FEEL SORRIER FOR THE C.I.A. FOLKS, if they hadn’t run a multiyear leak-war against the Bush Administration. Did they really think electing Obama would improve their situation? Once again, they don’t seem to have gamed things out to the end.
In an update, he conceded that there is a difference between the officers of the National Clandestine Service who do the hard work in the field, and the stripey-pants analysts, who second-guess things at langley. Nevertheless, Prof. Reynolds asserts that if “CIA leadership had wanted to shut down those leaks, I think it probably could have.” True enough, except that the Bush Administration was undermined by folks at the top of the CIA for years. It is the entrenched bureaucracy at the CIA that ran the leak war, underwrote Bush’s opponents, and so on.
Thus, it is notable that those protesting the Obama Administration’s release of the interrogation memos include not only former Bush CIA chief Porter Goss — who was successfully resisted by the entrenched CIA bureaucracy — but also by former spies like Michael Scheuer, who was allowed to publish the book Imperial Hubris as part of the bureacracy’s anti-Bush campaign. Indeed, he penned a fairly blistering op-ed on the subject in the Washington Post yesterday.
Scheuer and his Company sponsors may deserve no sympathy. However, we should not let schadenfreude obscure our national security concerns. The fact that people like Scheuer are adding their voices to the criticism of these document dumps is an alarm bell, signaling just how much harm that Obama’s Leftist moral posturing is doing to our human intelligence capabilities.
–Karl
“Scheuer and his Company sponsors may deserve no sympathy. However, we should not let schadenfreude obscure our national security concerns.”
Karl, I’m feeling many things, and rest assured: Schadenfreude is not one of them. If we learned any lesson these last 8 years, it should have been this: Permanent Washington, as embodied by the CIA (among other organizations), will NEVER abide by the notion that conservatives and Republicans can globally lead like their mentors FDR, Truman, and JFK. They especially will not tolerate leaders who will make them change their entire game plan to fit the current GWOT. And BTW, this resistance started before we heard of the name Valerie Plame.
So, no, I’m not really feeling sorry for folks at the CIA right now. And besides, if the CIA was so concerned about losing agents or information as a result of the release of these memos, well, that’s what contingencies are for. In fact, if this whole donnybrook helps develop the idea of “Open-Source Intelligence,” it’s all good.
Brad S (5709e3) — 4/27/2009 @ 10:22 amThis stuff has been going on for at least forty years, and I have no idea why anyone would ever agree to go under cover for the CIA, especially if it were in a place where they cut your penis off for urinating next to a building that contains an open Koran. We just don’t spy good. Check out as far back as WWII and you’ll see that our intel was wrong from Omaha through WMDs in Iraq, mainly because we try to go undercover with guys who aren’t suited for the job. Sure Obama compromised everything, something the anti-USA crowd expects and cheers on buttressed by our DNC-media complex. I’ll bet that every Muslim undercover guy split the scene by Monday AM at the latest.
howard432 (3f8901) — 4/27/2009 @ 10:38 amI am not sure why anyone would be willing to stick their neck out for our country at the CIA right about now, as Barcky has shown that they will be willing to throw you under the bus after the fact. Not that there is much room left under the back of Barcky’s bus.
JD (6ef9a2) — 4/27/2009 @ 10:44 amThis is not at all what “Wild Bill” Donovan envisioned, and is a far cry of what the OSS (precursor to the CIA) was originally created for – Donovan was a realist above all else, and had little to no regard for politics.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/27/2009 @ 10:44 amDmac,
I’m pretty sure Wild Bill Donovan (and his partner, Bill Casey) was constantly concerned about obtaining funding for his OSS. And obtaining funding for the modern CIA means he had to play nice to the likes of Cong. Richard Nixon and Sen. Joe McCarthy. Those two may have been stalwart anti-commies, but you know….
He may have had little regard for politics, but it didn’t mean he wasn’t averse to playing the game.
Brad S (5709e3) — 4/27/2009 @ 10:54 am[…] Cross-posted at Patterico. […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Sympathy for the Company? (e2f069) — 4/27/2009 @ 11:09 amOpen source intell is fine as far as it goes, but you might want to read the comment from coldwarrior at the GreenRoom.
And while I agree that CIA analysis has often been wrong, in no small part because of the ideological bend the place took when Staties migrated there during the McCarthy era, the folks on the ground and the foreign assets with whom they work, are not necessarily in the same category. Plus, there are successes about which we probably never hear. There may be fewer of them now.
Karl (1e82cf) — 4/27/2009 @ 11:18 amThe one’s that we never hear about, and should never hear about, likely blow holes in some of the hysteria that is mounted against them, Karl.
JD (6ef9a2) — 4/27/2009 @ 11:21 amHe may have had little regard for politics, but it didn’t mean he wasn’t averse to playing the game.
Of course you’re correct – and I didn’t state more clearly what my main point was, which was that Donovan was basically given carte blanche by FDR when he pitched the idea to the President. He also made great use of the old axiom of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” in his dealings with potential spies and other nefarious characters that he absolutely had to have in order to enable successful operations against the Nazis. Clinton made a dramatic shift in the CIA’s operations by forbidding this practice (Carter also trended this way), and it’s been a hollowed – out core ever since.
The reality is that no one in the citizenry really wants to know what kinds of things that our intelligence operations have had to conduct over the years in order to help keep the country safe from attack – and they never will, despite the Dem’s insistence to reveal them.
Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/27/2009 @ 11:38 amJust an observation about Porter Goss–and George Tenet?, who, if I recall, was a holdover CIA chief from the Clinton regime.
Holding the CIA chief over was a major screwup on Dubya’s part.
Porter Goss was tasked to go in and clean out that nest of political game players at the CIA–and failed in the task.
The sad thing is that about 65% of any bureaucracy’s managerial effort is devoted to seeing that the institution survives. Doesn’t leave much over for actually carrying out the mission. And for damn sure, it’s not the CIA’s mission to attack and undermine the sitting President of the United States, although they seem not to have understood that.
Baracky and Pelosi et al have started to pull down a house of cards; and it’s going to hurt when it hits them as well as the rest of us.
Mike Myers (674050) — 4/27/2009 @ 11:45 amThis is a House-of-Cards that seems to consist entirely of Jokers, and needs to be fumigated, or completely de-constructed.
AD (087ff1) — 4/27/2009 @ 11:58 amBut how aggressive was Bush in even trying to get the leakers? Given the anti-Bush atmosphere, I figure any crackdown would have made the front page. Anybody recall seeing coverage? Heck, while I can’t recall her name, Bush didn’t even go after the one person who resigned for improper disclosure of material.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 4/27/2009 @ 12:17 pmIt’s a tiny bit of freude,like for Mark Felt, who backstabbed Nixon for Woodward and Bernstein, and ended up being prosecuted for his black bag jobs against the Weathermen,
narciso (996c34) — 4/27/2009 @ 12:17 pm[about to infiltrate Kikiree Island]
mojo (8096f2) — 4/27/2009 @ 12:31 pmDick Steele, Agent WD-40: I’m going in there.
Veronique Ukrinsky, Agent 3.14: That’s crazy!
Dick Steele, Agent WD-40: No, crazy is walking down the street with half a cantaloupe on your head, muttering “I’m a hamster, I’m a hamster.”
steve – Just because President Bush did not aggressively pursue the leakers does not mean it was not a problem.
JD (6ef9a2) — 4/27/2009 @ 12:32 pm“Mark Felt”
Scum of the earth.
Dave Surls (da5013) — 4/27/2009 @ 12:36 pmAnd obtaining funding for the modern CIA means he had to play nice to the likes of Cong. Richard Nixon and Sen. Joe McCarthy. Those two may have been stalwart anti-commies, but you know….
Donovan had a medal of honor from WWI and attended law school with FDR. He needed little political skill but he had it in spades. Casey was one of the OSS boys, like Colby and a few others who were genuine heroes. Alan Dulles was great in WWII but was a lousy administrator and the decline of the CIA began on his watch. Read Legacy of Ashes for the details.
Carter followed the Church Commission with Stansfield Turner who completed the destruction of what was left after Church. Aldrich Ames and a few others lopped off any buds that appeared after that. The CIA has been a very little use except to fight with Republican presidents ever since.
As for Mark Felt, he was little more than a traitor.
Scheuer is an odd duck, believing that we should either all convert to Islam or kill off all the Muslims. He doesn’t seem to care much which.
MIke K (8df289) — 4/27/2009 @ 12:51 pmWhich indirectly led to you-know-who (and his little dog, too) taking up residence you-know-where.
Dave (037445) — 4/27/2009 @ 1:30 pmComment by steve sturm — 4/27/2009 @ 12:17 pm
GW’s attempt to clean out, or dam up, the leaks was the appointment of Porter Goss,
AD (087ff1) — 4/27/2009 @ 1:49 pmwho promptly found himself in over his head in a rapidly rising swamp.
He had the mistaken impression that as an ex-Congresskritter, and the new Agency Director, he had authority – what a silly notion.
Goss was willing to take on the job and clean out the stables but Bush did not back him up. That mistake ranks with the other big one of leaving Tenet in place.
Mike K (8df289) — 4/27/2009 @ 1:59 pmAgreed!
AD (087ff1) — 4/27/2009 @ 2:00 pmOH now its the CIA that is out to get Bush along with the media,the Democrats, the RINHOs, and countless others who dont appreciate Bush magnificence and what a wonderful job he did!
VietnamEraVet (04b9ee) — 4/27/2009 @ 2:43 pmAdd the CIA to the list of anti American’s that did their best to undermine this wonderful man!
For what it is worth, Donovan had little or nothing to do with the formation of the CIA. In fact, after Truman disbanded the OSS, Donovan was without any power in the new “intelligence” community.
Longwalker (4e0dda) — 4/27/2009 @ 2:50 pmVietnamEraVet,
I could not help but notice that you made zero attempt to rebut the evidence presented at the linked material that some people near the top of the CIA did indeed seek to undermine Pres. Bush’s policies.
However, I suspect you would be quite upset if the CIA now set out to do the same to Pres. Obama — a possibility raised by the criticism coming from people like Scheuer. Seems to me it’s a bad idea, regardless of who the President is.
Karl (1e82cf) — 4/27/2009 @ 2:50 pm“Add the CIA to the list of anti American’s that did their best to undermine this wonderful man!”
Maybe not the whole CIA, but Valerie Wilson sure did.
Dave Surls (da5013) — 4/27/2009 @ 2:54 pmDo not forget that Bush the First was a CIA Director before he became president.
I would bet anything that one of the reasons he warned his son to not get so involved in Iraq was that he knew damn well the bureaucracies at CIA, State, and Defense, would undermine him and lead to some very ugly consequences. Get in, get out, was his advice. He had a clear shot at eradicating Saddam in the first Gulf conflict, but he got the hell out.
I think W was correct and that his father blew a tremendous opportunity. But as far as it goes, Bush I is being proven correct, imo, about the contumacy of established Washington against GOP/Conservative power.
Ed from SFV (2d5f66) — 4/27/2009 @ 3:13 pmA competent media would ask these questions.
Would you put your life on the line, or even stick your neck out, for Obama?
If you were in Iraq would you risk your life now knowing that the United States is leaving by August 31, 2010, come hell or high water?
Do you believe al Qaeda recruiting is up when America is weak or resolute? Was bin Laden lying about the strong horse/weak horse.
Do you believe that fanatics who mutilate our soldiers are more likely drawn to Jihad because of harsh interrogation techniques or the perception of victory because of our apparent weakness.
What would Obama be doing differently if he were anti-American? Or a closet Muslim?
Terry Gain (4f27d2) — 4/27/2009 @ 4:10 pmHeck, while I can’t recall her name, Bush didn’t even go after the one person who resigned for improper disclosure of material.
Comment by steve sturm — 4/27/2009 @ 12:17 pm
Mary (?) McCarthy, IIRC. The place is set to full-on auto-destruct. BO is happy to oblige.
Chris (a24890) — 4/27/2009 @ 4:11 pmIf you want evidence, that VEV won’t read, about the CIA’s war with Bush, read Shadow Warriors by Timmerman. I did a review of it on Amazon.
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/27/2009 @ 5:18 pm“True enough, except that the Bush Administration was undermined by folks at the top of the CIA for years.”
Why was it that people at the top of the CIA were undermining the Bush admin?
imdw (568c85) — 4/27/2009 @ 6:12 pmComment by imdw — 4/27/2009 @ 6:12 pm
Stupidity as intense as you display here and on the SwineFlu thread must be terribly painful.
AD (087ff1) — 4/27/2009 @ 6:28 pmYou should have your physician adjust your meds.
Anyone who knows how a station works and the kind of people who are at such posts know there is no real difference between them and the rear area pogues at Langley. The CIA deserves everything it gets. If only Obama was the head of State, now that would be sweet.
Thomas Jackson (a495b3) — 4/27/2009 @ 6:42 pmThere’s an old saying, “what goes around comes around”. The traitors in the CIA now have their chance to die (as the saying goes) with their boots on since no one will trust them in their professional or private lives. I do so love it.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 4/27/2009 @ 6:48 pmWhy was it that people at the top of the CIA were undermining the Bush admin?
I can respond by saying, “Why is that some people are flaming hemorrhoids throughout their pathetic miserable lives?”
I might also ask who is that elected these miserable jerks to undercut and undermine a sitting U.S. President? How many votes did they get? What powers were allocated to them under the U.S. Constitution? Why should their miserable little wishes override the votes of those people who elected the President? I wouldn’t tolerate these jerks actively seeking to undermine Obama–that is not their function in the scheme of things.
Mike Myers (674050) — 4/27/2009 @ 7:29 pm“I might also ask who is that elected these miserable jerks to undercut and undermine a sitting U.S. President? How many votes did they get?”
I mean, what people do you have in mind, and why were they doing all these mean things to bush?
imdw (b4b619) — 4/27/2009 @ 7:52 pmDid they really think electing Obama would improve their situation?
Well, if quite a few people in the CIA have the political sentiments of a Valerie Plume, then, heck, yea, they’d have been thrilled to see the current guy in the Oval Office become the current guy in the Oval Office.
Mark (411533) — 4/27/2009 @ 8:11 pmTerry Gain wants the question asked: What would Obama be doing differently if he were anti-American? Or a closet Muslim?
My answer would be: Not one damn thing!!!
krusher (0843a4) — 4/28/2009 @ 2:52 am“What would Obama be doing differently if he were anti-American? Or a closet Muslim?
My answer would be: Not one damn thing!!!”
And what if he were even born in the states?
imdw (568c85) — 4/28/2009 @ 5:42 amWhy does imdw hate kittens?
JD (0da435) — 4/28/2009 @ 6:02 amHey guys, which is it?
1) The CIA is an unimpeachable source of knowledge, never once stretching the truth for political reasons
Let’s call this the patterico position on the torture memos
2) it is an machiavellian group of shadowy spooks, out to twist public opinion to its own end
the neocon positon when they were trying to stop the orchestration of intelligence in service of an useless and costly war
hortense (aka horace) (411ef0) — 4/28/2009 @ 10:43 amI see that horace has finally dropped the pretense of being a conservative. And another kitten gets waterboarded.
JD (0a78bf) — 4/28/2009 @ 11:07 amEver since the evil genius Allan Dulles led the CIA, the Left has denigrated the CIA’s attempts to protect America, downplaying its’ successes, and magnifying its’ failures, in a long-term attack designed to minimize the effectiveness of the Agency, and to ultimately disband it.
AD - RtR/OS (c7bf36) — 4/28/2009 @ 12:09 pmThough we on the Right can find many things we dislike about how the Agency does its’ job (including things that are probably not in its’ charter, such as undermining the policy preferences of the Elected National Leadership), we do appreciate the efforts that the Agency makes to uphold its’ charter responsibilities, and to protect the American People from foreign threats.
What the Left forgets, or conveniently overlooks, is that between the Great Wars, there was no CIA (or any other orginization charged with compiling a comprehensive data-base of foreign threats to the security of the U.S.), and the attack at Pearl Harbor was the result.
Just as teen-agers believe themselves to be invincible, the immaturity of the Left shines through in their unshakable belief that America’s enemies would never harm “them”, and that we will be protected by their inherent “goodness” demonstrated in their leadership.
Well, as someone wiser than myself once said:
If you wish for Peace,
Prepare for War!
Another illustration of how the Bush bashers have no sense of historical context.
SPQR (72771e) — 4/30/2009 @ 8:33 am