Good Leaks, Bad Leaks, and a Bureaucratic Insurgency
The Wall Street Journal editorial board opines on McCarthy and PlameGate, examining the leaking double standard, but also putting the events in the context of the battle between the CIA and the administration:
The existence of this intelligence insurgency first came to light in a major way with former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote a New York Times op-ed in 2003 questioning the veracity of President Bush’s “16 words” about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa. Someone close to the White House had the audacity to point out that Mr. Wilson was an anti-Bush partisan whose only claim to authority on the matter was the result of wifely nepotism. Mr. Wilson has since been thoroughly discredited, including in a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. But former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Scooter Libby is still being prosecuted as the result of a media-instigated investigation into the “leak” of Valerie Plame’s not-so-secret CIA identity.
There was also Michael Scheuer, a top counter-terrorism analyst who was allowed by the CIA to publish under “Anonymous” a scathing attack on Mr. Bush’s strategy to fight terror. There were the many selective election-year leaks of prewar Iraq intelligence fed to the likes of the Times’s James Risen, who also won a Pulitzer this year–for helping expose the National Security Agency’s anti-al Qaeda surveillance program. And there were the post-election attacks on then-U.N. Ambassador nominee John Bolton, led by intelligence analysts who had worked with him at the State Department.
The case of Ms. McCarthy appears to be as egregious as it gets as a matter of partisan politics. She played a prominent role in the Clinton national security apparatus and public records show she gave $2,000 to John Kerry’s Presidential campaign and even more to the Democratic Party. Such is her right. But rather than salute and help implement policy after her candidate lost, she apparently sought to damage the Bush Administration by canoodling with the press.
There is little doubt that the Washington Post story on alleged prisons in Europe has done enormous damage–at a minimum, to our ability to secure future cooperation in the war on terror from countries that don’t want their assistance to be exposed. Likewise, the New York Times wiretapping exposé may have ruined one of our most effective anti-al Qaeda surveillance programs. Ms. McCarthy denies being the source of these stories. But somebody inside the intelligence community was.
Leaving partisanship aside, this ought to be deeply troubling to anyone who cares about democratic government. The CIA leakers are arrogating to themselves the right to subvert the policy of a twice-elected Administration. Paul Pillar, another former CIA analyst well known for opposing Mr. Bush while he was at Langley, appears to think this is as it should be. He recently wrote in Foreign Affairs that the intelligence community should be treated like the Federal Reserve and have independent political status. In other words, the intelligence community should be a sort of clerisy accountable to no one.
Read it all, as they say…
The Journal might want to tone down its rhetoric a bit. If McCarthy was a source for the CIA prisons story, she certainly wasn’t the only one. Virtually every line in that article is sourced to multiple redundant sources, both inside and outside of the intelligence community. And if Trent Lott knows what he’s talking about, one of Priest’s sources was a Republican Senator. Given the timing and context of the story, my money is on John McCain or one of his staffers being one of the non-intelligence sources for the story.
“The existence of this intelligence insurgency first came to light in a major way with former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote a New York Times op-ed in 2003 questioning the veracity of President Bush’s “16 words” about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa. Someone close to the White House had the audacity to point out that Mr. Wilson was an anti-Bush partisan whose only claim to authority on the matter was the result of wifely nepotism”
1) Wilson was correct in “questioning the veracity of President Bush’s ’16 words.’” Bush did not speak the truth in the SOTU. The Journal pretends to forget this.
2) Wilson’s authority on the matter comes from over two decades in the foreign service in sensitive positions. If he had no authority, why did the CIA send him? (The “wifely nepotism” bit is a non-starter: others at the CIA sent him, not his wife).
“Mr. Wilson has since been thoroughly discredited, including in a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee.”
“Thoroughly discredited” is far too strong a description. From Wikipedia: The Senate Report was critical of Wilson because his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his description of the information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA’s account. Wilson told the Senate his findings refuted the notion Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The intelligence report actually confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger for increased trade, which was interpreted by the PM as seeking uranium. Wilson claimed the CIA told him about documents pertaining to an alleged uranium sale to Iraq. The CIA reports officer denied giving Wilson any such information and noted there were no “documents” circulating at the time. (Pages 44-45)
What has been thoroughly discredited is the administrations use of obsolete, inaccurate, and misleading intelligence and sources.
“But former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Scooter Libby is still being prosecuted as the result of a media-instigated investigation into the “leak” of Valerie Plame’s not-so-secret CIA identity.”
1) Because he is being tried for perjury and obstruction of justice.
2) What does media-instigated mean? If the media reports on something, it shouldn’t be looked into?
3) Valerie Plame’s identity was, in fact, secret. Refer to Fitzgerald’s press conference.
“The case of Ms. McCarthy appears to be as egregious as it gets as a matter of partisan politics. She played a prominent role in the Clinton national security apparatus and public records show she gave $2,000 to John Kerry’s Presidential campaign and even more to the Democratic Party. Such is her right. But rather than salute and help implement policy after her candidate lost, she apparently sought to damage the Bush Administration by canoodling with the press.”
Oh please. She was on record filing a formal letter of protest to Clinton regarding Sudan (some partisan!). This is the tired and pathetic fallback of dismissing any criticism of the Bush administration as the result of partisan politics.
“There is little doubt that the Washington Post story on alleged prisons in Europe has done enormous damage–at a minimum, to our ability to secure future cooperation in the war on terror from countries that don’t want their assistance to be exposed.”
If cooperation in the war on terror means being a place where we send people overseas to be tortured, then we don’t need their help. If we are now at a place where we have to take people and send them to Egypt or Syria to be tortured, then the terrorists have already won.
“Likewise, the New York Times wiretapping exposé may have ruined one of our most effective anti-al Qaeda surveillance programs.”
Everybody and his brother knows that we wiretap Al Qaeda. Nobody – including the Bush administration – has yet shown why the fact that these wiretaps were done without the required wiretaps has had any effect whatsoever on the actual war against terror.
“Ms. McCarthy denies being the source of these stories. But somebody inside the intelligence community was.”
Actually, there are several sources, not just one.
Also: the Journal never talks to people inside the government confidentially? Its reporters never “canoodle” with people in the CIA, the FBI, the military, and elsewhere? Maybe they’re just jealous because the Times and the Post got the scoop…
peter, you have a fundamental disconnect on the fact that Iraq WAS seeking uranium from Niger. Read the recent work of Christopher Hitchens on this subject (google it or search for it on this blog), and the conclusion is inescapable.
The alternative is that you would have me believe that Iraq’s main point man with the IAEA and other nuclear matters visited Niger to discuss…what, exactly?
The 16 words were right…no amount of revisionist history can change the plain facts. And Wilson has, in fact, been thoroughly discredited…
The sixteen words were “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As we now know, there was no recent contact – the meeting took place in 1999, four years before the 2003 SOTU. By all accounts, there was no discussion of uranium at the meeting. Yet the clear implication in the sixteen words is that there was an imminent threat due to an active nuclear program, when in fact there was neither an imminent threat nor an active program. Wilson’s op-ed in the Times accused the Bush administration of “exaggerating the Iraqi threat” in order to justify war. This is, in fact, what the administration did. Wilson was right, Bush was wrong.
To this day, the British intelligence agencies have not disclaimed that statement. Did you read the Hitchens pieces? If you did, you’ll know how cursory Wilson’s ‘investigation’ was – he was not even aware of the visits, and it was up to Italian and British intelligence assets to alert America.
Let’s highlight a bit of the latest Hitchens piece on this subject to refresh your memory:
Take that permanent smirk off your face, Ambassador (and the look of martyrdom as well, while you are at it). It seems that your contacts in the Niger Ministry of Mines—the ones that your wife told the CIA made you such a good choice for the trip—didn’t rate you highly enough to tell you about the Zahawie visit. It would, interestingly, have been a name you already knew. But you didn’t even get as far as having to explain it away—or not until last week—because you were that far in the dark. It was left to Italian, French, and British intelligence to discover the suggestive fact and transmit it to Washington. And it’s been left to someone else, most probably in the Niger embassy in Rome, to produce a much later fabrication, either for gain or in order to discredit a true story. The forged account has no bearing at all on the authentic one: It bears the same relationship as a fake $100 bill does to a genuine bill. The rip-off remake movie, “Mr. Wilson Goes to Niger,” now playing to packed houses of the credulous everywhere, has precisely the same relationship to its own original.
“Read the recent work of Christopher Hitchens on this subject…”
Mark, it’s abundantly clear that Peter has a little problem reading articles that don’t jibe with his elaborate DNC talking points. At any event, he may be too busy planning the upcoming parade down 5th avenue for Ms. McCarthy and Mother Sheehan.
I hear the introductory speaker for the event is Richard Clarke.
For example, this is from his post on an earlier thread:
“Since you mention Clinton: I guarantee that he would have done far more in truly protecting us than Bush has ever done.”
Please, pray tell us of the great national security systems that Billy – Boy initiated on his watch. Also please detail the enormous military and intelligence build – up over his two terms, detailing the many new and innovative infrastructure details that were inaugurated on his initiative.
1) I will try to get to the Hitchens piece after work, but I’m trying to wade through the smarminess and bombast in the excerpt to find out what his argument is. There was a meeting between Iraq and Niger which Wilson was unaware of, which proves that Iraq had an active nuclear program? If they had no nuclear weapons facilities, why were they trying to get uranium?
2) I have no axe to grind for the DNC: I think the Democratic party is flaccid and uninspiring. In any event, whether I’m in agreement with the DNC or not is irrelevant. Are you willing to disavow the drive to impeach Bill Clinton because it is based on RNC talking points?
3) What’s wrong with Richard Clarke?
4) As you know, Clinton’s terms were before 9/11, which did change everything. The justification to place a burden on the chemical industry, for example, to safeguard its facilities wasn’t there before we were hit. There also was not a need for a huge military build-up (and I’m not sure that there is a need now – but that’s another discussion). In any event, you can indulge all you want in your “visceral hatred” (to steal a phrase) for Clinton, but you cannot deny that he was a hands-on and effective policy wonk. He also had a much more effective FEMA Director (James Lee Witt). Had we been attacked during his administration, it is inconceivable that he would not have used all of the levers of government to secure the homeland.
Now, what phrase did I use that truly described “visceral hatred” here?
“…and would not trust the leadership of FEMA to someone who can’t find his ass with both hands.”
…”don’t you think that the reaction would be far worse for outsourcing torture for the Americans…”
Now, THAT’S visceral hatred!
Visceral – “obtained through intuition rather than from reasoning or observation…”
Well, there you go.
Well, Micheal Brown was certifiably incompetent. However, maybe he can find his ass with only one hand.
As for asking whether European countries would react negatively to the knowledge that they were torturing suspects sent from America: what’s hateful about that? It’s true!
One thing you’ve forgotten from prior posts from yours truly – I thought the impeachment of Clinton was a bad idea from the start, both from a political and a constitutional perspective. I also thought that it would serve no practical purpose, other than to show to the world what kind of character he possessed, which everyone already was well – versed on.
Hey, here’s an interesting story:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9732
But just because Howard Dean and the DNC are setting up a legal fund for McCarthy in no way proves that her actions were politically motivated – and I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Death Valley.