The Growing Politicization of America's Intelligence Services
Now on the fourth day of my book tour for Fair Game and I am delighted because I have been given abundant opportunity to discuss something I feel passionately about: the politicization of our intelligence services. There has been an increasing trend to allow politics to spill over into the world of intelligence and I believe that it degrades the intelligence mission, its product, and is detrimental to our national security. Americans of all political stripes want to know that whatever intelligence lands on the president's desk is devoid of ideological taint and political pressure. As we now know, Vice President Cheney and his then Chief of Staff Scooter Libby made an unprecedented number of visits to CIA Headquarters in the run-up to the Iraq war to meet with analysts. Apparently, the vice president kept asking the same questions until he began to hear the answers he wanted. Although there might not have been overt pressure to slant intelligence toward the administration's stance on Iraq and its perceived WMD threat, the very fact that the vice president had taken time out of his day, come into Headquarters and asked a certain line of questions invisibly and insidiously has the effect of conveying a high level of dissatisfaction with what the CIA has already produced. CIA analysts are not dumb.
So, if I were Queen for a day, here's just a few of the things I might do to help push politics out of the intelligence realm so operations officers and analysts can do their jobs without political interference:
1. Divorce the CIA Director's job from the presidential election cycle. While it is critical that the CIA Director has the ear of the president (which, for example, James Woolsey famously did not and the 1994 incident where a man crashed his plane into the White House was Washington fodder for a joke that said it was just Woolsey trying to get an appointment with the president), he also has to be independent and serve up the facts as the intelligence professionals find them, without feeling he or she needs to "be on the team". I envision something like the way the Federal Reserve Chairman operates; with authority but not beholden to whatever political party controls the White House.
2. Don't allow any Executive Branch members to make trips to CIA Headquarters to meet with officers about specific intelligence issues, as Vice President Cheney and Mr. Libby did during the run up to the war with Iraq. There are established channels and protocols for senior administration officials to ask questions and clarify points about the intelligence they do receive.
3. Put into a place a regulation which says that any military officer designated for the CIA Director's position must resign his commission. This would help to ensure that loyalties are not divided between the intelligence community and the Pentagon.
I wanted to see what General Brent Scowcroft's report from 2002 said about ways to reform the CIA. This is the same General who served as National Security Advisor under the first President Bush AND was derided by the neocons for his "realist" views on the war on Iraq. But I could not. The report has been classified and has not been released by the White House. I think the report went directly into the circular file.
One more thing on a slightly different topic: I understand that there may be a filibuster in Congress on whether to extend or change the current laws in place on the issue of NSA wiretapping US citizens as part of the "war on terror." The administration claims that it needs enhanced abilities to do to this because the laws as currently written are archaic and permission to do wiretaps on targets of interest take too much time in this dangerous world in which we are living. I can tell you that as part of my responsibilities at the CIA, we did indeed sometimes have to ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court for permission to surveil a target. We needed to provide a reason why it was imperative to national security. We almost always received a prompt and positive response from the court to our request. So I believe that the administration's request to expand these powers with the rationale given that the present laws are too clumsy and slow is wrong and demonstrates another attempt at accruing power in the Executive Branch at the expense of our civil liberties.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am sorry, Ms. Plame, but I must completely disagree with your post.. I like you as a person and consider you to have well above average intelligence. I think you were wronged by a government that has no values and no morals.
My disagreement lies in the issue of the existence of the CIA itself.
This entity is unconstituional and should be disbanded immediately.
There is no sunlight and there is no public oversight, something which our constitution DEMANDS...
I feel the intelligence gathered this far should be used and the organization broken up and a constitutional committee (Court of the Constitution) organized to keep this intelligence. We can have a 12 person committee elected by the people. Kind of like a supreme court for the constitution, but holds no connection to the Supreme Court and has power over them. (Imagine a court elected by the people to over see a court produced by our leaders.)
People have accepted the degradation of our constitution over the years. People do not know what the truth and sunlight looks like.
The government should NEVER be trusted!
This is a serious blow to our democracy and one that will most likely bring us doom.
Never should we have a domestic agency doing the work of the people with foreign entities
without the oversight of the people.
This is how rogue states are created.
The Galvestonians for Ron Paul are "right on" in their statement that the Government "should NEVER be trusted", but they are unrealistic with their suggestion that government should, except for a few basic functions, be abolished. While the Administration of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney is an excellent example of very bad government, sufficient and efficient government is necessary, and even desirable, especially in today's world.
A vital part of good government, one obviously lacking today, is sufficient and effective oversight. The Congress, the press, and the government, itself, are certainly to blame; however, it has been the American people that have allowed our government to be seized and contolled by the right wing neo-cons and the groups they have manipulated into partnership in their misadventure. We have become civically complacent, perhaps civically ignorant, and we are paying the price.
The suggestion that the CIA should be abolished is not practical in today's increasingly complex and dangerous world. The needs for foreign intelligence gathering is perhaps greater than ever. On the other hand, the CIA (indeed, all agencies of government) must be subjected to continuous and meaningful guidance and oversight.
The CIA must, as Ms. Plame suggests, be free from political pressures and manipulation; otherwise, we will continue to have foreign policy disasters like the one with Iraq, or worse. It also must be required to operate as dictated by the rational and enlightened policies of good government.
The activities of the CIA and other governmental agencies, as well as oversight of these agencies, will only be as effective as the people we put in charge and the policies adopted by those people. When we chose leaders like Bush, Cheney, and those now on both sides of the aisle in Congress, we get what we deserve.
Ms. Plame's situation is an example of the dangers of bad government, or bad people running the government. It is also a lesson to learn form and build on.
United States Constitution
Article I
Section 9 : Limits on Congress
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
When is the last time that "We the People" have seen -ANY- "Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money" spent at the CIA? How much has been spent? What have they spent it on? Why is it such a big secret? If they have done nothing illegal or unconstitutional, they should have nothing to hide, right?
If someone can direct me to where this information may be found, I would appreciate it.
As a taxpayer, having no input into how the CIA spends the money they have taken from me, or even how much has been spent, I sometimes become angered when I do hear some of the bits and pieces come to the surface. As we have heard, it would seem that the CIA runs a secret network of prisons in middle eastern and eastern european countries, where they send people to be subjected to "coercive interrogation" using "enhanced interrogation techniques". Some people might call this torture.
The CIA is able to do these things based solely on the discretion of the president. There is no chance for public discussion and input. It's not possible to ask questions like, "is this the best method for obtaining this information, or are there other methods available that are more effective, cheaper, and more humane?" "Are there other methods available that would be just as effective, and are not prohibited by international laws and treaties of which we have signed and ratified, and are not prohibited by the 8th amendment to the United States Constitution?"
Giuliani Associates evidently has an intelligen
The selection by the CIA of your husband (after your suggestion) to go to Africa on a NON CONFIDENTIAL basis is the greatest example of the politicalization of the intelligence agencies.
Perry White is displaying the Neo-Cons fear of the truth revealed.
I have 3 friends who are veterans of "the outfit" [as they call it]
I showed them this website >>
http://www
One friend said, "yeah, so what? I've known about this since 1965."
The other one got visibly pissed at me, but got over it after a few months, we wrangled over it off&on until he did more corroborative research.
The third thanked me for bringing up the subject because he had suspicions for many years.. now he's living abroad, and on the move.
...I've been around the "bush" a few times myself.
..in Alaska I encountered 3 different kinds of bush (;-P)
..2 were lotsa fun, but I insulted the bogus-bush and won 2broke ribs and a bloody nose for my effort.
....hope your book sells at least a million !
The links you put up are awesome.
:)
The only thing scarier than a head of the CIA who has to answer to the head of the Executive Branch is a head of the CIA who doesn't have to answer to the head of the Executive Branch.
While it's true that in the best of all possible worlds, intelligence collection should be a quest for truth unaffected by bias, it's hard to believe that it's ever actually been that way.
The two worst things that can happen to the product, of course, is 1) it gets massaged; or 2) it gets ignored. In this administration I'm sure both have occurred at a greater frequency than is usual.
I haven't quite figured out yet what Bush and his co-conspirators thought they would gain by going to the trouble of actually faking intelligence instead of simply lying about it. The principals in the "Coalition of the Willing" seem to have known beyond doubt what was being concocted and why. And in either case, the actual intelligence would have been safely buried by classification and security oaths. Or, even ordered destroyed.
I think I'm getting a logic headache, so I'll quit.
Great interview on Countdown last night. I've just started your book tonight. You've had more military training than Dick Cheney (who had "other priorities" during Vietnam). You are absolutely correct. The intelligence community must be able to provide accurate information, not simply to tell the Vice President what he wants to hear. These reforms cannot wait until 2009.
Your credibility on this issue of politicizing intelligence should give it more weight. Why the MSM may even pay attention, they have to make the U-turn one of these days or they'll surely be out of business.
With every TV interview, you see evidence that America thinks well of you and I'm sure that helps recover from the shocks.
In a lot of ways this was a win win situation. The CIA isn't in its finest hour and you are in your prime with a lot of options. Enjoy.
Have you met Cindy Sheehan yet?
Welcome to NM.
Dear Ms. Plame, Hoover was a de facto permanent head of the FBI. Politics is necessary. The problem is that we Americans have just had a rather pregnant dose of what Republicans are really like. Decoupling the CIA from the political cycle will lead to a bad result, not nearly as bad as the results under the current administration, but nonetheless bad.
The cooking of intelligence was a result of exploitation of the political and economic ambitions of those in the CIA that were willing to abrogate their responsibilities to be noticed. Just as those in the military have been tortured over their oath of allegiance, so has the CIA. It is my understanding that most career CIA did not oblige the V.P. in his mind game for validation. Yes the CIA is not stupid, but some in it have been venal enough to surrender their conscience for fantasy prospects.
The answer is not in the CIA, the law, or the structure of government agencies. The fault is stuck down the throat of 55 million people that elected a buddy and got a tyrannical prick of legendary callousness and stupidity. Unfortunately the 54 million that elected otherwise are stuck with the same brigand.
We are in a war, but it is not with terrorists, it is with ourselves. It started when the Berlin Wall fell.
Excellent post Valerie. BushCo has already designed and deployed his web of ideology and distraction. The Democrats in Congress has got to grow a spine and start issuing subpoenas, they have more evidence than needed. Use their distraction methods they seem to work, unfortunately.
I have your book I will start tomorrow, I can not wait. Finishing another book tonight. "Dead Certain" frightening insight to this thug won must always win at any cost.
Good Luck and thank You and Joe for your service to OUR Country.
Unfortunately your suggestion to bar direct White House micromanaging of the intelligence services won't work. The tradition to appoint a czar who cuts through bureaucratic red tape for important matters is too deeply ingrained. What is more important than "national security", and what czar, other than the president, could be more powerful than the vice-president?
It's time to scale down the spy bureaucracy itself, as Ron Paul wants to do. If we change our imperialist ways we won't have as many enemies to spy on.
Okay,
Let's see. . .prior to 9/11 we had at least 5 so called "intelligence agencies" who weren't talking with one another.
That is not to in any way discredit your life long noble service.
Yet then, in an act of ingenious stupidity, we created yet another big lumbering agency that pretty much, though they stealthfully, invoked the elevation of their lovely color coded charts strangely, whenever Kerry rose in the polls, yet still they couldn't find New Orleans on a map to deliver water.
"Bogus intelligence" = sheer stupidity. Who would have ever trusted an individual named "curveball" or a known extortionist to provide a reasonable cassis belli. . .? (as if there ever is one)
Could someone please elucidate the subtle distinction between National Security and Homeland Security? Talk about the "department of redundancy departamen
Sheesh.
Thank you for your integrity and honesty.
We'll get through this one way or another.
And yes politicization of intelligence agencies is thoroughly counter intuitive and sort of an oxymoron.
best to you
Thank You for your willingness to serve your nation, and congratulations on your book tour, I look forward to reading it. Your interview on Hardball was excellent.
I hope there's a white hot circle of HELL for
Bob Novack = the douche bag of Liberty
and Cheney & scooter
Perhaps what you are saying, Ms. Wilson, is the polite version of "Just like Hitler, Bush doesn't care about reality, he just wants to be able to fool enough people into thinking that his latest war is justified. Bush & friends want to disguise the fact that they want to be able to wage wars of aggression, with the U.S. armed forces, anytime, anywhere, against anyone they so choose. As long as it is not Osama bin Laden."
Valerie for Senator. Replace Domenici with
Plame Wilson.
Valerie for President. Times running out.
Darn, I was checking to see if anyone was going to suggest she run for office.
Ms. Plame would make an ideal independent candidate for House or Senate. I think she should run.
She may think she's done her patriotic public service tour in the CIA, but 3,800+ soldiers have done even more. She has name recognition that HuffPost posters do not. We can't run, you, Ms. Plame, can.
Too many Americans who have the required name recognition and access to contributors are deciding to "take life easy". They are leaving us with choices among Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Guilanni, Paul, Thompson, etc. There's not one candidate for president worth voting for. Guilianni has been found to have been a fraud regarding his 9-11 credentials (his leaked testimony before a commission), Clinton voted for effectively authorizing Bush to attack Iran.
What more needs be said?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
