Is CIA at war with Bush?

[seemslikeadream]

September 27, 2004

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement

A few hours after George W. Bush dismissed a pessimistic CIA report on Iraq as ''just guessing,'' the analyst who identified himself as its author told a private dinner last week of secret, unheeded warnings years ago about going to war in Iraq. This exchange leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the president of the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency are at war with each other.

Paul R. Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, sat down Tuesday night in a large West Coast city with a select group of private citizens. He was not talking off the cuff. Relying on a multi-paged, single-spaced memorandum, Pillar said he and his colleagues concluded early in the Bush administration that military intervention in Iraq would intensify anti-American hostility throughout Islam. This was not from a CIA retiree but an active senior official. (Pillar, no covert operative, is listed openly in the Federal Staff Directory.)

For President Bush to publicly write off a CIA paper as just guessing is without precedent. For the agency to go semi-public is not only unprecedented but shocking. George Tenet's retirement as director of Central Intelligence removed the buffer between president and agency. As the new DCI, Porter Goss inherits an extraordinarily sensitive situation.

Pillar's Tuesday night presentation was conducted under what used to be called the Lindley Rule (devised by Newsweek's Ernest K. Lindley): The identity of the speaker, to whom he spoke, and the fact that he spoke at all are secret, but the substance of what he said can be reported. This dinner, however, knocks the Lindley Rule on its head. The substance was less significant than the forbidden background details.

The Bush-CIA tension escalated Sept. 15 when the New York Times reported a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was circulated in August (not July, as the newspaper reported), spelling out ''a dark assessment of Iraq'' with civil war as the ''worst case'' outcome. The NIE was prepared by Pillar, and well-placed sources believe Pillar leaked it, though he denied that at Tuesday night's dinner.

more
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. I am sure that from buchcos point of view a civil war would conveniently

remove many "obstacles" from their path in the ME.

[randr]

2. This is more evidence that

there is a small cabal of neo-cons making foriegn policy decisions
outside of our established protocol of interagency discipline.
My quess is that the reason the * team is so hell bent to win this time around is so he and his co-conspirators will not be held accountable when the dust settles.

[peacetalksforall]

7. The only thing it confirms and reveals is that...

American foreign policy is being run by a sub-government that is not secret (and some in Congress facilitate it and others allow it to be facilitated).

The only question here is whether the neo-cons are at war with the cabal, because the CIA was already a member of the cabal - the cabal being the same old, same old such as Baker, Meese, Gray, and all their societies with Carlyle, Enron, Bechtel, Halliburton and all the legal firms, plus Bush Sr, Bush brothers, the Sauds, and right wing leaders-military-intelligence in Israel to name a few - all keeping the born agains happy and the media under their control because of corporate ownership.

Don't get hung up on the nutcase Novak - concentrate on the Washington Post and concentrate on Novaks backers. (Way too much energy is spent on Novak who could be gone at any time, while the agenda proceeds).

[KurtNYC]

3. Stop the insanity -- Robert Novak asks if Bush and CIA are at war?

Isn't Novak the one that outed an undercover agent on behalf of BC? I note he makes a small allusion to that crime here: Pillar, no covert operative

Jeez, thanks Bob Novak. Does this mean Novak will clarify this covert versus non-covert point on all future CIA ops that he talks about? That this guy is not under endightment for treason is insane and that he can write a column like this one is just scarey insane.

[pacalo]

8. The fact that this came from Novak should raise a red flag.

Anything he writes is on behalf of this administration. Why does the administration want us to know this information?

[starroute]

9. What message is Novak sending -- and on whose behalf?

Notice how the piece ends:

"Modern history is filled with intelligence bureaus turning against their own governments, for good or ill. In the final days of World War II, the German Abwehr conspired against Hitler. More recently, Pakistani intelligence was plotting with Muslim terrorists. The CIA is a long way from those extremes, but it is supposed to be a resource -- not a critic -- for the president."

Is the message really on behalf of the administration? If it is, that paragraph has to be interpreted as a warning directed at the CIA.

But I have to wonder about the phrase, "for good or ill." Could Novak possibly be just a teeny bit worried about Bush turning into another Hitler?

[pacalo]

12. Knowing Novak's sense of ethics,

I think he could care less what the objectives are in this administration, so I don't think the phrase "for good or evil" was referring to this administration. I doubt he has a strong, personal sense of right & wrong (sociopathic, imo). I believe that phrase was referring to a coup against Hitler as "good" & the plotting between Pakistani intelligence & Muslim terrorists as "evil".

And I agree that the ending paragraph is a tactful admonishment of the CIA's unprecedented public criticism of a president & that, perhaps, he was instructed to address this issue by the same WH contact who instructed him to publicly reveal Valerie Plame's position with the CIA.

[bonddad]

4. Insular President

This was a really interesting story and really got me thinking. Starting with the State of the Union and the questionable 16 words, it appears there is a disconnect between the administration and the intelligence community.

I have read stories stating Cheney pressured the CIA to lean intelligence toward going to war. Paul O'Neil's supposedly book also stressed this point, although I have not read it.

There was also a story written by a Pentagon Insider available on Salon.com stating that after the election, neo-cons ascended to important Pentagon positions and essentially took over foreign policy decisions.

[seemslikeadream]

6. Some might call it treason

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x18796

[RaulGroom]

5. Another interesting thing about this story

The Washington Post carried this story in syndication this morning, but the piece does not appear on their webpage today. Strange.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

10. Possibly Novak's purpose is to portray the CIA as hostile to White House..

The reality is that Bush* is at war with the CIA, not the other way around.

This would amplify the meme that the CIA is a problem for the White House to overcome.

I'll bet more bad news for the White House will leak out of the CIA soon.

[skooooo]

11. I wouldn't want to be on the CIA's shit list...

...Bush is a fool.

[JSJ]

13. is bush at war with rove? no to both!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.