home

Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security

By TChris, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:20:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Morale at the nation's intelligence agencies can't be helped by the knowledge that the president won't fire Karl Rove for leaking Valerie Plame's identity unless Rove is actually convicted of a crime. Former intelligence officers testified today that the president's inaction is jeopardizing national security.

In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the war on terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.

"I wouldn't be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief -- protect and defend the Constitution," said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. "The minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees."

Johnson is a Republican, and he says he expects "better behavior out of Republicans." Don't we all? How long will it take the Rove machine to smear Johnson as a disgruntled bum? Or this retired colonel:

Patrick Lang, a retired Army colonel and defense intelligence officer, said Bush's silence sends a bad signal to foreigners who might be thinking of cooperating with the U.S. on intelligence matters.

"This says to them that if you decide to cooperate, someone will give you up, so you don't do it," Lang said. "They are not going to trust you in any way."

< Ala. House Seeks Mandatory Castration for Sex Offenders | Report: Bolton Was a Frequent Source for Judy Miller >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security | 11 comments (11 topical)
    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    Kudos to Johnson. I'm sick and tired of Republicans refusing to condemn the misdeeds of Republicans, and Democrats refusing to condemn the misdeeds of Democrats. The country suffers because of it.

    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    These CIA agents clearly hate America. Jim should give them a stern commenting.

    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    Woah, woah, woah, you guys got it all wrong. Rove was trying to, um, help, uh, make sure an erroneous story wasn't written, and he just heard about Plame's identity from a reporter or somebody anyway, and everybody knew who she was, and the CIA's always keeping things classified longer than they need to be, so if anyone's at fault here it's Joe Wilson.

    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    And reporters are always their own sources, don't you know that!! In fact, nothing of interest ever happens out there in the world, it's just a bunch of bored reporters making sh*t up all day!

    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:32 PM EST
    "I had to tell him so he wouldn't print it." Explanation #58 Seriously though, Rove is a f*****g criminal. And it's not the first time either. It is becoming more and more well known that Bush Sr. fired Rove during the 1992 re-election campaign for blabbing information to, you guessed it, Bob "the Boob" Novak.

    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#6)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    et al - Along with the criticism of Bush, if these folks want to be taken seriously, they will explain to us why: 1. They let nepotism come into the process. 2. They used a person with a known anti-war and anti-administration bias. 3. They didn't use a professional. i.e. An actual CIA agent. 4. They didn't demand a written report from Wilson. As far as people being reluctant because they will be outed if they cooperate with us.... I seem to remember that it was Wilson who first started writing about this. Mote from on eye and all that stuff.

    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    I answered some of PPJ's talking points here, so in order to save bandwidth and typing, a little repetition is necessary.

    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    As far as people being reluctant because they will be outed if they cooperate with us.... I seem to remember that it was Wilson who first started writing about this.
    Who did Wilson out and why would telling the truth encourage 'reluctancy'? This is the stupidest and most childish rnc talking point so far 'He started it!' Yes, Wilson wrote an article that explained how the admin was lying about the niger connection. Later the admin admitted that they should not have included that info in the SOTU speech. Therefore Wilson was telling the truth, and was confirmed by the admin. THEN, the bushco did there standard kill the messenger for telling the truth routine. If you lie for the admin, you get promoted and/or a 'medal of freedom'. If you tell the truth or disagree you get retaliation, humiliation and the great republic lie machine cranked up against you. You can tell the rnc is lying, because they have to keep coming up with new lies as more facts come out.

    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#9)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    sailor writes:
    Who did Wilson out and why would telling the truth encourage 'reluctancy'? This is the stupidest and most childish rnc talking point so far 'He started it!
    ' Illegal? Perhaps not, but tell us the last time a CIA "agent" wrote an article about a subject he was involved in, and one he had "investigated" (read - had mint tea with). You know, I wonder if he didn't violate a confidentiality agreement. Let's face the facts. Wilson wrote about yellowcake and his trip. This whole thing is political. Quit wrapping the flag around it.

    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    PPJ, did I meet your demands about not 'attack, attack' that you made in another thread yesterday?

    Re: Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dark Avenger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    You know, I wonder if he didn't violate a confidentiality agreement. Then why hasn't anyone in or out of the government who knows that, in fact: A) Wilson made such an agreement B) That his statements, past and present have been and are such that they violate this agreement come out to tell us this? You know, I wonder if the two moons of Mars are made of green cheese............ It's kinda like how the wingnut section of the internet tells us that "Valerie Plames' neighbors knew that she was CIA", when, in fact, AFAIK, not one person living next to the Wilsons has gone on the record to say that they knew she worked for the Company. Wilson wrote about yellowcake and his trip. That's true. This whole thing is political Yes, the outing of someone who was undercover for the CIA was done for political purposes. To wit:
    Rove told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that Plame was fair game, even as White House spokesman Scott McClellan was denying any White House role in the leak. "I'm telling you flatly that that is not the way this White House operates," the spokesman told reporters July 22. McClellan was usually careful to stress involvement in any illegal leak, though his public statements clearly left an impression of a White House aloof to the affair.
    End of the article:
    As for the Bush administration, the investigation has exposed how an administration that publicly deplores leaking has engaged aggressively in the practice to advance its goals. Yet much of the case remains a mystery. Did the White House leak the identity of a CIA operative? Is it a crime? Did Bush have any knowledge of it? Will Fitzgerald have spent this much time pressuring officials and reporters and not deliver an indictment? Those questions may be answered soon, as the grand jury's term is set to expire in October.
    Link Quit wrapping the flag around it. Yes, it was unpartiotic as well, so I agree with this sentiment.

    Testimony: Bush Jeopardizes National Security | 11 comments (11 topical)