Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The CIA purge in 2003, Ashcroft's resignation, & the Plame leak

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 11:12 AM
Original message
The CIA purge in 2003, Ashcroft's resignation, & the Plame leak
Given that it was the CIA who pressed for the Plame investigation, & knowing what we know now about Fitzgerald’s professionalism & that he takes this investigation very seriously, could this investigation be the reason for the November 2003 purge at the CIA? It has Rove written all over it. Revenge. Political payback.

WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources. "The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/14/161139/55


The following article is a good reminder of the ramifications to the CIA caused by the Plame leak:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40012-2003Oct3¬Found=true

And here is a transcript of the testimonies of Jim Marcinkowski, Larry Johnson, & Vince Cannistraro at the October 2003 Democratic Policy Committee hearing on the Plame leak. These ex-CIA officials could barely control their anger when testifying, & the transcript shows the extent of harm done to the CIA by the leak. I saw the hearing live on C-Span & I highly recommend your reading this. It’s riveting. The testimony by the first witness, Vince Cannistraro, begins on the bottom of page 7:

http://talkleft.com/plamehearing1.pdf

As an aside, what about the eager beaver Ashcroft, who was most likely hard-pressed by the administration to find out what he could about Fitzgerald’s investigation. Knowing now that Rove was one of the leakers, it stands to reason that he would be most anxious to find out about the latest details about the investigation. We know now how close Fitzgerald holds his cards to his chest, & if Ashcroft, the one who hired Fitzgerald, had been hounded by Rove to learn about the investigation - or to interfere with it or to influence Fitzgerald - he was unsuccessful. Is that why Ashcroft left, I wonder. Again, revenge & political payback by Rove. As zealous & pompous as Ashcroft was in his role in the WH, I don’t think he was ready to leave on his own.

Despite the jovial look we continue to see on his pig face, Karl Rove is surely worried.

I have to add this: It was in Karl Rove’s best interest, to put it mildly - in fact, it was crucial for him - that GWB win the election in 2004.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Celebration Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
1. Ashcroft
It seems to me that there are some people that buy the ideological part of the administration that just have no stomach for the tactics and illegalities. I have a feeling that Ashcroft did what he felt he had to do by hiring Fitzgerald, and then just decided to get the hell out of Dodge. The job was just ruining his health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'd like to think that's what happened.
I do think there was unsurmountable pressure put on him to find out the latest developments, & because Ashcroft is the one who hired Fitzgerald, there was surely some animosity between Rove & Ashcroft.

Karl Rove is responsible for the flavor of the WH, & it's all about secrecy & control. When he found that he couldn't get his sticky fingers onto the strings of this investigation, tension between them surely developed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Do you recall what Senate committees Ashcroft served on ? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Since he wasn't a senator, that would be none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Oh my. Then what was he doing from 1995 to 2001 ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. My apologies, Durham...
He was elected to the Senate in 1994 and maintained a near-perfect voting attendance record while working to combat illegal drugs, increase the quality of public education, reduce crime and safeguard the rights of crime victims. Ashcroft worked closely with Missouri law enforcement officers, developing strategies to counter the state's methamphetamine problems. He co-sponsored the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. He fought to toughen the penalties for gun crimes by substantially increasing mandatory minimum prison sentences for the criminal misuse of firearms. During his time in the Senate, Ashcroft was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/ashcroft-bio.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. I love this.
"The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

And all this time I thought the CIA was an organization of very scary RW cold warriors.

Shows what I know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacalo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Liberal = Doing the job ethically.
Not lying for this administration.

Not bending the rules to suit the purpose.

Not using the job to further the administration's shoot-from-the-hip style.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. I actually think the old school CIA that Bush's Dad was Director of...
...went underground a long time ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. Great links -- nominated!
Just as the DSM said:

CANNISTRARO: Many of the people in the administration who were publicly identified as ideologues and members of the group that advocated war in Iraq were not happy with the CIA, were not happy even with DIA -- the Pentagon's own intelligence service -- because it didn't consistently provide the supporting data for the public assertions that Iraq was a clear danger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC