On or about
President of the
Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY
understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
This is a crucial piece of information. the Counterproliferation
Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not
Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from,
but where the spies come
from.
Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD
is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew.
It's right there in the indictment.
Xxxxxxxx
Remember, I. Lewis Libby doesn't just work
for the Vice President.
From the beginning of the administration, a
key root of Libby's power at the White House is that he works both for the Vice President (as
Chief of Staff and National Security Affairs Advisor) and the President of the
By Bob Drogin and Greg Miller
Times Staff Writers
September 3, 2004
WASHINGTON — Despite its fervent denials, Israel secretly maintains a
large and active intelligence-gathering operation in the United States
that has long attempted to recruit U.S. officials as spies and to
procure classified documents, U.S. government officials said.
FBI and other counterespionage agents, in turn, have covertly followed,
bugged and videotaped Israeli diplomats, intelligence officers and
others in Washington, New York and elsewhere, the officials said. The
FBI routinely watches many diplomats assigned to America.
Officials said FBI surveillance of a senior Israeli diplomat, who was
the subject of an FBI inquiry in 1997-98, played a role in the latest
probe into possible Israeli spying. The bureau now is investigating
whether a Pentagon analyst or pro-Israel lobbyists provided Israel with
a highly classified draft policy document. The document advocated
support for Iranian dissidents, radio broadcasts into Iran and other
efforts aimed at destabilizing the regime in Tehran, officials said
this week.
The case is unresolved, but it has highlighted
Israel's unique status as an extremely close U.S. ally that presents a
dilemma for U.S. counterintelligence officials.
"There is a
huge, aggressive, ongoing set of Israeli activities directed against
the United States," said a former intelligence official who was
familiar with the latest FBI probe and who recently left government.
"Anybody who worked in counterintelligence in a professional capacity
will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active
countries targeting the United States."
The former official discounted repeated Israeli denials that the country exceeded acceptable limits to obtain information.
"They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human
operations," the former official said. "People here as liaison …
aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials
are laughable."
Current and former officials involved with
Israel at the White House, CIA, State Department and in Congress had
similar appraisals, although not all were as harsh in their
assessments. A Bush administration official confirmed that Israel ran
intelligence operations against the United States. "I don't know of any
foreign government that doesn't do collection in Washington," he said.
Another U.S. official familiar with Israeli intelligence said that
Israeli espionage efforts were more subtle than aggressive, and
typically involved the use of intermediaries.
But a former
senior intelligence official, who focused on Middle East issues, said
Israel tried to recruit him as a spy in 1991.
Full Story in LA Times
August 11th, 2004 7:01 pm
By David Morgan / Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Congressman Porter Goss,
President Bush's nominee for CIA director, could be
his own worst enemy when it comes to making the case
that he deserves to lead the U.S. intelligence agency.
"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not
qualified," the Florida Republican told
documentary-maker Michael Moore's production company
during the filming of the anti-Bush movie "Fahrenheit
9/11."
A day after Bush picked Goss for the top U.S. spy job,
Moore on Wednesday released an excerpt from a March 3
interview in which the 65-year-old former House of
Representatives intelligence chief recounts his lack
of qualifications for employment as a modern CIA
staffer.
"I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my
language skills were romance languages and stuff.
We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the
cultural background probably," Goss is quoted in an
interview transcript.
"And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh,
as my children remind me every day: 'Dad you got to
get better on your computer.' Uh, so, the things that
you need to have, I don't have."
Goss, who served with the CIA clandestine services in
Latin America and Europe in the 1960s, was not
immediately available for comment.
He appears in Moore's film, the most financially
successful documentary in history, during a segment
devoted to the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism
measure.
Moore told Reuters that Goss, who until Tuesday was
chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence, granted an interview
to two of his producers without first checking to see
who they worked for.
"You'd think the person who was the head of the
intelligence committee would ask a few more
questions," said Moore.
"The reality is that Porter Goss was in charge of the
oversight of the CIA during a time when the CIA didn't
do its job, which in part resulted in the loss of
lives of 3,000 people," he said via telephone from New
York.
A White House spokesman declined to comment
specifically on the Goss interview but described the
lawmaker as "the most qualified man for the job."
Goss is expected to appear at confirmation hearings
before the Senate intelligence committee next month.
Governor Dean joined Wolf Blitzer this Sunday, August 1, 2004.
The following is his comments on the new terror threat from a
transcript of the broadcast.
Joining us now from Vermont, the former governor of Vermont, Howard
Dean, joining us live. Governor Dean, thanks very much for joining us.
And I want to immediately get your reaction to both of these
developing stories. First, the decision by the federal government, the
Department of Homeland Security, to increase the threat level here in
Washington, D.C., from yellow to orange, from elevated to high. What do
you make of this?
HOWARD DEAN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VERMONT: It's hard to know what to
make. None of us outside the administration have access to the
intelligence, which led to this determination.
I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for
President Bush he plays this trump card, which is terrorism. His whole
campaign is based on the notion that "I can keep you safe, therefore at
times of difficulty for America stick with me," and then out comes Tom
Ridge.
It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much
of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it.
BLITZER: Well, when you say that, that's a very serious allegation,
that the federal government, Tom Ridge, the president of the United
States, may be playing politics with the whole issue of fear and terror
threat levels. And I want you to explain specifically, so there's no
confusion, what you mean by that.
DEAN: What I mean by that is the president himself has played
politics with it. The president is basing his political campaign for
re-election on the notion that he ought to be re-elected because
terrorism is a danger, and his case to the American people is, "I'm the
only person who can get us through this." So of course this is politics.
The question is, do I believe this is being fabricated? No, of
course I don't believe that. But I do think that there is politics in
this, and the question is, how much is politics and how much is a real
threat?
I have no doubt there's a real threat here, but I also -- this is a
long history of orange to yellow, yellow to orange, orange to yellow
without a lot of explanation.
I find that the warnings -- watch out for somebody walking into
buildings, watch out for somebody driving cars, watch out for somebody
driving a truck -- that's not very helpful in New York City. It would
be very helpful if the federal government would be much more specific
about exactly what they'd like to us watch out for as they're raising
all these levels.
BLITZER: But isn't it important that if there are serious indicators
of a threat out there, that the federal government at least notify
those who may be in harm's way to be a little bit more vigilant?
DEAN: Yes, it is very important. And one of the things about this
warning, which is different than the previous many, many, many that the
Bush administration has given us is they've given us specific cities
and specific targets.
The usual pattern of the Bush administration is just come out and
tell everybody, "We have chatter, we have chatter, watch out, watch
out," and that is totally unhelpful. This at least confines it to a
geographic area, and I think that's an improvement.
I think, frankly, that this is an area which I think John Kerry
would handle much differently. I think John Kerry would probably wait
until he knew exactly what the situation was.
He's also said that he would hire more special forces people, and
that's going to be the key to stopping this. We need to stop these
people in their own lands, not when they get to ours.
* I have put in bold the key elements of his comment.
While the Bush
Administration has consistently promised the American people that they
are making this country safer, the facts show that the Administration
has consistently put homeland security on the back burner. For this
Administration, homeland security can wait. It created a new Department
of Homeland Security that rearranges the deck chairs, but it did not
energize that Department with the resources that it needed to make
America safer and many of the resources that were provided to the
Department have yet to be spent.
In
response to the terrorist threat, one might have anticipated that the
President would have requested supplemental appropriations for securing
our mass transit systems, for inspecting more containers coming into
our ports, for increasing inspections of air cargo, or for increasing
the number of Federal Air Marshals. One might have expected that he
would have amended his 2005 budget request to increase his anemic
three-percent proposed increase for the Department of Homeland Security.
Instead,
the White House did nothing. Instead, the Department seems satisfied
with a go-slow, business-as-usual approach to homeland security. The
Department issued advice to mass transit systems for improving
security, but provided no funding to increase law enforcement presence,
or to deploy canine teams. Despite the approach of a busy summer season
for airline passengers, the Department has allowed the number of
Federal Air Marshals to shrink precipitously, and the President's
budget would result in even deeper reductions next year. Despite
concerns about the safety of our borders, the Department, in March,
imposed a hiring freeze on Customs officers and immigration inspectors.