hot document: Primary sources exposed and explained.

The CIA vs. Its Inspector General


Posted Friday, Aug. 24, 2007, at 12:14 PM ET

 


Posted Friday, Aug. 24, 2007, at 12:14 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Bonnie Goldstein is a former special investigator to the U.S. Senate and investigative producer for ABC News.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

I love the earth shattering irony that happens right before our eyes every day. Let's talk perspective here. For the first 40 or 50 years the CIA spends most of its time and money trying to disrupt, subvert or commandeer the governments of the Middle East.

Then, by the time there is enough sentiment, technology and radical network to pose an actual threat, the CIA which was initially established just to protect us from such an event turns out to be some of the worst stereotypical, pass-the-buck, labor-fakeing public employees on the dole.

And just as typically we finally get around to finding out about it five or six years later.

You can't blame the Republicans for that. And you can't blame the Democrats either. It's our government and we can only blame ourselves.

--Homer

(To reply, click here.)

I'm struck here by the lip-service paid to the idea of accountability without any real commitment to it. We can set up a panel or a commission or a get a National Intelligence Estimate, but we don't need to actually follow any of their recommendations. It seems like the main thrust of the report was to say that George Tenet was an ineffectual manager (not that he was incompetent or malicious), and that he and others should be held to account for their failures. Instead, Tenet gets the Medal of Freedom. WTF?

Hayden gives several reasons for not wanting to release the report: It will distract officers on the ground; It will be a waste of time; It will have a "chilling" effect on how the Inspector General works.

If any of these things are true, we've got bigger problems. CIA operatives certainly aren't concerned about an internal review about a DCI that's not even there anymore, it took Hayden's crew less than 30 days and all they had to do was declassify a 13-page document; and is he implying that the IG won't do any investigating anymore because the public might here about it? Dear God!

They obviously just didn't want to embarrass the CIA or the President. While I understand the impulse, too bad, the American Public deserves to know whether our Government officials are doing their jobs and whether they're being held to account if they're not.

--scottyhope

(To reply, click here.)

(8/30)









Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby