New Marching Orders Out: NY Post's John Pudwhoretz blames the CIA.

[stickdog]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/2602.htm

SPIES THAT CAN'T LEAK STRAIGHT

July 8, 2003 -- The CIA has determined that Saddam Hussein is alive. Funny: It was the CIA that determined Saddam was hiding in a Baghdad bunker on March 20, leading President Bush to begin the war on Iraq two days early with a massive cluster-bomb attack on Saddam himself. Then the CIA heard Saddam was at a restaurant in southwest Baghdad on April 7, and another massive strike leveled the place.

Guess the CIA was wrong. Twice.

Keep that in mind when you read or hear how the Defense Department and Vice President Dick Cheney "manipulated" U.S. intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The bulk of those complaints come from inside the CIA, which hasn't covered itself with glory when it comes to intelligence on Iraq.

(snip)

Oh, one final conclusion: Our intelligence agencies just aren't up to snuff, and never have been.

[Judi Lynn]

1. Podhoretz is a true tumor of a man

The very image of slime, ooze, venom, and idiocy.

You might find this interesting, concerning one of his memorable moments in journalism:

(snip) The Devil Made Him Do It
What was John Podhoretz thinking?

By Deborah Mitchell

For a story that was killed, it's getting plenty of ink. Even the London Sunday Telegraph mentioned John Podhoretz's aborted July 21 New York Post column, "A Conversation in Hell." Podhoretz, writing in the voice of Satan, welcomes Joseph Kennedy Sr. to his domain ("Nice to see you. Are you enjoying the air conditioning?") and explains their pact ("Every time you think your family is on its way back to glory, I just have to do something. Like I did this weekend with your grandson John"). It was deemed too over-the-top even for Rupert Murdoch's rabidly anti-Kennedy tabloid. While the presses were still running, Post editor Ken Chandler deleted the column -- and with it any hopes that editorial-page editor Podhoretz had of rising to the top of the masthead.

"Normally, I'd review the page proofs in the office," explains Chandler. "But I had an appointment, so I reviewed the faxes when I got home." As soon as he saw the column, he says, "I ordered it to be removed immediately." Only the early edition, a small print run that's sent out of town, carried the column. But Podhoretz's judgment lapse was covered by the Washington Post, the Daily News, and Jeannette Walls's online "Scoop" column.

In the newsroom, "dumb" was the nicest thing anyone had to say about the column, which included a particularly tasteless line about Rosemary Kennedy's lobotomy, and some Post reporters were positively gleeful about Podhoretz's public humiliation. Conventional wisdom has it that publisher Marty Singerman will retire in about a year and a half, when the paper's new printing plant in the Bronx is up and running, and everyone expects Chandler to then be promoted to publisher. Whether or not Murdoch is yet compiling lists of potential new editors, his reporters certainly are.

"There was a lot of terror in the newsroom that Podhoretz was a candidate -- at least in his own mind," reports one Post-er, though those fears were somewhat eased earlier this year when Podhoretz's duties were cut back considerably. "If they wouldn't name Eric Breindel editor of the paper, why would they name John Podhoretz?" snipes an ex-Post man. "Their politics are similar, but one guy could articulate it and one guy can't -- and that's a serious drawback when you're a journalist." (snip/...)

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/media/features/395/

[annagull]

4. Podhoretz is a pimple

funny how he's blaming the intelligence, just like bush*. They are floating their trial balloon, but I suspect it shall fall with the lead they poured into it.

[Merlin]

2. Reminds me of Nixon's efforts to pin Watergate on the CIA.

They are a convenient whipping boy.

In fact the CIA was giving straight intel until the very end when politicization overwhelmed them.

[OneBlueSky]

3. looks like it's coming down to CIA v. Bush . . .

CIA's been around a lot longer, and has a lot more experience at this kind of stuff . . . my money's on them . . .

[izzie]

6. I looks like to me the CIA may say one thing but once the gov.

gets ahold of it it always comes out to fit the results they wish.It is like that result on those new rocket they want money for. None worked so they gave the code to the rocket and yes it was shot down.Now in a war all we need to do is be sure we know where the rockets are coming from so we can protect out self. That is if any one has rockets to shoot at us. Never fear the Corp will make its money and the congressmen will have brought jobs to his distrist. Every one is happy about all this madness but the people. But who cares about that? They do not even care, as half do not even vote and the other do not even care to know the problem.

[chaumont58]

7. yes, indeed, the CIA is one outfit one should not piss off

They have almost unlimited resources for disinformation campaigns,
and people who are loyal to 'the agency' before all else.
I think the CIA was responsable for the 'trashing' of the Clintons
after Dumbya took over on January 20, 2001. Clinton had pardoned
Morrison, who did the no-no of leaking the photo of Soviet effort at a nuclear high seas carrier.

[Mirakul7]

9. Bush Sr and the CIA

WOW! Call me naive. I have been laboring under the assumption that the CIA was the Bush family's personal agency. Didn't Papa run the group for awhile? I thought that Bush One and Bush Two had control over the agency. School me here.

[sandnsea]

5. What?

I thought it was on the ground intelligence that said where Saddam was. Considering we now know we had SpecialOps on the ground quite a while before the initial invasion, wouldn't you think that's where the intelligence came from? And besides, isn't it the President's responsibility to question the sources and validity of intelligence before he marches us off to war?

[ward919]

8. Who do you think will win this battle? CIA or Mossad?

This is throwing down the gaunlet! You really have to understand what is going on here. For the CIA to go against Bush it means they are going against the PNAC and neocons and therefore...Israel.

[Lexingtonian]

10. I'll trust the paper trail, John

The opinions of fools are amusing, but let's stick to the evidence. I imagine that CIA people are smart enough to keep CYA materials around. I mean, wasn't it Kissinger who said "memos are not written to inform the recipient, they're written to protect the author"?

No, no, don't talk about fabrications.

[peekaloo]

11. funny how no one mentions the NSA..................................nt

[izzie]

12. I once read this about the CIA and loved it

A congressman would every day ride passed a large building going up so asked what it was and no one knew, so hw got to really looking into it and finally found it was being built by the CIA. Their budget is done in the dark so know one knows where the money goes even congressmen.