Impeachment: What are the defense arguments?
Now that the Bush impeachment appears more likely, it appears as though the RNC propaganda machine is in full swing.
However, we believe this is an overstatement of the RNC organization. We believe we have found an example of someone who makes an excellent case that the DNC is the source of the real problem.
We encourage you to carefully review the evidence.
Jim Kouric offers an insightful analysis of the Bush Administration and the current problems within the DNC.
I would like to applaud this distinguished public servant in his continued service to the country and celebrate his outstanding leadership to law enforcement around the nation. Whether it be on the airwaves or on the streets of America, we can all be proud of Mr. Kouric’s fine accomplishments. He is the Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
Mr. Kouric makes a persuasive cause that America is at the crossroads. The current leadership by the RNC in demanding that leakers of classified information is noteworthy, and evidence of the nation’s leadership’s commitment to the rule of law.
Kouric makes an excellent case that the facts must be known before making decisions. I applaud the RNC leadership for their commitment to find the facts.
Kouric also argues that it is the DNC that is to blame in that they have already concluded who is at fault without knowing the facts. This is a point well taken.
Kouric also artfully outlines the flaws with the Plame case. Indeed, we are led to believe that someone may or may not have said something at the Fox studios. This is a troubling development.
The rule of law is paramount, and this nation deserves to know who leaked the information about what is going on inside the CIA.
Indeed, Mr. Kouric also artfully discusses the fatal flaw with the ongoing Fitzgerald investigation – they have failed to hold anyone accountable for the original investigation, and have simply indicted someone for what Kouric calls a Memory problem.
However, there is one small problem with Mr. Kouric’s argument: It fails on all counts. None of the statements he makes is supported by the record.
Indeed, the problem we have with the RNC is that there is no bonafide public record – all the investigations related to 9-11 and Iraq are incomplete.
There is no merit to argue that the leadership within the RNC has pressed their members to timely resolve the issue. Rather, it is only because the DNC has dared to press the issue that we might have more information about when a summary might be due.
All the information we have about the Iraq war appears to be without foundation: There is no merit to what the Administration said, and the UK Parliament now rejects the Butler report in re false information over Niger and Ambassador Wilson.
The nation should take pause. The RNC appears to have mobilized many writers to discuss their concerns with the nation’s leadership.
It appears as though Mr. Kouric has answered the call: Making arguments about why someone within the intelligence community should be specifically identified, but making no mention of the original wrong: Secret torture chambers in Easter Europe.
On this count, Mr. Kouric asks that we presume there is nothing wrong going on. Yet, the public record is clear: The Vice President has worked to get the CIA exempt from torture restrictions; and despite the UN Charter prohibiting inhumane treatment, we are asked to believe it is “OK” to commit torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
What makes Kouric’s argument collapse is his assumption that nothing is going on in Eastern Europe. Let us consider the argument, in the RNC-generated-information-vacuum, and presume the detention camps in Eastern Europe are real.
Let us recall that at the time of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo public relations problems, the White House and DoD continued to assert the problem was isolated to these two locations.
However, the public record demonstrates otherwise: That the CIA conducted rendition out of Italy and has flown aircraft from Afghanistan, Iraq, and other locations into specific airports in, among other places Poland, Spain, Thailand and Romania.
Let us presume that Mr. Kouric’s premise is valid: That in the absence of information we should presume there is nothing wrong going on in Eastern Europe. This argument, not a premise, is problematic for one simple reason: The White House has failed to point to Eastern Europe as evidence of “places where torture is not occurring.”
One would think that while in the vice of public scrutiny, the White House would have called the CIA and/or State Department to please find any information which would show the conduct in Abu Ghraib was isolated. However, the White House Press Secretary has not provided these anecdotes.
Let’s consider the case of fraud in the financial industry. If someone like Morgan Stanley fails to provide information which the court has ordered to be produced, the courts have already instructed juries that they can presume fraud.
If the White House had probative information that would demonstrate the pattern of conduct in Guantanamo and Iraq was isolated, it is reasonable to presume the DoD General Counsel would have made the case to showcase this probative evidence. Yet, we have no evidence the General Counsel has provided such a recommendation. On the contrary, by all accounts, the DoD General Counsel was part of the planning team which falls under the Joint Staff, and was part of a designed effort to mislead the American public.
Mr. Kouric’s main argument about the camps is that it is not reasonable to jump to the conclusion that there is a problem, and that the greater alleged crime lies with the leaker.
This argument is flawed for one simple reason: The ethical duty of government officials is to preserve the rule of law; it is not to create a barrier to accountability. Kouric would have us believe the greater offense lies with those who discuss the alleged unlawful acts in Eastern Europe.
Indeed, we can confirm that the conduct violates EU treaty obligations and the UN Charter because the conduct, if it were not a problem, would have been showcased as evidence of an isolated problem. The reasonable person would not conclude with certainty that there is no problem, but the contrary – that a lack of senior government official awareness of these camps is evidence of a lack of oversight.
It remains a matter of law whether the camps, if they still exist, have violated the UN Charter.
Kouric’s main problem in his argument, however, is not isolated to the scope of the investigation. The more troubling implication of his approach is that those who are in charge of these camps fall outside the umbrella of the investigation:
At this juncture, Congress appears to be in the dark. Yet, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, the President had the lawful duty to provide confirming arguments and a determination that the invasion of Iraq was linked with the war on terror.
If the President, despite the existence of these camps, cannot provide a link between the Iraq invasion and the war on terror, why do the camps exist; and what was the actual information provided to Congress to justify the invasion of Iraq?
We have no answer. Thus, we need to find the answer.
Kouric’s approach would have us focus not on the original disconnect between terrorism and Iraq; but on what was the catalyst for someone to provide material information to Congress about what may be in contravention to the laws of war and UN Charter on Human Rights.
Mr. Kouric appears to have a senior position within the Association of Chiefs of Police. This would imply, as a result of his peer support within the law enforcement community, that he is somewhat, if not tangentially, aware of prosecutor duties before the court and grand jury procedures.
However, a plain reading of Mr. Kouric’s work suggests the opposite: That he lacks confidence in the Grand Jury process and appears to be second guessing the actions of an officer of the court. It remains to be understood to what extent Mr. Kouric’s comments are designed to inspire a lack of public confidence in the court.
Let’s be specific. Kouric in the last paragraph specifically raises doubts about the integrity of Mr. Fitgerald when he writes,
“That investigation resulted in Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, being indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice charges, despite no indictments handed down for the crime for which the special prosecutor was appointed to investigate in the first place..
At this juncture, it remains for Mr. Kouric to explain why the Fitzgerald indictments are in appropriate, or why Fitzgerald’s conduct fails to meet a reasonable public expectation of what a prosecutor should do.
Are we to believe that the only appropriate way forward is for additional indictments to be linked with the original investigation?
It appears as though Mr. Kouric’s definition of an “appropriate grand jury” is one that narrowly confines its scope to a very narrow list of parameters. Yet, this is not how Grand Juries work – if they find something, they explore.
Kouric raises a troubling issue: If he is questioning the outcome of a secret grand jury, is his goal to undermine public confidence in that grand jury and prosecutor?
Kouric makes an excellent case that there are problems with the Plame investigation and rightfully points out what General Valle is reported to have stated. Indeed, some in law enforcement can rightfully question the veracity of a witness when there is other information floating around that would tend to undermine or raise doubts about the truthfulness of their testimony.
However, as Mr. Fitzgerald has clearly stated in his briefing in Washington, what Ambassador Wilson did or didn’t say is irrelevant to what Mr. Libby did or didn’t say.
The indictment is against Mr. Libby. Ambassador Wilson has no indictment.
Thus, the reasonable person would ask, “What is the point of raising the issue of what Mr. Wilsons did or didn’t say, when the Grand Jury indictment is about the alleged inconsistent story that Mr. Libby presented?
This is a fundamental issue to the Grand Jury investigation, which continues. Thus, there is no merit to suggest, argue, or imply that the Grand Jury has or has not done their job. Their job has ended because of the time limit; but the investigation continues:
The last time we checked, Mr. Libby’s testimony did not hinge on whether or not Ambassador Wilson and General Valle did or didn’t speak; thus, what Valle reports to have said has no relevance to the indictment against Mr. Libby.
Mr. Kouric makes a strong case for questioning the motives of the DNC and their apparent obstruction of the RNC fact finding. However, the record is clear – the leadership within the RNC is divided over what is to be done with Iraq, the 9-11 investigation, and what was or was not reviewed in re the subsequent Senate Intelligence Committee investigations.
The record does not support the assertion that the Democrats are in the way; rather, it is the persistent questioning by members on both sides of the aisle that resulted in an agreement to continue with Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committee Review.
Mr. Kouric would have us believe that the RNC has been speedily looking into matters. The evidence before us suggests the opposite: That the RNC and the Senate Intelligence Committee have failed to timely resolve these issues.
It appears as though the White House, in its effort to place blame for what wasn’t found in Iraq, wants to put the responsibility on the intelligence Community. Again, this argument has no merit in that the CIA specifically reported in 2003 that the basis for arguing there were WMD in Iraq was questionable. Also, Scott Ritter reports that personnel on the inspection teams were thwarted from doing their jobs by the Americans. Finally, the Iraqis were cooperating in accounting for the remaining material.
Based on a cursory review of Mr. Kouric’s article, we judge that Mr. Kouric has poorly argued his central defense of the RNC and White House.
In turn, given Mr. Kouric’s unpersuasive arguments, we question what basis there is for the membership in law enforcement to continue to take his arguments seriously. We find neither facts nor plausible explanations within the arguments to convince us that he should retain a position of leadership in law enforcement. We are open to evidence to the contrary.
More broadly, we are puzzled why the networks would give Mr. Kouric, with the apparent flaws in his arguments, a platform. Although he may publish a news letter, based on the above discussion we are not convinced his methodology and analysis is sound.
Mr. Kouric is in law enforcement or has a position of leadership in the law enforcement community. We would hope that the public carefully review the arguments and assess whether this is the type of leadership law enforcement needs. It is clear that this is what they have chosen.
If the nation is to move forward on the basis of the rule of law, then the leadership in law enforcement must demonstrate a commitment to timely fact finding. We are concerned that Mr. Kouric’s approach is the opposite:
We make no claim that Mr. Kouric is defective in his leadership or unsuitable for public confidence. We would only hope that if this is a pattern, that the public carefully evaluate the message:
We are more persuaded that Mr. Kouric has embraced RNC fiction and doesn’t want to know the truth:
The answer to these questions lie, in part within the Senate and Fitzgerald investigation. One approach has proven unresponsive, the latter produces indictments and resignations.
If you want to more of the same and get no specifics, the public should Embrace Mr. Kouric’s approach.
However, if you want to know the facts, your job is to patiently wait for Mr. Fitgerald to return more indictments. They are on the way.
No thanks to Mr. Kouric.
Did you enjoy that?
Well, we’ve opened up the discussion to some other views and we hope you enjoy other feedback from people who have read Mr. Kouric’s letter.
Normally, when someone makes a foolish argument, and they are someone who would benefit from public attention, I tend to refrain from comment.
Normally, I refrain from personal attacks, but today I'm going to make a special exception and specifically identify by name a particular individual who many love, adore, and cherish.
The reason for making this special attack is, bluntly, I don't like the way that they think and find their arguments uncompelling; and they are in a position of influence for the entire nation.
Jim Kouric CPP is the fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
Congratulations, Jim, you're on my list of people I do not like. It takes alot to get there, but you've done it.
Let's consider the role of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. In so many words, this is the organization that provides leadership and inputs to the various police officer standards and training units around the country and provides leadership.
My concern springs from the simply premise: That if we are to have a credible oversight system of the policy training system, we need to have people in charge who are able to credibly argue their point.
Kouric's argument fails, which raises in my mind whether the Chief's of Police have the wrong person providing leadership, assistance, and guidance to the agencies that have input into officer standards and training.
Let's begin with the reality: Libby has been indicted. It doesn't matter what Wilson did or didn't say.
Whether Wilson did or didn't say something about his wife's status is irrelevant to whether Libby chose to weave a tale before the Grand jury.
Bluntly, my disgust with Kouric as a leader in the Organization, stems from the simple problem he appear to have in his argument: That he introduces irrelevant information to justify a diversion.
I find this way of thinking and argument to be absurd, and something I would hope the members of the law enforcement consider when evaluating the leadership you have in law enforcement.
Kouric also argues, based on speculation, about whether or not a special prosecutor will or will not be appointed. Brilliant, this does nothing to address the larger issue of war crimes.
But then again, I won't expect someone who is in American law enforcement to necessarily know much about the laws of war, unless it is about a war against the right of a defendant to have a trial.
This isn't to say that Kouric is necessarily involved or knows something about law enforcement misconduct. On the contrary, my disgust with the leadership in the law enforcement community stems from the recurring sense of arrogance Kouric and others in position of leadership have demonstrated by fostering a culture that sends a green light for any officer to lie to the public.
I don't know what Kouric's problem is, but if this is the way that he argues before the police, then we should not be surprised why law enforcement and other members of the community appear to have a green light for non-sense arguments.
Why is it that the public has to know the statutes better than law enforcement in order to know whether we're getting the run around?
Why is it that the public has to be beaten down for freely coming forward with information related to apparent criminal conduct, only to have that information rebuffed by your officers?
Why are the officers under the leadership given the green light to lie to the public about whether funds are or are not being directed from DoJ to local law enforcement?
What could possibly give law enforcement officers the green light that it is "OK" to lie during pre-textual stops, and then make up more stories to avoid a 1983 suit?
I'm not impressed with law enforcement. They are the ones that have been roaming the streets of Baghdad, are members of the national guard, and are the ones that are bringing discredit upon themselves and their country.
A nation that is willing to promote people like Kouric have a real problem: The nation celebrates absurdity, and does an excellent job at sending the signal to our nation that we reward non-sense arguments, all the while the rule of law and standards go out the window.
I'm sure Kouric is a fairly decent fellow. He's obviously risen to a position of leadership. But frankly, given the cess pool in law enforcement, I'm not all that impressed with the law enforcement, not do I have much patience when their leadership makes political statements.
I'm sure there's probably some "personal opinion" defense that comes around to warrant Kouric being able to make these comments. But I'll put those aside for the moment.
Bluntly, why is Kouric making comments like this about "defenses" for Bush and Libby, all the while he has a self-evident integrity problem among the ranks of the officer he supposedly leads as Vice President.
If Kouric's leadership as VP of CPP amounted to anything, I wouldn't have to second guess the officers; nor would I have to enter a discussion with an officer with a list of "things that officers like to make up in order to not do their job."
Rather, I should be able to go to them, tell them the information, and the problem get solved. This is not the case. But what makes it worse is when the leadership within the department then goes out of their way to spin a story of nonsense, which doesn’t add up, and subsequent reviews indicate that there are a number of officers who have either lied, or have been asleep while major training scenarios unfolded.
I personally don't care what the problem is. The issue is there is a leadership problem within law enforcement that gives a green light to non-sense, and the consequences for the betrayals are meaningless.
The state-level auditors and review teams give a green light. What's worse is the Attorney Generals have to have private screeners to weed out the information with, "Oh, we get complaints like this all the time. . . "
Wonderful: So the "ineffective law enforcement problem" isn't isolated.
If you want to write an OP-ed, why not write one that inspires your officers to serve the public, not pump out non-sense excuses to do nothing.
If you want to make up a non-sense story to justify why the "leaking about the CIA torture in Europe is or is not different than leaking a CIA agent name," find: Do that on your own time, after law enforcement gets its act together.
I do not like to see law enforcement officers speaking out on political issues, all the while law enforcement officers are squashing others from speaking out against an unlawful war in Iraq.
You do not have a superior right to speak out; nor do you have credibility about the "rule of law" or "basis for national action" when law enforcement was behind the suppression of rights in New York City during the RNC demonstrations against the war.
Make no mistake, I am not happy that at the very time when we have integrity problems in law enforcement both at the local and federal level, we have the Vice President of CPP speaking out about why it is or is not OK for the CIA to be engaging in torture in Eastern Europe.
If the CIA was not engaging in torture, why weren't these camps disclosed as "proof" that the problems in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were isolated?
But we have no show, only secrets. This does not inspire confidence in the leadership or the nation; and the failure to disclose this information when it would be beneficial for DoD and the White House to show the conduct in Abu Ghraib and Guantnamo was isolated, leaves the reasonable person with the impression that there is something to hide, not show case.
But why stop there?
The final sentence concludes that the indictments against Libby were devoid of indictments related to the original investigation.
Well! Looks like the Fitzgerald investigation isn’t complete.
Bluntly, it is premature to call the response to Libby’s actions the end-game. There’s more to go.
In other words, if you want to make the case that the “failure to bring indictments related to the original case” as a basis to assert that something is amiss, you’re talking to the wrong audience.
Even fools like me know that the Grand Jury and Prosecutor can go on a fishing trip, and dig up anything they find along the way. If they run across something that is not right, they can bring it up and look at it: Is there a problem?
Fitzgerald discussed this during his briefing. Yet, I can imagine that this well-articulated point would be lost on someone in American law enforcement whose officers dream up wonderful excuses not to take complaints. Last time I checked, the declination decision is up to the prosecutor, not the officer or agent on the street. Yet, your chiefs of police appear to have trained them well – create an excuse and whatever you think the public needs to hear to send them on their way.
The reason law enforcement officers like you Kouric appear to have a problem with what Fitzgerald is doing is that you’ve been taken out of the equation: Your excuses for inaction are not working and the investigation continues despite the non-sense.
I don’t know what universe you’re living in, but the fancy game you play with what the Democrats are or are not doing doesn’t wash.
To be clear, the Democrats have been very clear from the outset of the Senate intelligence investigations that something needs to be done. But what do we have? More slow rolling by the RNC.
So don’t play the game that the Democrats are trying to sidestep the issue or focus on irrelevant things. Rather, it’s the goons in the RNC who are not making sense.
Moreover, why should anyone echo what the RNC wants – the RNC wants to suppress information, rather than showcase the evidence of good things going on. Indeed, if there’s no problem in Eastern Europe, as stated above, why didn’t DoD and the White House point to this for the Congressional leadership and say, “Hay, there’s no problem?” No answer from law enforcement that likes to suppress information and keep the public in the dark.
Kouric also suggests that the DNC has willing accomplices in the media as if they are out to get the President.
Actually, the issue is far simpler: People in this country like to assert the rule of law on arrogant people in government, whether they be Presidents or law enforcement officers, especially when those in government talk about accountability and standards, but go out of their way to ignore them.
The President is the Commander in Chief. Through DoD Regulation 5100.77 his combatant commanders are required to ensure their personnel are trained on the laws of war. Yet, all we’ve heard is that nobody knew. How convenient. How many of the CIA contractors were former law enforcement officers that have this recurring memory problem?
It is irrelevant whether Wilson did or didn’t say something in earshot of Valle. Valley and Wilsons are not targets of the indictment.
Or are you saying that despite the lawful grand jury, that you’re raising questions about the procedures used before the court of law?
In my mind, your comments raise questions as to whether you have confidence in the court system. Perhaps this lack of confidence in the court system would explain why the CIA doesn’t like to bring people to the court.
Yet, if you and others have no confidence in the Grand Jury process, why are you working in law enforcement to protect the Constitutional system which relies on that process?
We have no answers, as from your writing, it appears as though your arguments are convoluted – you, the VP of CPP.
With non-sense arguments like this, we are in trouble.
Let’s consider the issue of Priest’s anonymous sources. Is the VP of CPP saying that, in the absence of specific identification by name, that the information is to be rejected?
If so, then this would raise questions about the anonymous sourcing for drug tips.
How does the VP of CPP explain the apparent inconsistency: One on hand, it is OK for law enforcement to rely on anonymous information; but the Press, when it knows who it is talking to, has a greater duty to disclose than law enforcement?
we have no answers because law enforcement likes to impose one standard on the media to intimidate them to keep quiet about the non-sense in law enforcement.
Let’s consider the illusion that the Senate Intelligence Committee has done an investigation. This is absurd. There are many areas that were ignored and have not been completed.
Are we to believe that, this many years after 9-11, we are still not sure what happened? Indeed, despite the vacuum of what we don’t know went wrong and why, DoJ and the White House seem to “know enough” to justify a clampdown on civil liberties and issue National Security Letters.
But the FBI cannot point to anything justifying collecting 1 million names in Las Vegas. IN the words of the intelligence community, it was a wash.
I’m all for private citizens speaking out. However, Jim you’d have a lot more credibility if you and your peers in law enforcement showed the slightest inclination to permit the public to enjoy the rights you assert we are fighting for.
What is going on with Fitzgerald and the CIA torture in Eastern Europe? It’s about a tyrant in the White House who likes to make up non-sense to justify doing things you and I could go to jail for.
Why is anyone above the law? They’re not. You know that, at least I hope you do.
If you have a problem with the law or justice system, or like the idea that the CIA has torture chambers in Eastern Europe I suggest you move there where you can avoid American prosecutors like Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury system which indicts people who lie.
Now for the personal attack: If you want to write an editorial, at least have the courtesy of doing so in a manner that doesn’t make it look as though you are trying to sell a report.
I’m not buying your arguments. And the way that you’ve argued things, I have no question in my mind why American law enforcement has a problem: Their leadership, in my opinion, makes conclusory arguments without sufficient factual arguments; and is more inclined to defer to authority when that authority should be questioned.
The problem with the Congress is that this leadership, as you, defers to authority, and says that it is OK for America to do things, despite the UN Charter prohibiting inhuman treatment. Their status as a POW or unlawful combatant is irrelevant to whether the US is or is not a signatory to the UN Charter.
All people, regardless their status as detainee, terrorist, or POW, are still to be afforded the rights and protections under the UN Charter.
Whether law enforcement agrees or disagrees with that concept is at the core of the 42 USC 1983 claims – officers have an attitude that they can do what they want, when it serves a higher good.
Well, Jim, America has woken up to the non-sense. The burden of proof lands on your shoulders and that of the President: Why should we believe what you are saying?
You have the burden of proof. The Fitzgerald’s are making headway, and the Presidents men, with your blessing, appear to be getting a green light to lie to the Grand Jury.
Fitzgerald’s work isn’t over, just as yours isn’t. Spend more time reading your own statutes and learning the laws of war, and maybe I’ll take your seriously. Until then, you’re in the same boat as those who deserve close scrutiny and little trust – your fellow law enforcement officers.
Here is Mr. Kouric's original letter, here for information purposes only.
True Crime: A Real CIA Leak Investigation for a Change
by Jim Kouri, CPP
Senate and House of Representatives Republican leaders called for an in-depth investigation into the identity of the person or persons responsible for leaking top secret material to a Washington Post reporter. The secret information about the CIA's use of secret prisons abroad to interrogate terrorist suspects ended up on the newspaper's frontpage and was quickly picked up by other news organizations.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R.-Ill., and Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., dispatched an official letter to the chairmen of both the Senate and House intelligence committees asking them to initiate a joint inquiry into who gave reporter Dana Priest classified information about the CIA operated prison system allegedly located in eight countries, including several democracies in Eastern Europe.
Once the story appeared on November 2, political leaders from both parties began to immediately leap to the conclusion that torture was occurring at these top secret locations, tripping over one another to get in front of the TV cameras and microphones. The Washington Post article did not detail anything that substantiated those conclusions of torture at detention facilities.
The Hastert/Frist letter stated that the unlawful leak "could have long-term and far-reaching, damaging and dangerous consequences, and will imperil our efforts to protect the American people and our homeland from terrorist attacks."
The CIA official are also interested in finding out who leaked the secret prison information to Priest. As per protocol, the CIA filed an official report with the US Department of Justice. The report alleges that classified information may have been released through the Post article in an unauthorized way.
Instead of echoing the GOP leaders' call for an investigation into the leak, the Democrats called for Republicans to start a congressional investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. The Democrat leaders continue to call for more and more investigations into the same matters hoping to uncover a "smoking gun" to use against the Bush Administration. They also demanded to know how White House officials allegedly released CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity to the media in retaliation for her husband's criticism of the war. With a special prosecutor unable to garner indictments for the alleged crime after two years, Democrats want another bite of the apple in order to keep the story alive with their willing accomplices in the news media.
Last week, Major General Paul Vallely, USA (Ret.), who lost a son during the Iraq invasion, told reporters that Ambassador Joe Wilson bragged to him about having a wife in the CIA. Yet, the Democrats still hope to ride Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame back to power in the Senate and House next year. With the help of a news media willing to ignore the facts about Wilson and Plame and hype the seriousness of the Plame-CIA leak, pundits believe the whole affair will assist the Democrats.
Senator Trent Lott, R-Miss., told CNN that he believes the leak regarding secret CIA detention facilities came from Republican senators themselves. He said that some of the information in Priest's Washington Post article was one of the topics of discussion at a meeting the Republican Senators had with Vice President Dick Cheney the day before the story appeared on the frontpage of the Post.
While the leak investigation is expected to be wide ranging, Priest claims she got the information from present and former intelligence officials, but did not name even those no longer working within the intelligence community. One intelligence source told this writer that he believes part of the leak came from Senator John McCain who was upset over Cheney's opposition to publishing protocols for interrogation of enemy combatants and terrorists. McCain is quite vocal about the issue of torture.
Frist and Hastert suggested that the intelligence committees move "expeditiously" to complete their investigation. The last such inquiry occurred during the joint investigation into the intelligence failures prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
It's believed that Central Intelligence Agency officials, as well as the newly appointed National Intelligence Director, John Negroponte, are conducting their own in-house investigation into the Washington Post leak. Such an investigation may result in a referral sent to the US Justice Department in order to conduct a criminal investigation.
One Washington insider said that he doubted a special prosecutor would be appointed in this case, since the Democrats and the mainstream news media will undoubtedly characterize it as a diversion from the Plame-CIA leak investigation. That investigation resulted in Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, being indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice charges, despite no indictments handed down for the crime for which the special prosecutor was appointed to investigate in the first place.
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. He writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others, and he's a columnist for TheConservativeVoice.Com, AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He's appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc. His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com, Booksamillion.com, and can be ordered at local bookstores. If you wish to sign up for his intelligence reports, write to JimKouriReports@aol.com. Kouri's own website is located at http://jimkouri.us
The opinions expressed in this column represent those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, or philosophy of TheRealityCheck.org, Inc.
posted by Constant @ 9:03 PM
<< Home