On Jan. 7, the Washington Post
published a front-page lead article and an oped
on the nomination of Leon Panetta as CIA director;
both articles exaggerated the extent of opposition
to the Panetta appointment and demonstrated the
weakness of mainstream media coverage of the intelligence
community, particularly the Central Intelligence
Agency.
The front-page article by Karen DeYoung, a seasoned
reporter, and Joby Warrick, a newcomer to the
intelligence beat, presented a one-sided and inaccurate
account of the opposition to the naming of Panetta.
The oped by David Ignatius, who has relied heavily
on unnamed CIA clandestine operatives as sources
for the past 25 years, argues that the CIA “has
demonstrated an ability to sabotage bosses it
doesn’t like.” Such balderdash!
It is particularly ironic that such senior writers
as DeYoung and Ignatius would rely on the views
of clandestine officers who are particularly adept
at manipulating people and opinion. Indeed, that
is part of their job description. The reliance
on anonymous CIA sources from the clandestine
community does not make for good reporting or
good journalism.
It must be understood that many CIA officials,
particularly in the National Clandestine Service,
have never welcomed the idea of reporting to a
CIA director with a reputation for liberal or
progressive policies. When President Jimmy Carter
was considering the nomination of Ted Sorensen
as CIA director in 1977, CIA operatives were active
on the Hill and in the press community making
a case against Sorensen. And when President Bill
Clinton nominated Tony Lake as director in 1997,
CIA officials successfully engaged in clandestine
efforts to undermine Lake’s candidacy. It
would not be surprising for clandestine operatives
to lobby against Panetta, particularly in view
of his opposition to torture and abuse and secret
prisons. It should also be noted, however, that
there are also many CIA officers who share Panetta’s
views and would welcome his leadership.
It should be mentioned, moreover, that CIA clandestine
officers typically rallied around CIA directors
who broke the law as long as long as they were
zealous supporters of covert action. When CIA
director Richard Helms falsely testified in 1973
that the CIA had not passed money to the opposition
movement in Chile, he was fined $2,000 and given
a two-year suspended prison sentence. Helms went
from the courthouse to the CIA where he was given
a hero’s welcome by clandestine officers
who presented Helms with a gift of $2,000 to cover
the fine. CIA director William Casey’s violations
of the Boland Amendment to outlaw funding for
the overthrow of the Sandinista government in
Nicaragua were supported by the directorate of
operations. Conversely, CIA director William Colby’s
cooperation with the Church Commission’s
investigations of CIA violations of U.S. law during
the Vietnam War were maligned by senior cadre
of the clandestine service.
DeYoung and Warrick disingenuously repeated the
assertion of one senior CIA officer that the “agency
was neither consulted nor informed” about
the Panetta nomination. More balderdash! The CIA
has never been consulted about the nomination
of a CIA director nor should it. It is unlikely
that Foreign Service Officers were asked to vet
the selection of Senator Hillary Clinton as secretary
of state or that the Joint Chiefs of Staff were
asked if they would support the nomination of
Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense in 2001.
Civil servants have no role to play in the selection
of senior officials of the government, and their
professionalism requires support for their leadership,
regardless of political beliefs. We certainly
expect U.S. military officers, who are overwhelmingly
members of the Republican Party, to support the
national security policies of Democratic administrations.
We should assume that CIA officers will do the
same.
It is particularly interesting that DeYoung and
Warrick reported that President-elect Obama’s
first choice for CIA director, John Brennan, withdrew
his name from consideration because of opposition
to his association with CIA policies of interrogation
and rendition. Brennan, in fact, withdrew his
name from consideration because he was involved
in and supported those policies and because he
has been part of the culture of cover-up at the
CIA during the Bush years. His confirmation process
would have been confrontational and tendentious,
and probably unsuccessful. Nevertheless, Ignatius’s
candidate for CIA director is none other than
the current deputy director of the CIA, Steve
Kappes, the darling of the clandestine community
and a supporter of and participant in the very
policies of interrogation and rendition that reportedly
sank the chances of Brennan.
The Washington Post and the mainstream media for
the most part have never understood that the CIA,
like other large government entities, are complex
organizations and rarely governed by one set of
ideas on any issue, particularly the capabilities
of their leaders. There are numerous CIA officials
who support the nomination of Panetta, just as
there are opponents to his candidacy. Reporters
need to make sure they canvas the entire community
before placing front-page articles in front of
the American public. They must know that the overwhelming
majority of CIA officers would not talk to the
press; therefore, they should be skeptical of
those who do. And when they want to deny the fact
that there is a serious morale problem at the
CIA because of recent intelligence failures, reporters
such as DeYoung and Warrick should not consult
CIA spokesman such as Mark Mansfield, a well-known
agency flack, to deny such facts. You would never
ask a barber if you need a haircut, and you certainly
wouldn’t ask a CIA spokesman about internal
problems at the CIA.
Melvin A. Goodman, senior
fellow at the Center for International Policy,
is a 24-year veteran of the CIA’s directorate
of intelligence and the author of Failure of Intelligence:
The Decline and Fall of the CIA. This is the first
of an occasional series on the media’s handling
of intelligence issues.
Copyright 2009
The Public Record
